Also Team Dog. Although some dogs are assholes (and were probably made that way by asshole humans who mistreated them as puppies), the vast majority of dogs are very eager to please their people and as a result are generally just doofuses. Adorable doofuses.
Cats? Some cats are sweet and loving. Some cats are aloof and demanding. And some cats are actually psychotic. This seems less to do with how well treated they were by humans as kittens, and more the product of their personalities and/or mental disorders. You do not want a cat with too rich of an inner life.
Yup. It's much harder to be critical of people in your own tribe than it is members of some other tribe. I like libraries, too.
I think about how we all just sort of overlooked how awful Bill Clinton's behavior was with respect to his much-younger intern because at the time we thought of the extramarital affair as "consensual," and either focused on "But he LIED ABOUT IT UNDER OATH!" or "It's not great but it's a PRIVATE MATTER THAT DOESN'T AFFECT HOW HE DOES HIS JOB!" I now think he was impeached for the wrong reasons and at the same time, having Al Gore serve out the rest of that term wouldn't have been so awful.
Yup, we're up to 258 million Americans saved, and now I know it isn't just a social media misprint because there's video of her setting up that number as a punchline and taking a second to smugly glance around for the opportunity to mic drop.
I have to figure that she's doing math on the poundage of the fentanyl seized, assuming that it's all pure and uncut, and dividing it by the smallest estimate of the amount necessary to induce an overdose.
258 million is pretty close to three-quarters the total population of the country; at this rate each and every man, woman, child, and whatever else they might want to call themselves in the United States of America will personally owe their lives to Pam Bondi by about 7:30 p.m. on the 21st of May.
I speak only for myself. I might be an outlier with respect to my sensitivity about this sort of thing.
You might insult my honor as a blogger, and that'd be one thing. I probably would laugh that off; the stakes of my blogworld reputation are quite low and the stakes of the integrity of blogging generally are such that I would not invest a lot of stress into that. But I take my honor as a lawyer as seriously as I would a heart attack.
Thank the heavens that Pam Bondi's Justice Department saved 35% of the American population from being killed by fentanyl pills so powerful one of then can kill an average of five people.
I don't pretend to speak for all lawyers in this regard, but you may have noticed that in my responses above, I did not address the question of my personal experiences with ethics complaints. Nor will I. I choose to disclose that I have never received any form of professional discipline in my now more than thirty-year-long career as an attorney. To my knowledge, almost no lawyers ever do. Professional discipline is rare. Within the universe of professional discipline that does get imposed, disbarrment is uncommon and almost never imposed for a first ethical offense.
Nevertheless, and speaking only for myself, I find "Have you ever been ethically grieved to your bar association?" a rude question to ask, especially in a public forum. It feels to me a bit like "Have you ever been sexually assaulted? How did that work? What did it feel like when you were sexually assaulted? What's involved in responding to being sexually assaulted?"
I would decline to answer such questions and I am sure you would understand why. Please understand that this line of inquiry conjures similar emotions in at least me, and take from that a warning signal that others amongst my sister and brother lawyers would have similar responses. It insulting to be thus accused, even if the accusation is completely fanciful.
I assume you're inquiring in good faith to have a better understanding of the system, of what's going on with this story. Nevertheless, I'd encourage you to not inquire further of the individuals here who are engaging with you, at least in this way.
You should assume that this inquiry regarding Ms. James is intended to elicit similar emotions from her. As I intimated earlier, this is how David Horowitz worked; it's how he taught his apt pupil Stephen Miller. Publicly staining Ms. James' honor, and causing her to experience emotional outrage, fear of invasion of her personal privacy, and vulnerability for her career, are very much the goals of the complainant here. Vindicating the merits of that complaint are secondary to the goals of making Ms. James pay a personal price for daring to accuse Donald Trump of doing something wrong, and thus deterring future legal attacks on Donald Trump (regardless of the merits of those attacks).
I suggest that you assume that America First Legal is acting in the absolute worst possible faith here.
These past several months have made me wonder exactly how dear Americans still hold their liberties. Many appear to prefer privilege to freedom. Hopefully this is not yet a majority.
"The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."
