Federal. So probably not much to really worry about while Trump is president (though who knows what happens if there is some kind of falling out or disaster that results in finger pointing). But that's why I bring up the statute of limitations issue. Again, not predicting what's going to happen one way or the other, just saying the advice I'd give to a young vassal of the DOGE in the moment.
One of our more scholarly lawyers would need to chime in. I'm not sure if there is any precedent that might be instructive. I do know that there are some very broad statutes on the books. The last place I'd want to find myself is standing between an AUSA and a federal judge whenever the winds change. Maybe it's a worthwhile risk for the richest man in the world but if you're just some guy being there in the first place means you've already lost.
I don't think it's 'hold out hope' so much as that for at least the next 2 years, unless Congress wants to step in (lol!), all anyone who wants to push back on (nominally) official action can do is raise a fuss look to the courts. However I think North is right about the inclinations of the federal judiciary. There are certainly some hacks on the bench but one upside of the lifetime appointments is that the courts tend to have longer and more circumspect view of the world that goes beyond the next election cycle or two.
For that reason, if I had the ear of one of these 19 or 20 year old muskrats going into federal buildings, I'd warn them that there are not, I don't believe, any statutes of limitations on various unpermitted access felonies. Of the many things that could happen, one that I think is very unlikely would be daddy Elon's writ extending to club fed.
David, what the CDC says still applies to the pregnant 'trans man' in this hypothetical and is still accurate because she is in fact still a woman. Pregnancy is impossible for anyone who isn't a woman and even if she may not like being a woman, absent some crazy scientific breakthrough, it's what she is and always will be. A piece of paper issued by the government doesn't change that and can't change that. The demand and at times willingness of the government to endorse beliefs that are at odds with very easily observable physical reality is indeed at the heart of the problem.
I know your only way of trying to debate that is with histrionics and I used to be more sanguine about all of it. However it is now clear that the language games you demand invariably lead to all manner of unacceptable and unworkable accommodations. In these very comments it's gotten you demanding public schools treat parents as guilty until proven innocent child abusers, whose price for using the public schools is to be treated by the state with extreme suspicion and as a threat to their own children. And that's not even getting into the other absurdities like 'female identifying' male sex offenders in womens prisons.
What those that call themselves trans should do is take their freedom under the 1st Amendment, and their freedom under Bostock and enjoy their lives. What they should stop doing is fighting for an official redefinition of physical sex with the nebulous concept of 'gender identity.' In the former lies a better path to a sustainable equilibrium. As for the latter, well, you see what's happening.
I dunno about the deep philosophical stuff but I still have yet to have someone explain crypto to me in a way that does not sound like an obvious scam.
Fair enough. So as a liberal Catholic I should anticipate vindication but only in the unsatisfying way one might experience it from beating a game on easy mode. :)
I think the most the US could "give" (not sure what else to call it) is to officially tell Israel they have a totally free hand and no matter what they do, no matter how bad it is, there will be no repercussions from the US, no matter what anyone else in the region does or has to say about it.
Maybe that's what this message really is. 'Kill them all or drive them out, do whatever you want, we don't care.'
The gun thing I think is easier to just go back to pre-Sandy Hook Obama era. Treat it as a state and local issue. Hogg is of course the opposite of the type of person you want for that pivot but I think you can get pretty far on let New York be New York and let Texas be Texas.
I read an article on this the other day. Democrats were still very competitive with young women, it's young men where they got killed. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but on the whole I believe young men are less gung ho on gun control.
Hey I'm just glad we've finally established that you understand physical reality, as opposed to a bunch of cultural contingencies and language games.
But here's the part all the words in the world won't get around. At the end of the day, a person calling herself a 'trans man' as you defined that concept is really just a woman who pretends to the social conventions of a man, and may have had some cosmetic surgeries and/or hormonal treatments in hopes of changing her body to better resemble the secondary sex characteristics of a man.
If she has had surgeries and/or hormonal treatments she may have harmed her reproductive system to the point pregnancy is not possible, and while I think an adult has the right to do that stuff if they want, she's still a woman. Again, not really hard.
As an aside I'll also reiterate, no such thing as a 'cis' so please stop with that.
I think you're onto something with this. All volunteer force has made the military more remote than maybe ever. We not only lack the writers for the source material, we probably lack the production people and maybe even audiences to see it as a source of humor.
Of the nominees I saw Dune 2, the Substance, and Anora. I thought all 3 of them failed to stick the ending and would therefore feel pretty meh about any of them being called best anything.
That's not the right way of analyzing something like PEPFAR. The beneficiaries are people in impoverished countries that left to their own devices will become hot beds of a deadly disease that doesn't recognize borders. PEPFAR is self-interested noblesse oblige, not a question of enablement or moral hazard.
