Sunday, May 18, 2025

“Let’s Take Our Wins Where We Can Find Them”

 If I didn’t know better:

Ex-prosecutor Glenn Kirschner over the weekend published a video entitled, "The Supreme Court AGAIN Tells Trump NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEPORTATIONS Of Venezuelan Immigrants," in which the legal analyst highlighted a pattern in which at least seven Supreme Court justices have been standing up to the president.

Kirschner zeroed in on the most recent example, which saw seven of nine justices ruling that immigrants are entitled to due process.

According to Kirschner, that particular point was one of the most direct in the entire judicial ruling.

The passage of the opinion, he says, "sounds like it might be a direct rebuke, refutation of Stephen Miller's assertion that due process doesn't really apply to immigrants, particularly immigrants that may be here without status."

After quoting Miller saying due process isn't to protect "an illegal alien," Kirschner flags "one of the most direct assertions" in the seven-justice opinion.

"The Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law," the justices wrote. That led Kirschner to conclude, "That sure feels like the Supreme Court directly communicating 'F--- you, Stephen Miller."
[emphasis added]
I’d say somebody was reading my shit.

Oh well, what the hell. Coincidence is hardly an impossibility. 

May The Healing Grace Of The Holy Spirit Be With And With His Loved Ones

Sidebar to Jake Tapper: your 15 minutes of Presidential biographer fame are over. Kindly leave the spotlight.

And James Comey and your continuing Biden witch hunt: kindly have the dignity to go fuck yourself, and follow Mr. Tapper off the stage.

Whatever happens to Mr. Biden, and we hope it is good news, you two should show the decency to treat him like a human being, now. As we are all reminded of his, and our, mortality.

🛩️🛩️, Baby!


 Trump is now saying the “gift” is going to the DOD. Which is fine, because they will not accept it without Congressional approval (I would think). And even if they do, or if Congress does approve it, it won’t be fit to use for Presidential flights for at least 5 years.

And I still don’t think the Congress will be excited to approve the funding necessary to maintain (it’s due for basically its 100,000 mile overhaul; millions of dollars there) and refurbish it for use (billions more for that).  Free, this “gift” isn’t.

Trump is talking like he gets the fancy plane immediately, so he can show off to his friends. Reality has other plans.

Reality Is A Harsh Mistress

 Congress can broadly establish the jurisdiction of Art. III courts. Which is not to say Congress can arbitrarily limit the equitable powers and inherent power to enforce rulings of Article III courts. Separation of powers works both ways.

Tucked deep in the thousand-plus pages of the multitrillion-dollar budget bill making its way through the Republican-controlled U.S. House is a paragraph curtailing a court’s greatest tool for forcing the government to obey its rulings: the power to enforce contempt findings.

It’s unclear whether the bill can pass the House in its current form — it failed in a committee vote Friday — whether the U.S. Senate would preserve the contempt provision or whether courts would uphold it.
 I’d give odds even Thomas and Alito would strike it.

I’m not a constitutional or federal law expert, but I can come up with a few legal theories off the top of my head for striking such an overreach from the law. In the end, all the Supremes have to do is strike it down, with reasoning most of the lower courts would be comfortable with. It’s not like the ruling would be the subject to a plebiscite. Dobbs wasn’t, but it’s still law of the land. Though I would hope for a more well reasoned opinion than that. All the Supremes really have to do is give the lower courts enough cover to feel comfortable about following the ruling.

This is just more of the little dogs yap-yapping because they think Trump is the leader of the pack. Reality is gonna mess them up something fierce.
While skirmishes over whether the federal government is complying with court orders are not unusual, it's the intensity of the Trump administration's pushback that is, legal experts say.

“It seems to me they are walking as close to the line as they can, and even stepping over it, in an effort to see how much they can get away with,” said Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor. “It’s what you would expect from a very clever and mischievous child.”
Well, mischievous, anyway. But here’s the thing about mischievous kids: people get tired of  ‘em real quick.

Especially courts.

Now With 900% More Label!


 

What is Fentanyl?

Fentanyl is a potent synthetic opioid drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use as an analgesic (pain relief) and anesthetic. It is approximately 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin as an analgesic.
That would be why Canada is manufacturing it and shipping it to the United States. Kool-Aid consumption in the White House is rising. And moving to Las Vegas? So the 86 47 prosecution is a no-go?