...will lead to more litigation up and down the appellate ladder before the Government will actually do anything to comply with an order. "Oh noes! The District Court exceeded its authority and has failed to show due deference to the Executive Branch! Please give us an administrative stay!" "Stay granted. Expedited briefing schedule herein, decision in three weeks." "Oh noes! The new order after the second remand is vague and unclear! We don't know how to follow the court's order! Please give us an administrative stay!" "Stay granted, Expedited briefing schedule herein, decision in three weeks." "Oh noes! The new order fails to properly defer to us again! Here's a declaration from Secretary Rubio saying we are intruding on his conduct of foreign affairs but not saying why! We need an administrative stay again!" Etc. etc. etc. while this poor guy, presumed innocent of any crime and whose criminal record is free of any blemish, is getting beat up every day in the Salvadoran gulag.
We now have a very brief description from Secretary of State Rubio of what purportedly makes Mahmoud Khalil deportable:
I am writing to inform you that upon notification from the Department of Homeland Security's Homeland Security Investigations (DHS/ICE/HSI) on March 7, 2025, I have determined that [REDACTED] and Mahmoud Khalil (DOB:01-JAN-1995;
POB: Algeria), both U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR), are deportable aliens under INA section 237(a)(4)(C). I understand that ICE now intends to initiate removal charges against them, based on assurances from DHS/ICE/HSI.
(SBU) Under INA section 237(a)(4)(C)(i), an alien is deportable from the United States if the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe that the alien's presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States. Under INA section 237(a)(4)(C)(ii), for cases in which the basis for this determination is the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful, the Secretary of State must personally determine that the alien's presence or activities would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.
(SBU) Pursuant to these authorities, I have determined that the activities and presence of these aliens in United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest. These determinations are based on information provided by the DHS/ICE/HSI regarding the participation and roles of [REDACTED] And Khalil in antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States. My determination for [REDACTED] is also based on [REDACTED] citations for unlawful activity during these protests. The public actions and continued presence of [REDACTED] and Khalil in the United States undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States. Consistent with E.O. 14150, America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of State, the foreign policy of the United States champions core American interests and American citizens and condoning anti-Semitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective.
You read that right: Khalil's "past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful," "have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest," because they "undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States."
Which I interpret to mean Khalil has been critical of the Netanyahu government in Israel and is expected to be critical of it again in the future. Future-thought-crime. Activity which is concededly lawful is now deportable.
I call upon our free speech absolutists to join me in objecting to this.
I am reminded of some social accounts that pop up from time to time glamorizing subsistence farming. There is nothing glamorous about subsistence farming. Essentially all of human history is an effort to get to do things other than subsistence farming.
So too with the factory job. It might be better than subsistence farming, but not all that much. The glamorizing of this, based I think on fiction and some sort of romantic notion that this kind of work is noble and public-spirited, is sort of missing the entire point: whether it's noble or public-spirited, working that sort of job would SUCK. Hollywood imbues the factory worker with nobility because he SUFFERS to provide for his family.
This is the way. While what I can do in my basement isn't QUITE as good as what the movie theater can do, it's pretty damn close, and as you point out, you can occupy basically the entire field of view.
1. Less broad tariffs on China could be plausibly defensible; however, I'd still be skeptical personally. Free trade is a home setting for me, left over from my youth as a conservative during the Reagan years. These tariffs are going to hurt us more than they do China, they take place simultaneously with an idiotically destructive trade war with our former USMCA partners, and a softer touch with China would be a better idea anyway given that there were already tariffs in place. (Never mind that Trump negotiated the USMCA and I'm old enough to remember when he touted that it would lead to a new golden era of American prosperity; it was, in fact, effectively a rebranding of 2010's-era NAFTA, and again, free trade is my home setting.)
2. Hamas are bad guys and I shed zero tears for them. Israel started the Gaza war with the moral high ground. Netanyahu's government has since forfeited any claim there and that moral territory is now unoccupied. There are no good guys amongst the combatants in the Gaza war. Nevertheless, an honorable peace with Israeli-advantageous terms has been available to Israel for at least half a year now; Netanyahu prefers to be at war because it helps him bolster his domestic political position which in turn helps him avoid personal legal vulnerability. Since even before taking office, Trump has encouraged re-escalation of the war rather than incentivized peace, and that's what has happened.
3. If you're going to accuse DEI advocates of being religious zealots, then I'm one of them. DEI is a good thing and there should be more of it. White people, male people, cisgendered people, heterosexual people, Christian people, and in non-academic settings conservative people face few if any material professional or academic disadvantages, particularly when compared with people from traditionally disempowered and smaller-share demographic groups. I described what the Trump administration has done with equal opportunity laws as "perverse" in the OP, and that was a calculated choice of wording. I can respect that you hold a different opinion and perhaps think what's going on in that arena is good. But I say what Trump's done is deplorable.
