Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    38426
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. I think "denounced" is the word you're looking for. Always de rigeur in repressive regimes.
  2. I'm reasonably certain we'll see something very like this during Trump's "Birthday at the Kremlin" parade.
  3. I never said it would make any difference, I just posited what might well happen. Guido and Ruckus playing the almond cookie game should have been your tip-off that maybe I wasn't entirely serious. As realistic as that probably is.
  4. Earlier, it was revealed that Vivek got catfished into some event with the OSU team. It was completely fake.
  5. Potentially at least for Drew Ensign. And, in analogous cases, namely criminal, due process violations result in dismissal of a case or setting aside a conviction, regardless of the guilt of the accused. So, conceivably, she could enjoin the parties before her from deporting anyone else. Or fashion some sort of similar remedy.
  6. So, I'm going to assume the district court is going to make some punitive orders that are going to more squarely frame the issues of whether the President's foreign relations and national security powers permit him to violate the 5th and 14th Amendments. The DC Circuit will affirm with some harsh words for Trump, and Roberts is going to have his long dark night of the soul, while Guido and Ruckus play the almond cookie game.
  7. And, it's going to cost a shit ton to fix all the shit they fuck up.
  8. I used to kind of like Subway, dating back to my days at Castilian when the offered menu was no bueno. Because I am an old, there was a Subway on the corner of 24th and San Antonio. YGIFs got me off the Subway train pretty effectively, but I'd probably still eat a BMT in a pinch, or ham n cheese. Now my first thought about pizza at Subway is "who dares wins," or loses as it were.
  9. Biden crime family!
  10. Yeah no. That's going to provoke ANOTHER constitutional crisis regarding the ability of the judiciary to hold executive officials in contempt.
  11. You win.
  12. Yeah, I dunno. I read that as an attempt to backtrack from their previous judicial admission that he was removed in error. Certainly seems like a setup to try to sidestep the due process issue.
  13. So, what do you think? Trump urges him to make some kind of stand holding Abrego Garcia, or gets him released and returned out of the "goodness of his heart"?
  14. Sunday's status report was, uh, insufficient. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/64/abrego-garcia-v-noem/ Government's response to Abrego Garcia's motion for further relief. Pretty ludicrous. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/65/abrego-garcia-v-noem/ Some notable bullshit. Claims "facilitate" has a special meaning in immigration law with no citation. Claims that the agreement between ES and US is subject to attorney-client privilege or state secrets privilege. Which is going to be hard to do because the agreement was ostensibly reviewed, agreed to and executed by a foreign party. It does note, however, that Bukele is meeting with Trump today. It does a lot of saber rattling and jawboning, but falls short of explicitly stating it can't or won't return Abrego Garcia. Seems like it may be shaping up for Trump to return him but say it was some act of personal graciousness, not something the courts required or could require.
  15. Highly Respected Chairman!
  16. His main claim to fame is being the CEO or chairman or whatever of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond trading outfit. For whatever reason, the bond traders I have encountered, including some friends, act more like boiler room "stockbrokers" than sophisticated traders. Lutnick does nothing to dispel this impression. He also is named inventor on a bunch of patents. I'd been meaning to look them up, and they're pretty shlocky internet business method things.
  17. Yeah, mid-season 500 teams have done a lot of damage at the end of the year.
  18. 👍Very nice 👍
  19. So, apparently Holman Jenkins at WSJ pretty much called for Trump's impeachment. https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/it-s-already-in-the-cards-trump-impeachment-urged-by-wsj-editorial-board-member/ar-AA1CNpZi Interdasting.
  20. Exactly. Maximizing his value, but in a more traditional (not directly monetary, but monetary nonetheless) sense than seeking the biggest bag. But you yourself admit that once he began maximizing his value, he took the biggest bag or at least the biggest bag consistent with other objectives. What you're saying is that he's not a dbag and hasn't been a dbag about it. But you're not denying the essence of my post, which also said he wasn't a dbag. No one really can or should criticize maximizing value, or playing the game according to the rules. But how you play still matters. It's all degrees of the same thing. Immaleavin is maximizing his value, with emphasis apparently on the bag and not much else. He also bent or stretched the rules on the way in and is being a dbag about it or letting his Dad be a dbag for him.
  21. It's not nonsense. He sought to maximize his value, both financially and because he may not have started/played enough. There's a mercenary aspect to that. I'm not claiming he IS a mercenary or that it is unjustified. Guess this all goes to show you, if you're gonna chase the dollar, best not to be a dbag about it.
  22. Well, I think we need to differentiate between ineffectual, like UIL may be and NCAA often was, and legally enjoined from enforcing amateurism based rules as the NCAA currently is. As CTJ notes, college athletics has always been corrupt to one degree or another. Now what was once considered corrupt is above-board and out in the open. Removing the taint of "illegality" reduces the stench, but I'm not sure it eliminates it. As he also notes, it is the illusion of amateurism that in large part drives the revenue of college sports. Amateurism is now pretty much legally dead and the illusion is fracturing. It will be interesting to see where it ends up.
  23. Well, that first thing she's pissed about is actually illegal, and probably rightfully so. The rest of it is not illegal, so is probably irrelevant. I don't recall a case where sexual activity was clearly consensual, but a certain act was not. Maybe the more common "making out" but not fucking cases are analogous. But if consent means anything at all, this was a non-consensual assault. Is it somewhat less culpable than a no-consent at all rape? I don't know.
  24. Was it here that @G650 posted the article about free speech? It said something that took me aback for a minute, but I think is accurate. And that was that the First Amendment, a lot like the Second Amendment, was kind of a dead letter until approximately the 20th century, when "liberals" began to use it to protect "minority viewpoints" and civil liberties in constitutional litigation. I have observed that "conservatives" have turned that constitutional litigation tactic on its ear, so to speak, including with the "activist judges" trope. Now they employ their own activist judges to curtail the freedoms sought by "liberals" in favor of other freedoms, usually those associated with the historical majority, e.g. white "Christian" heterosexual males. I can't say that "liberals" were wrong to employ that tactic, or that the courts were wrong to "indulge" it. But God Almighty has it had some unintended consequences. We have so maximized freedom that various freedoms are now in direct conflict with each other. And, as is the nature of court cases, many of the underlying disputes are extreme or fringey that they make good political fodder for the "too liberal." For example, all the "trans talk" that dominated the 2024 election stemmed from a court case. https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/trans-gender-affirming-care-prison-inmates-landmark-case-trump-eo-halt/ Anyway, this is something decades in the making that gets identified, rightly or wrongly, with the Democratic Party and is something that must be dealt with somehow. I don't know what is the solution, or if there even is one. Just scattershooting/Sherrod.
  25. To my point, the ultimate backstop on this is court rulings that decide what is and is not discrimination, or unlawful discrimination. That won't immediately protect people from adverse actions by or at the behest of the government, but it might give them a remedy. And that might mean that all this fictitious discrimination shit becomes performative, only, to the extent it is not already.
×
×
  • Create New...