As Charlie Pierce often said, the Pauls say three sensible things, and then one crazy one. Here’s two:
Rand Paul: "Tariffs are taxes & when you put a tax on a business it's always passed through as a cost, so there will be higher prices ... there's an economic fallacy here that trade deficits actually mean anything. They are an artificial accounting. The only trade that means anything is the individual who buys something."
Why have a DOJ if it isn’t the President’s personal law firm?

Saturday, May 17, 2025

War Of The Roses 🌹

Watched the Netflix documentary series on the Vietnam War. Not bad; a little sketchy on details; not the equal to the PBS series from 1983. But that was 13 episodes and this was 8, so…

Salient bits I had forgotten:

1) Kent State Massacre happened in March, 1970. A group of Guardsmen knelt and opened fire on kids protesting the war, some of whom were throwing rocks. A guardsman in historic footage said it was his job to shoot kids who were responsible for protesting the war. Four students died, 5 were wounded. None of the dead were protesters.

🎶”What if you knew her and/found her head on the ground?/How can you run when you know?”🎶*

The national response was mostly “They deserved it.” Nixon said, privately (it was on tape. Remember? He taped everything.) that it was a good thing because it might give the protesters pause. He hoped more protesters would get shot, to slow down the protests.

2) LBJ and McNamara knew by ‘67 that they couldn’t win the war; but the sunk cost fallacy and the fear of failure kept them from trying to end it. They started peace talks, but during the ‘68 campaign Nixon secretly intervened to convince North Vietnam to keep fighting so he could offer a “secret plan to end the war” if he won the election. So they did, even as soldiers in the field wondered why peace talks were not producing at least a ceasefire.

3) Nixon won, and expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia, ushering in the killing fields of Pol Pot. He also upped the bombing campaign, ultimately dropping more bombs (by tonnage) than were dropped in WWII.

And peace talks continued.

Nixon wanted to end the war, too. But he also wanted to get re-elected, and he and Kissinger (may his name be a sign of evil) knew “losing” the war was no way to win an election. So they postponed peace and prolonged the war until 1973, when an agreement to end the war was signed. 

I remember it well. It was the last year of the draft lottery (every year they selected balls from a spinning cage and used them to rank birthdays. All I remember is mine was very high on the list, well above the midpoint, below which you were more likely to be drafted, above which you weren’t. I was going to college anyway: automatic deferment. But I was relieved nonetheless. And then the war ended, as did the draft. All so Nixon could be re-elected.

He resigned in disgrace in 1974, to avoid being the first President to be removed from office.

This doesn’t even consider the tracks Nixon laid that Reagan rode to power in ‘80 through ‘88, and then Reagan’s people under W after 4 years of Poppy and his self-pardon from Iran/Contra (and Ronnie manipulating the mullahs to hold the hostages until he took office, to secure the defeat of Carter); all of which leads us to Trump The Relentlessly Incompetent. With Biden playing Carter’s (undeservedly) “hapless” role again.

History rhyming? Or repeating itself? I don’t know, but don’t be surprised I’m not that afraid of Trump. I’ve seen real American authoritarians and ruthless leaders.

Trump is a piker who’s so stupid he shits his own bed and calls it roses. He has nobody like Kissinger, much less Cheney or Rumsfeld, not even McNamara, in his entourage. On a clear and present danger scale, Trump is so far down he has to look up to see those guys. He’s a toddler with a shotgun when it comes to the economy, right now. Otherwise, he’s a clown. And clowns are…mostly harmless.


*Someday I’ll tell you what that song means to me, still. No, I probably won’t. I’m not nearly that good with words. I don’t think I even know the words for it.



It’s The Stupidity, Stupid!

If Trump administration were serious about deporting as many illegal aliens as possible, it would be doing everything it could to improve and expedite the ordinary deportation processes, not wasting its time on probably illegal Alien Enemies Act proclamation that would apply to 1/10,000 of the illegal aliens, all of whom could be deported through other means. It's almost as if it's looking for excuses for failure and scapegoats to blame.
First: assumes facts not in evidence. Trump’s DOJ fired  more than 30 immigration judges, either because they weren’t ruling the way he liked, or because he wanted to gum up the system to pressure Art. II judges to ditch due process and just DEPORT!