Due process is not a cookie you have to earn through your innocence or your charisma. It is a restraint upon the exercise of government and it is the core reason the United States of America exists. If you don't believe me take a read through the Declaration of Independence and see how many of the grievances against King George III had to do with the procedural administration of justice.
Due process includes the right to have a competent lawyer, of your own choosing if you've the means to choose one. Scaring lawyers out of being willing to accept cases by the free agreement between attorneyand client, deterring lawyers from accepting the cause of unpopular litigants, arguing for legally valid positions that are inconvenient to the government -- if you do that, you're opposing the bedrock of America's tradition of law and order. Don't believe me? Ask John Adams, our second President.
A lawless President, a felon, a man who has his entire life shown no respect for nor understanding of the law whatsoever, is hardly behaving out of character by assaulting the rule of law itself. What is disheartening is how many people are going along with it.
Judge Boasberg has appeared fair to me in the handling of the Alien Enemies Act case. I realize Venezuelan gang members are not particularly popular people and I'm amenable to the idea of deporting very bad hombres.
The ask is that the government do this legally, that the government comply with orders of the court in good faith.
That this case should go before a judge who has now experienced the government offering facile, bad-faith interpretations of the law and his own orders in a transparent attempt to evade compliance with the law? Yeah, I think that's a good thing.
Don't pee on the court's leg and tell the judge that it's raining. That's what FRCP 11 is for.
I sometimes see people saying on social media, "The civil war is already upon us; the shooting and the violence have already started." This is wrong. There is violence and vandalism, and it's a bad thing, and you shouldn't contribute to it. No, that is not "submitting in advance." No, that is not "just letting them get away with it." It is not even "not fighting back." It is not giving up on the idea that we can go about our politics in a peaceful and lawful way.
JFK Assassination Mania was not the start of paranoid thinking in American politics. It was, though the milepost of that particular kind of brain rot entering mainstream discussion and even some official actions. (At least, since its submergence after the failure of the aptly-named Know-Nothing Party.)
I sometimes have the fortitude to stick to an appetizer. But, like Andrew, only rarely. Even then, there's often some sharing from other peoples' entrees. I sometimes have the fortitude to stick to an appetizer and a salad or some soup. But again, only rarely.
I AM acquiring more ability to stop halfway through the entree and say "The rest of this is lunch for tomorrow, leave it be, dude." And I'm pretty good at saying no to dessert. Most of the time.
Were an EO narrowly tailored to prohibit the playing of "Get Out Of My Dreams, Get Into My Car," specifically, on all Federal properties, I would wholeheartedly endorse it, even if it came from the current guy. I'd urge a successor President to leave the EO in place, and urge Congressional ratification of the EO into statutory law.
Part of me wants to say bad calls are part of baseball, and this will slow things down, undoing part of the great benefit to the sport that the pitch clock has brought. Part of me -- most of me -- says the calls should be right, and limiting the number of times it happens will be worth it. As depicted it looks pretty fast.
And I'm quite certain that we'll find the strike zone once again moves around a little bit when held up to examination.
There are political forces to spend. There are political forces to oppose taxes. They’re not actually matched against each other in a way that balances the budget.
I presume the answer is: if we don't start cutting spending now, our ability to spend on anything will eventually be swallowed up by our need to make minimum interest payments on the debt.
I recall my days as a Young Republican, when I made this argument. That was the early 1990's. My own political preferences have changed since then, but the argument has not. OP is right (elsewhere in the thread) that the key number is interest on the debt as a percentage of GDP. FRED has the numbers:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S
You can correlate the ups and downs on the chart with all sorts of things that may affirm your priors or mine, assign the deltas as a delayed response to X or Y event based on X or Y based on your priors. But if you ask me, the table says to me: deficit spending, above a certain threshold, seems to make the number go up about a year later.
On “Cats Are The Best: An Annotated List”
Also Team Dog. Although some dogs are assholes (and were probably made that way by asshole humans who mistreated them as puppies), the vast majority of dogs are very eager to please their people and as a result are generally just doofuses. Adorable doofuses.
Cats? Some cats are sweet and loving. Some cats are aloof and demanding. And some cats are actually psychotic. This seems less to do with how well treated they were by humans as kittens, and more the product of their personalities and/or mental disorders. You do not want a cat with too rich of an inner life.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/28/2025”
Yup. It's much harder to be critical of people in your own tribe than it is members of some other tribe. I like libraries, too.