I'm certainly not in hysterics over it. I'm not even totally sure I disagree with overturning it.
I do think that where to draw the line on what administrative agencies can do is a very fraught area of law in light of the lack of clear constitutional guidance. In theory Congress can eliminate statutory mandates for the agencies or force modifications or elominate an agency entirely any time it wants but the reality of Congress' general laziness about doing so creates (in my mind at least) questions of legitimacy of agency decisions. Maybe not necessarily legally but popularly.
I still vividly recall the day in my admin law class that we discussed Chevron and suddenly having a realization of how profound the questions raised by the administrative state really are. Even as a generally liberal person I see the case for trimming it back. The idea that there are things that got put in place in the 60s or 70s or whenever (to say nothing of what has grown around them) are totally sacrosanct and never up for discussion or debate is IMO itself a kind of reactionary stance, no matter how progressive the people who hold that position claim to be.
And yet you'd still ideally have a thoughtful gradualism, hopefully led by Congress or at least carefully negotiated between the branches. Even failing that, and if irresponsibility is necessary I'd be more comfortable with it coming out of a really reckless majority in the legislative branch. Ultimately I think the unfortunate answer to your question about how to manage it is something like 'elect responsible leaders' which is something we seem to be failing at. No one said democracy was easy and it we fail it will be our own fault.
At the end of the day elections have consequences for public policy.
What I'm still not seeing explained is where the authority to do this stuff comes from unilaterally and without an act of Congress.
Of course this has always been the most dangerous part of Trump. Not that he gets policy wrong, the whole point of a democratic and republican form of government is that policy changes and can be changed again. It's the continuous haphazard playing chicken with the system that we can't have.
On “Keynesian Beauty Contests, Schelling Points, and the Omnicause”
Federal. So probably not much to really worry about while Trump is president (though who knows what happens if there is some kind of falling out or disaster that results in finger pointing). But that's why I bring up the statute of limitations issue. Again, not predicting what's going to happen one way or the other, just saying the advice I'd give to a young vassal of the DOGE in the moment.
"
One of our more scholarly lawyers would need to chime in. I'm not sure if there is any precedent that might be instructive. I do know that there are some very broad statutes on the books. The last place I'd want to find myself is standing between an AUSA and a federal judge whenever the winds change. Maybe it's a worthwhile risk for the richest man in the world but if you're just some guy being there in the first place means you've already lost.
"
I don't think it's 'hold out hope' so much as that for at least the next 2 years, unless Congress wants to step in (lol!), all anyone who wants to push back on (nominally) official action can do is raise a fuss look to the courts. However I think North is right about the inclinations of the federal judiciary. There are certainly some hacks on the bench but one upside of the lifetime appointments is that the courts tend to have longer and more circumspect view of the world that goes beyond the next election cycle or two.
For that reason, if I had the ear of one of these 19 or 20 year old muskrats going into federal buildings, I'd warn them that there are not, I don't believe, any statutes of limitations on various unpermitted access felonies. Of the many things that could happen, one that I think is very unlikely would be daddy Elon's writ extending to club fed.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
David, what the CDC says still applies to the pregnant 'trans man' in this hypothetical and is still accurate because she is in fact still a woman. Pregnancy is impossible for anyone who isn't a woman and even if she may not like being a woman, absent some crazy scientific breakthrough, it's what she is and always will be. A piece of paper issued by the government doesn't change that and can't change that. The demand and at times willingness of the government to endorse beliefs that are at odds with very easily observable physical reality is indeed at the heart of the problem.
I know your only way of trying to debate that is with histrionics and I used to be more sanguine about all of it. However it is now clear that the language games you demand invariably lead to all manner of unacceptable and unworkable accommodations. In these very comments it's gotten you demanding public schools treat parents as guilty until proven innocent child abusers, whose price for using the public schools is to be treated by the state with extreme suspicion and as a threat to their own children. And that's not even getting into the other absurdities like 'female identifying' male sex offenders in womens prisons.
What those that call themselves trans should do is take their freedom under the 1st Amendment, and their freedom under Bostock and enjoy their lives. What they should stop doing is fighting for an official redefinition of physical sex with the nebulous concept of 'gender identity.' In the former lies a better path to a sustainable equilibrium. As for the latter, well, you see what's happening.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
I dunno about the deep philosophical stuff but I still have yet to have someone explain crypto to me in a way that does not sound like an obvious scam.
On “Welcome to the Quagmire”
Technically I think their enemy is Ottawa.
"
Objectively I think you'd have to say yes. Maybe all thats gone is the fig leaf.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
Birthright citizenship EO stayed by a federal judge.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/02/05/birthright-citizenship-injunction-trump-immigration/
I assume we will be seeing this about 1000 more times in the coming weeks.