The answer is: probably both and a little bit of neither.

Trump also gets rid of lawyers who don’t tell him what he wants to hear. So he’s left with spam Bondi and Alina Habba and Janine Pirro. And mostly Stephen Miller, who plays at being judge, jury, and the whole damned Supreme Court, all in one. But he’s not even a lawyer.

Second: Trump is failure personified. He doesn’t have to look for excuses to fail: that’s hard-wired into the program. If the measure of success was Trump falling out of a boat, he’d miss the water. He’s the beneficiary of a system that supports kleptocracy, venality, and cruelty.

The very proof he doesn’t know what he’s doing is the analysis that recognizes the failure, but can’t come to the logical conclusion: Trump is a very stupid man who, in redux, has surrounded himself with very stupid people.

EAT THE RICH TARIFFS!

What does Trump think his attention does? Trump may grudgingly concede reality. But he’ll never take responsibility for it.

Another Thing That Never Happened The Most

Josh Blackman tries to use this tale from Texas history to counter Justice Sotomayor’s shredding of the Solicitor General in oral arguments yesterday. He does about as well as the SG.
We have a similar story in Texas history. During the Texas Revolution, the Mexican Army demanded that the Texians in the City of Gonzales surrender their cannon. What did the Texians say? Come and Take It! The remedy here was not equitable; it was belligerent. The Texians did not reply with a canon of construction; they replied with a cannon of destruction. This was the Lexington of Texas. And the Battle of Gonzales led to the Battle of the Alamo, which led to Texas Independence. Sensing a pattern of what happens when the government tries to disarm the people?
Yeah...no. That’s not what happened at all.  Here, I’ll just quote myself:

Here, I'll quote from Forget The Alamo, a book I'm sure Cruz has never read:
The nearest cannon in American hands was at Gonzales, seventy miles east [of San Antonio]; it had been given to the town to ward off Comanche attacks years earlier. Ugartechea sent a squad to fetch it, but the American alcalde refused to hand it over and buried it.  On October 1, a Mexican force of two hundred arrived, upping the ante.  Texas militiamen, smelling a fight, were already pouring into Gonzales.  There was a lot of yelling back and forth.  Some smart-aleck American made a flag with a picture of the cannon and the words "Come and Take It." Thus was born the Texas T-shirt industry; to this day, it's hard to spend a half hour in Dallas or Houston without seeing a "Come and Take It" tee.

Forget The Alamo: The Rise and Fall of An American Myth, by Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford.  Penguin, 2021.  p. 61.

As for the battle, there wasn't one.  On October 2 the "Texians" opened fire on the Mexican troops.  200 Mexican troops were soon 800, but they withdrew to San Antonio.  The Texians took that as a victory.  No surprise; to this day they think the Battle of the Alamo was a victory, instead of an almost useless massacre.

Santa Anna eventually bypassed Gonzales on his way to San Jacinto. You’ll note the alcalde in Gonzales buried the small gun. It’s never been found. Blackman includes a picture of it at the Gonzales museum. He probably doesn’t realize it’s a replica. And no, nobody in Texas fought for independence because of a small cannon the town of Gonzales buried rather than use in battle.

Mexico eventually marched from San Antonio (after the battle at the Alamo) to San Jacinto, bypassing Gonzales, but the army slaughtered 3000 down the road, in Goliad. It was that massacre that actually prompted Texans to fight back for independence. Not for a gun; for the people.

Like Alito, Blackman prefers to make up facts that support an opinion, rather than consider ordinary human motivations like anger at gross injustice, or just consequence of actions on human beings. His argument against Sotomayor’s questions is about as effective as that buried cannon was.

Friday, May 16, 2025

Just Two Weeks Now!

When the two week period starts remains unspecified. In a similar vein: if you’re wearing a $12,000 coat and a $30,000 watch, why would you lean against anything? Much less post about it.

Meanwhile:
"It’s” and “better” both shrugged as if to say, “We don’t know what he means, either.”
Some psychological terms on display here: tangential thinking, circumstantiality, flight of ideas, slurred speech - all concerning behaviors in an elderly person
Trump: It's secondary sanctions it's called. And I just did it with Venezuela…

Baier: Why not do it with Russia?