I think about how we all just sort of overlooked how awful Bill Clinton's behavior was with respect to his much-younger intern because at the time we thought of the extramarital affair as "consensual," and either focused on "But he LIED ABOUT IT UNDER OATH!" or "It's not great but it's a PRIVATE MATTER THAT DOESN'T AFFECT HOW HE DOES HIS JOB!" I now think he was impeached for the wrong reasons and at the same time, having Al Gore serve out the rest of that term wouldn't have been so awful.
"
Yup, we're up to 258 million Americans saved, and now I know it isn't just a social media misprint because there's video of her setting up that number as a punchline and taking a second to smugly glance around for the opportunity to mic drop.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lo27p7wrls2d
I have to figure that she's doing math on the poundage of the fentanyl seized, assuming that it's all pure and uncut, and dividing it by the smallest estimate of the amount necessary to induce an overdose.
258 million is pretty close to three-quarters the total population of the country; at this rate each and every man, woman, child, and whatever else they might want to call themselves in the United States of America will personally owe their lives to Pam Bondi by about 7:30 p.m. on the 21st of May.
"
I speak only for myself. I might be an outlier with respect to my sensitivity about this sort of thing.
You might insult my honor as a blogger, and that'd be one thing. I probably would laugh that off; the stakes of my blogworld reputation are quite low and the stakes of the integrity of blogging generally are such that I would not invest a lot of stress into that. But I take my honor as a lawyer as seriously as I would a heart attack.
"
Thank the heavens that Pam Bondi's Justice Department saved 35% of the American population from being killed by fentanyl pills so powerful one of then can kill an average of five people.
Math is hard.
"
I don't pretend to speak for all lawyers in this regard, but you may have noticed that in my responses above, I did not address the question of my personal experiences with ethics complaints. Nor will I. I choose to disclose that I have never received any form of professional discipline in my now more than thirty-year-long career as an attorney. To my knowledge, almost no lawyers ever do. Professional discipline is rare. Within the universe of professional discipline that does get imposed, disbarrment is uncommon and almost never imposed for a first ethical offense.
Nevertheless, and speaking only for myself, I find "Have you ever been ethically grieved to your bar association?" a rude question to ask, especially in a public forum. It feels to me a bit like "Have you ever been sexually assaulted? How did that work? What did it feel like when you were sexually assaulted? What's involved in responding to being sexually assaulted?"
I would decline to answer such questions and I am sure you would understand why. Please understand that this line of inquiry conjures similar emotions in at least me, and take from that a warning signal that others amongst my sister and brother lawyers would have similar responses. It insulting to be thus accused, even if the accusation is completely fanciful.
I assume you're inquiring in good faith to have a better understanding of the system, of what's going on with this story. Nevertheless, I'd encourage you to not inquire further of the individuals here who are engaging with you, at least in this way.
You should assume that this inquiry regarding Ms. James is intended to elicit similar emotions from her. As I intimated earlier, this is how David Horowitz worked; it's how he taught his apt pupil Stephen Miller. Publicly staining Ms. James' honor, and causing her to experience emotional outrage, fear of invasion of her personal privacy, and vulnerability for her career, are very much the goals of the complainant here. Vindicating the merits of that complaint are secondary to the goals of making Ms. James pay a personal price for daring to accuse Donald Trump of doing something wrong, and thus deterring future legal attacks on Donald Trump (regardless of the merits of those attacks).
I suggest that you assume that America First Legal is acting in the absolute worst possible faith here.
On “Back When Patriots Opposed Kings”
To be fair, we criticize Trump for attempting to expand into Quebec, not for prohibiting us from doing so.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/14/2025”
These past several months have made me wonder exactly how dear Americans still hold their liberties. Many appear to prefer privilege to freedom. Hopefully this is not yet a majority.
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
Which is a great shame upon the nation of El Salvador.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/7/2025”
I fret that this part of the order...
"The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."
...will lead to more litigation up and down the appellate ladder before the Government will actually do anything to comply with an order. "Oh noes! The District Court exceeded its authority and has failed to show due deference to the Executive Branch! Please give us an administrative stay!" "Stay granted. Expedited briefing schedule herein, decision in three weeks." "Oh noes! The new order after the second remand is vague and unclear! We don't know how to follow the court's order! Please give us an administrative stay!" "Stay granted, Expedited briefing schedule herein, decision in three weeks." "Oh noes! The new order fails to properly defer to us again! Here's a declaration from Secretary Rubio saying we are intruding on his conduct of foreign affairs but not saying why! We need an administrative stay again!" Etc. etc. etc. while this poor guy, presumed innocent of any crime and whose criminal record is free of any blemish, is getting beat up every day in the Salvadoran gulag.