On “The 97th Oscars’ Best Picture Race: As Wide Open As It Gets”
Fair enough. So as a liberal Catholic I should anticipate vindication but only in the unsatisfying way one might experience it from beating a game on easy mode. :)
On “Welcome to the Quagmire”
I think the most the US could "give" (not sure what else to call it) is to officially tell Israel they have a totally free hand and no matter what they do, no matter how bad it is, there will be no repercussions from the US, no matter what anyone else in the region does or has to say about it.
Maybe that's what this message really is. 'Kill them all or drive them out, do whatever you want, we don't care.'
"
Jared Kushner?
On “The 97th Oscars’ Best Picture Race: As Wide Open As It Gets”
I must strenuously, strenuously, and even more strenuously object to this totally undeserved denigration of Stilgar.
But also was Conclave legit good? My question wasn't meant sarcastically, I couldn't tell if your endorsement was serious or not!
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
Those are harder issues to deal with.
The gun thing I think is easier to just go back to pre-Sandy Hook Obama era. Treat it as a state and local issue. Hogg is of course the opposite of the type of person you want for that pivot but I think you can get pretty far on let New York be New York and let Texas be Texas.
"
I read an article on this the other day. Democrats were still very competitive with young women, it's young men where they got killed. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but on the whole I believe young men are less gung ho on gun control.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
Hey I'm just glad we've finally established that you understand physical reality, as opposed to a bunch of cultural contingencies and language games.
But here's the part all the words in the world won't get around. At the end of the day, a person calling herself a 'trans man' as you defined that concept is really just a woman who pretends to the social conventions of a man, and may have had some cosmetic surgeries and/or hormonal treatments in hopes of changing her body to better resemble the secondary sex characteristics of a man.
If she has had surgeries and/or hormonal treatments she may have harmed her reproductive system to the point pregnancy is not possible, and while I think an adult has the right to do that stuff if they want, she's still a woman. Again, not really hard.
As an aside I'll also reiterate, no such thing as a 'cis' so please stop with that.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
So much for America first.
On “The 97th Oscars’ Best Picture Race: As Wide Open As It Gets”
I think you're onto something with this. All volunteer force has made the military more remote than maybe ever. We not only lack the writers for the source material, we probably lack the production people and maybe even audiences to see it as a source of humor.
"
You're forgetting the finest comedic war film of all.
Hot Shots: Part Deux.
"
Was it in fact good?
Of the nominees I saw Dune 2, the Substance, and Anora. I thought all 3 of them failed to stick the ending and would therefore feel pretty meh about any of them being called best anything.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
Ding ding ding ding.
"
That's not the right way of analyzing something like PEPFAR. The beneficiaries are people in impoverished countries that left to their own devices will become hot beds of a deadly disease that doesn't recognize borders. PEPFAR is self-interested noblesse oblige, not a question of enablement or moral hazard.
"
I'm certainly not in hysterics over it. I'm not even totally sure I disagree with overturning it.
I do think that where to draw the line on what administrative agencies can do is a very fraught area of law in light of the lack of clear constitutional guidance. In theory Congress can eliminate statutory mandates for the agencies or force modifications or elominate an agency entirely any time it wants but the reality of Congress' general laziness about doing so creates (in my mind at least) questions of legitimacy of agency decisions. Maybe not necessarily legally but popularly.
"
I still vividly recall the day in my admin law class that we discussed Chevron and suddenly having a realization of how profound the questions raised by the administrative state really are. Even as a generally liberal person I see the case for trimming it back. The idea that there are things that got put in place in the 60s or 70s or whenever (to say nothing of what has grown around them) are totally sacrosanct and never up for discussion or debate is IMO itself a kind of reactionary stance, no matter how progressive the people who hold that position claim to be.
And yet you'd still ideally have a thoughtful gradualism, hopefully led by Congress or at least carefully negotiated between the branches. Even failing that, and if irresponsibility is necessary I'd be more comfortable with it coming out of a really reckless majority in the legislative branch. Ultimately I think the unfortunate answer to your question about how to manage it is something like 'elect responsible leaders' which is something we seem to be failing at. No one said democracy was easy and it we fail it will be our own fault.
"
At the end of the day elections have consequences for public policy.
What I'm still not seeing explained is where the authority to do this stuff comes from unilaterally and without an act of Congress.
Of course this has always been the most dangerous part of Trump. Not that he gets policy wrong, the whole point of a democratic and republican form of government is that policy changes and can be changed again. It's the continuous haphazard playing chicken with the system that we can't have.
"
Heh fair enough.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.