Trump: Well, I will.. If we're not going to make a deal. This is turkey time. This is now we are talking turkey

Baier: It would change the dynamic—

Trump: Okay, Biden is incompetent..

Supremes Remind Stephen Miller Who’s In Charge

 Remember when the Supreme Court stepped in at 1:00 in the morning to stop a bus load of Venezuelans from being put on a plane without due process? Yeah, that one. The one that outraged Stephen Miller so much he mooted getting Trump to suspend habeas corpus. Well, today in that case the majority* said to Stephen Miller: “Fuck you.”

Not literally; maybe not even figuratively. But it’s easy to read the opinion that way. Especially when the majority cites its previous unanimous opinion in this case: “The Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings.” Neither Miller nor Trump understand what that means; nor do they like it:

"THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!" Trump posted.
"Criminal" is a status determined by due process of law. The same due process that prevented Trump from going to trial on criminal charges in Florida and D.C., but found him guilty of 34 felony counts in Manhattan. So maybe we should get criminals out of our country. But they are entitled to further due process before that “remedy.” That is settled law in America.

It is also settled law that no one is a criminal without due process of law making that determination. Nor can anyone, adjudicated criminal or not, be forcibly deported without due process of law.

Otherwise the next administration could just declare Stephen Miller a criminal and deport him to Libya just because…well, shit, who wants him around here, amirite?



*The dissent is Alito’s, joined by Thomas. Alito’s argument is highly technical: he argues against the injunction itself (which the Court grants, returning the case to the 5th Circuit), and the issue of granting habeas relief to a class. His objection to the injunction is that the trial court didn’t have information that ICE was putting people on busses for the airport as the court was trying to determine what ICE was doing with the detainees. The majority points out the government has already said people deported are beyond their reach (true if they are simply returned to their country; far more dubious if they go to a facility like CECOT; but that’s all another matter), and the trial court moved so slowly on the issue of granting or denying the injunction, it effectively denied it. Especially since busses were headed for the airport when the Court ruled the first time.

Alito’s arguments are basically that the government should be allowed to do what it wants until the court has a clear record of what’s going on, and if by then it’s too late, well…that’s the way it goes.

It’s a minority of two, even on this Court. I’m not so sure the majority on the injunction/citizenship case will be any thinner. Well, not thin enough to go the wrong way.  Hope is the thing with feathers, though. And in these matters I am certainly featherless.

Professor Vladeck has a fuller analysis of the ruling, including Alito’s dissent. He points out that the majority expresses clear frustration with the lower courts (trial and appeals) for not taking the problem here (imminent unlawful deportation) more seriously. Which effectively suspends AEA deportations until the Court finally disposes of this case (not soon; it goes back to the Fifth Circuit, first). The majority also took space, in a curiam decision, to chew up Alito’s dissent with far more than “we respectfully disagree.” As the professor points out, Alito is a lot less concerned with the people in this case than the majority is. Which is not a surprising comment on Alito.

I’m skipping entirely over the class certification/habeas argument Alito makes and the majority tacitly discards. Read Vladeck’s analysis if you want to know more about that.

All People Are Equal

But white people are more equal than others:
I think if I see people in distress, I don’t care what color, what they look like, what anything—their size, their height, their eyes. I don’t care,” he said.

“But, I think that from all evidence, the farmers in South Africa are being treated brutally. And it’s been reported, and nobody wants to cover it, but they happen to be white. And if they were Black, I’d do the exact same thing. And we treat people very well when we see there’s a genocide going on,” he said. “So if it’s a genocide, that’s terrible. And I happen to believe it could very well be.”

In February, the South African courts ruled that talk of a "white genocide" is merely a myth.

Trump then branded the reporter's question as “nasty.”

“And I’m not looking for reporting because, believe me, it’s easier for me not to do anything. It’s a lot easier because I don’t get nasty questions like that,” the president said.

“But the fact is that we’re about saving lives, and we’re gonna do that. So we’ve made a home, and we’ll make a home for other people that are treated badly, no matter what their color.”
"But especially for white people.”