The whole order can be read here:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25894464/24a949-order.pdf
"
We now have a very brief description from Secretary of State Rubio of what purportedly makes Mahmoud Khalil deportable:
I am writing to inform you that upon notification from the Department of Homeland Security's Homeland Security Investigations (DHS/ICE/HSI) on March 7, 2025, I have determined that [REDACTED] and Mahmoud Khalil (DOB:01-JAN-1995;
POB: Algeria), both U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR), are deportable aliens under INA section 237(a)(4)(C). I understand that ICE now intends to initiate removal charges against them, based on assurances from DHS/ICE/HSI.
(SBU) Under INA section 237(a)(4)(C)(i), an alien is deportable from the United States if the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe that the alien's presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States. Under INA section 237(a)(4)(C)(ii), for cases in which the basis for this determination is the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful, the Secretary of State must personally determine that the alien's presence or activities would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.
(SBU) Pursuant to these authorities, I have determined that the activities and presence of these aliens in United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest. These determinations are based on information provided by the DHS/ICE/HSI regarding the participation and roles of [REDACTED] And Khalil in antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States. My determination for [REDACTED] is also based on [REDACTED] citations for unlawful activity during these protests. The public actions and continued presence of [REDACTED] and Khalil in the United States undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States. Consistent with E.O. 14150, America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of State, the foreign policy of the United States champions core American interests and American citizens and condoning anti-Semitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective.
https://apnews.com/article/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-university-trump-c60738368171289ae43177660def8d34
You read that right: Khalil's "past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful," "have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest," because they "undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States."
Which I interpret to mean Khalil has been critical of the Netanyahu government in Israel and is expected to be critical of it again in the future. Future-thought-crime. Activity which is concededly lawful is now deportable.
I call upon our free speech absolutists to join me in objecting to this.
"
I am reminded of some social accounts that pop up from time to time glamorizing subsistence farming. There is nothing glamorous about subsistence farming. Essentially all of human history is an effort to get to do things other than subsistence farming.
So too with the factory job. It might be better than subsistence farming, but not all that much. The glamorizing of this, based I think on fiction and some sort of romantic notion that this kind of work is noble and public-spirited, is sort of missing the entire point: whether it's noble or public-spirited, working that sort of job would SUCK. Hollywood imbues the factory worker with nobility because he SUFFERS to provide for his family.
"
This is the way. While what I can do in my basement isn't QUITE as good as what the movie theater can do, it's pretty damn close, and as you point out, you can occupy basically the entire field of view.
On “A Grudging Concession About Something Trump Did”
Thanks for the suggestions, Dark Matter.
1. Less broad tariffs on China could be plausibly defensible; however, I'd still be skeptical personally. Free trade is a home setting for me, left over from my youth as a conservative during the Reagan years. These tariffs are going to hurt us more than they do China, they take place simultaneously with an idiotically destructive trade war with our former USMCA partners, and a softer touch with China would be a better idea anyway given that there were already tariffs in place. (Never mind that Trump negotiated the USMCA and I'm old enough to remember when he touted that it would lead to a new golden era of American prosperity; it was, in fact, effectively a rebranding of 2010's-era NAFTA, and again, free trade is my home setting.)
2. Hamas are bad guys and I shed zero tears for them. Israel started the Gaza war with the moral high ground. Netanyahu's government has since forfeited any claim there and that moral territory is now unoccupied. There are no good guys amongst the combatants in the Gaza war. Nevertheless, an honorable peace with Israeli-advantageous terms has been available to Israel for at least half a year now; Netanyahu prefers to be at war because it helps him bolster his domestic political position which in turn helps him avoid personal legal vulnerability. Since even before taking office, Trump has encouraged re-escalation of the war rather than incentivized peace, and that's what has happened.
3. If you're going to accuse DEI advocates of being religious zealots, then I'm one of them. DEI is a good thing and there should be more of it. White people, male people, cisgendered people, heterosexual people, Christian people, and in non-academic settings conservative people face few if any material professional or academic disadvantages, particularly when compared with people from traditionally disempowered and smaller-share demographic groups. I described what the Trump administration has done with equal opportunity laws as "perverse" in the OP, and that was a calculated choice of wording. I can respect that you hold a different opinion and perhaps think what's going on in that arena is good. But I say what Trump's done is deplorable.
