Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    38280
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Dammit, I have to agree a bit here. But, I had seen some "reviews" that mentioned Parliament was going to have some special sessions or some such about adolescent social media use. Therefore, I was expecting more focus or reveal on that aspect of it, while it actually remained pretty implicit, and the "cause" of the crime remained unclear, probably purposely. That I kept waiting for it and it never came distracted me from the more general excellence of the show.
  2. Or the really old school "govern yourself accordingly."
  3. Yeah, this is a different case from Abrego. As I said elsewhere, there's a jurisdiction issue that kind of taints the one before Boasberg. But they need to slap down this "foreign-policy/national security" shit with haste. Don't know that they will but they should.
  4. Didn't say how he'd rule, just that it wouldn't go to Ruckus or Guido, initially. Slim as the hope may be, Roberts offers some overt those two. The jurisdictional issue is a copout on the bigger issue, whether the executive can exempt itself from judicial review by encanting "foreign relations" or "national security" for what is clearly either an immigration (Article I/Congress) or judicial (Article III/Courts) issue.
  5. You're assuming again. Could be right, could be wrong.
  6. Roberts is the Justice assigned to the 4th Circuit, so I believe he'll get the first whack at the motion to stay and will somewhat control the narrative if he refers it to the court as a whole. It's good that this is coming up first through the 4th Circuit. There was an argument that Boasberg in DC lacked jurisdiction because the jurisdiction for a habeas corpus petition is that of the trial court or in the absence of one, where the defendant was apprehended. So this would seem to take away that argument, which got some traction from Ruckus and Guido.
  7. Among all the other ASSuming people are doing is ASSuming that I am interested in the backstory because it will vindicate the perp. It might, it probably won't. But answers to the questions like why in the name of God was this kid bringing a knife to a track meet? And why was he in an opponents tent remain unanswered. Also, it sounds like there was a single stab to the victim that punctured his heart. That was either a skilled or very unlucky stab.
  8. Broadly speaking, seeing a doctor, which could be ER, like for stitches or more interventional treatment, or later, like concussion or bruising.
  9. Generally means requires medical treatment or potentially does. It's murder, most likely, even given the unknown facts. Whether "affirmative defenses" or "justifications" like self-defense could come into play is what we don't know at this point.
  10. Haha no! I did look at her Twitter and she has a number of posts about lawyers. though. But I know she wasn't talking about me because one of them referenced billing in quarter hours and I bill in tenths. 😬
  11. Haha, she's actually one of my clients. Good for her.
  12. As Clausewitz observed, war is the ultimate expression of politics. It's vital that senior military leadership consider the role of the military in government and politics and its relationship to the civil government and leadership. The notion that our officer corps should be axe-murderers is stupid as fuck. That's what private soldiers are for.
  13. A great irony of this is that it has happened, I believe, exactly one time. And that one time, it was ordered by a federal court after finding it was medically necessary and that to deny such care is cruel and unusual punishment. It's never been a position affirmatively advocated by Democrats. The closest Democrats have come to advocating for transsexuals is the position that the sex discrimination statutes, as written, prohibit discrimination against transexuals.
  14. Great point about full employment. We do need better jobs, though, and higher wages in the jobs we do have and any we "bring back." Wages are really a separate issue from onshoring manufacturing. As has been pointed out, there are a lot of offshored jobs we really don't want back, because they're inherently low-wage and/or hazardous to workers or to society at large. But, a combination of bringing back, or at least to non-hostile neighbors like Canada and Mexico, manufacturing and industry that implicates national security and potentially provides higher-wage jobs is a reasonable goal. But this assuredly is not the way to accomplish it.
  15. The number they used may be roughly 4x the tariff, but the calculation has nothing whatsoever to do with tariffs actually imposed by anyone. The tariff rate doesn't even figure into their little equation.
  16. Also, the bad math is a post-hoc justification for this shit.
  17. As far as I can tell, taking back tariff power is just another bill. So, initially, a majority in each house. But if Trump vetos, then they'll need to override, so 2/3. As mentioned elsewhere, in some of the delegation of tariff power bills, they tried to reserve a "legislative veto," where they could undo individual tariff actions by majority vote. However, legislative veto was ruled unconstitutional and they never fixed it.
  18. I'm not empathizing with the suspect, nor morally equivocating. Our justice system generally is over-punitive, especially for minorities and poors and this kid just thrust himself into the system. When we have a loss of life, we quite reflexively revert to "someone must pay" and that frequently leads to a rush to judgment. And that judgment often leads to an incredibly harsh sentence. All crimes, at their basic level, are bad decisions. Some of those bad decisions are made by those with a long history of bad decisions from the trivial to the grave, in terms of morality and in terms of consequences. They're schizophrenic, psychotic, or psychopaths, or otherwise deeply damaged human beings. Others aren't, but due to certain circumstances of a possibly temporary origin, make these horrible decisions. We know as a matter of first principles that those under 25 are prone to bad decisions, maybe not this bad, but bad nonetheless and frequently of a criminal dimension. That's why we have a juvenile justice system, in the first place. Juvenile justice is often equated with a lack of consequences, but I don' think that's the general case. We tend only to hear about juvenile cases when the juvenile in question goes on to commit adult crimes, that is, they prove to be the "psycho" type prone to continued "epically" bad decisions. One of the problems, to my mind, with juvenile justice is that it ends too early. Meaning two things: those with adolescent minds lose eligibility at 16; and possibly worse, the ability of the juvenile justice system to deal with juveniles ends at about that age, meaning it can't incarcerate or otherwise treat them beyond majority, regardless of when they committed their crime. There are a ton of unanswered questions in this case that bear on what kind of bad decision-maker this kid was. They may have less bearing in adult criminal court, but could still be relevant to sentencing.
  19. Notably here, perhaps, Robert Lighthizer, who was his first-term USTR. Although pro-tariff/protectionism, he seemed one of the more qualified appointments. And is nowhere to be found now.
  20. Giving steroids to children!!!
  21. I think messaging was poor on immigration. And, also, I think immigration would have increased under anyone not named Trump, so it really wasn't "Biden policy" that increased immigration, but reversal of Trump's unamerican policies. But I guess that's a policy too. Nonetheless, it would have been hard to message the foregoing and an immigration bill that didn't pass and people are incapable of understanding in the first place.
  22. Deficit or surplus? Because he uses both. Guy doesn't know shit from shinola and thinks any "deficit" is bad.
  23. Good points. I'd submit that moreso than "heavy manufacturing," it's electronics manufacturing, because that's where they steal consequential IP, although they steal IP anytime they manufacture goods according to Western design. But my point wasn't in any way to defend Trump tariffs, just question why he got such a hardon for them between 2021 and 2024 or so.
  24. We don't like to be told what to do, so we vote for an authoritarian dictator. Aside from the parallels to Nazi Germany, the morons also fail history as regards to dictators and authoritarians more broadly, like George III, or Napoleon, or Tsar Nicholas. One of the huge ironies of Cubans and others that fled communist dictators and now fear "socialism." is that the problem with communism is actually its quick slide into authoritarianism, and the fact that communism was usually bookended or preceded with dictatorships. Even Curtis fucking Yarvin acknowledges that a "benign dictator," for whom he so yearns, may not stay benign long.
  25. Well voting for her because Trump would be terrible is the right answer, however you come to it. Would that fewer than 52% of US voters came to the same conclusion.
×
×
  • Create New...