On “Trump’s Most Insidious Scheme (So Far)”
Due process is not a cookie you have to earn through your innocence or your charisma. It is a restraint upon the exercise of government and it is the core reason the United States of America exists. If you don't believe me take a read through the Declaration of Independence and see how many of the grievances against King George III had to do with the procedural administration of justice.
Due process includes the right to have a competent lawyer, of your own choosing if you've the means to choose one. Scaring lawyers out of being willing to accept cases by the free agreement between attorneyand client, deterring lawyers from accepting the cause of unpopular litigants, arguing for legally valid positions that are inconvenient to the government -- if you do that, you're opposing the bedrock of America's tradition of law and order. Don't believe me? Ask John Adams, our second President.
A lawless President, a felon, a man who has his entire life shown no respect for nor understanding of the law whatsoever, is hardly behaving out of character by assaulting the rule of law itself. What is disheartening is how many people are going along with it.
On “Signal Controversy Over Houthi Strikes Deepens”
Judge Boasberg has appeared fair to me in the handling of the Alien Enemies Act case. I realize Venezuelan gang members are not particularly popular people and I'm amenable to the idea of deporting very bad hombres.
The ask is that the government do this legally, that the government comply with orders of the court in good faith.
That this case should go before a judge who has now experienced the government offering facile, bad-faith interpretations of the law and his own orders in a transparent attempt to evade compliance with the law? Yeah, I think that's a good thing.
Don't pee on the court's leg and tell the judge that it's raining. That's what FRCP 11 is for.
On “The Subversive and Revolutionary Act of Not Setting Things on Fire”
I sometimes see people saying on social media, "The civil war is already upon us; the shooting and the violence have already started." This is wrong. There is violence and vandalism, and it's a bad thing, and you shouldn't contribute to it. No, that is not "submitting in advance." No, that is not "just letting them get away with it." It is not even "not fighting back." It is not giving up on the idea that we can go about our politics in a peaceful and lawful way.
On “The JFK Files Drop Today (Supposedly)”
JFK Assassination Mania was not the start of paranoid thinking in American politics. It was, though the milepost of that particular kind of brain rot entering mainstream discussion and even some official actions. (At least, since its submergence after the failure of the aptly-named Know-Nothing Party.)
On “Lies, Damn Lies, and Appetizers”
I sometimes have the fortitude to stick to an appetizer. But, like Andrew, only rarely. Even then, there's often some sharing from other peoples' entrees. I sometimes have the fortitude to stick to an appetizer and a salad or some soup. But again, only rarely.
I AM acquiring more ability to stop halfway through the entree and say "The rest of this is lunch for tomorrow, leave it be, dude." And I'm pretty good at saying no to dessert. Most of the time.
As for P.F. Chang's: wow is that stuff salty.
On “Spaghetti on the Wall: Autopens and Out to Lunch Presidents”
Were an EO narrowly tailored to prohibit the playing of "Get Out Of My Dreams, Get Into My Car," specifically, on all Federal properties, I would wholeheartedly endorse it, even if it came from the current guy. I'd urge a successor President to leave the EO in place, and urge Congressional ratification of the EO into statutory law.
On “So Let’s Put Together a Democratic Party Ad Campaign”
NO KINGS
NO SLAVES
NO NAZIS
On “Series! Recap of World Series of the 1920s”
Part of me wants to say bad calls are part of baseball, and this will slow things down, undoing part of the great benefit to the sport that the pitch clock has brought. Part of me -- most of me -- says the calls should be right, and limiting the number of times it happens will be worth it. As depicted it looks pretty fast.
And I'm quite certain that we'll find the strike zone once again moves around a little bit when held up to examination.
On “Deficits, Debt, and DOGE”
There are political forces to spend. There are political forces to oppose taxes. They’re not actually matched against each other in a way that balances the budget.
The people get what they want. Good and hard.
"
Oh by all the gods they are STILL not letting that go, are they.
"
I presume the answer is: if we don't start cutting spending now, our ability to spend on anything will eventually be swallowed up by our need to make minimum interest payments on the debt.
I recall my days as a Young Republican, when I made this argument. That was the early 1990's. My own political preferences have changed since then, but the argument has not. OP is right (elsewhere in the thread) that the key number is interest on the debt as a percentage of GDP. FRED has the numbers:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S
You can correlate the ups and downs on the chart with all sorts of things that may affirm your priors or mine, assign the deltas as a delayed response to X or Y event based on X or Y based on your priors. But if you ask me, the table says to me: deficit spending, above a certain threshold, seems to make the number go up about a year later.