When A Trial Court…

 …makes a ruling Alito agrees with, and one that affects the nation:

On Thursday, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk—a far-right federal judge in the Northern District of Texas with a record of aligning with the GOP’s most extreme legal positions—issued a ruling declaring that Title VII no longer protects LGBTQ+ people from workplace discrimination. The decision directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s landmark 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is, by definition, sex discrimination. Kacsmaryk’s ruling marks one of the most alarming judicial rollbacks of LGBTQ+ rights in recent memory—and sets up a direct legal challenge to one of the foundational civil rights protections for queer and trans people in the United States.

The case was brought against the EEOC by the state of Texas alongside the Heritage Foundation, a central force behind Project 2025—an aggressive right-wing policy blueprint that explicitly calls for rolling back LGBTQ+ protections in federal law. In siding with the plaintiffs, Judge Kacsmaryk pointed to the Texas Department of Agriculture’s current employee policy, which requires “employees to comply with this dress code in a manner consistent with their biological gender,” specifying that “men may wear pants” and “women may wear dresses, skirts, or pants.” The ruling also upheld the department’s policy banning transgender employees from using restrooms that align with their gender identity.

The judge reached a verdict that Title VII only protects “firing someone simply for being homosexual or transgender,” but that it does not protect transgender or gay people from “harassment”:

...

Ultimately, Judge Kacsmaryk ordered the complete removal of all references to sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under Title VII from EEOC guidance. His ruling declares that “all language defining ‘sex’ in Title VII to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’” must be stripped from federal employment policy. Specifically, it targets and nullifies Section II(A)(5)(c) of the 2024 EEOC guidance, which states: “Sex-based discrimination under Title VII includes employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”
I guess that’s okay? I mean, it’s not like it’s an injunction or anything….

“The Peace Of God Which Passes All Understanding…”

I skipped over these two, until I realized they weren’t the obscure references I took them for. "...keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge of the love of God, and of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior; and the blessings of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be among you, and remain with you, always.”

The benediction I gave for the four years I was in parish ministry, 24 years ago.

“How To Win Friends And Influence People”

 


Later that same day…
Republican House members were sent home for the weekend after an attempt to hammer out a compromise budget bill crashed and burned on Friday after five House Budget Committee Republican hardliners joined with Democrats to kill it with a 16-21 vote.

According to a report from NBC News, Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-WI, stated after the failed vote, "It’s like the last day of third grade. We get to go home."

Blocking House Speaker Mike Johnson from completing his task of handing Donald Trump his "big beautiful bill" were GOP lawmakers Chip Roy of Texas, Ralph Norman (SC), Andrew Clyde (GA), Josh Brecheen (OK) and Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania.
“Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Making America Safe For White People, Again

 In 1898 the Supreme Court established that birthright citizenship was the law of the land since the adoption of the Constitution. It also ruled that the codification of jus soli in Article I of the 14th Amendment therefore applied to the children of non-citizens born on American soil. Jus soli is not and has never been a “policy” of the United States. It is, and has always been, the law of the land. The 14th Amendment codified that jus soli applies to all persons born here; former slaves as well as children of non-citizens.

Did they not teach this at Yale Law, or was Ted just absent that day?

Or is it now that he’s here and he and his children have benefited from it (Ted was born in Canada, but his mother was a U.S. citizen by birth, so he was one at birth by statute)*, he just wants to make America safe for white people?

P.S. all citizenship is technically “birthright.” Either jus soli (born on the soil) or jus sanguinus, or right of blood. For the latter, citizenship at birth is dependent upon the citizenship of the parents. This applies under statutory law in America. My son-in-law was born in Norway to American parents (working for an oil company). He is a “natural born citizen” of America by law. Most of Europe follows jus sanguinus, so he doesn’t have dual nationality.

Given American history, “right by blood” is a little creepy, anyway.


*So maybe it is a bad policy, after all.



So When Does Trump Lean On The CEO Of Walmart?

As Keynes said “In the long run, we’re all dead.” ☠️  The President has assured me that China will pay the tariffs. So China is cheating by not paying the tariffs? Well, since the Administration raised the tariffs, then lowered the tariffs, and keeps saying nothin is in stone so wait 90 days and see what happens then…maybe “progress” is not the right word? 🤷🏻‍♂️  Hitler, speech, Eiffel Tower?
Adolf Hitler visited Paris on the day after France had signed the armistice. He admired the city’s architecture and visited places of interest. He was not able to go on the Eiffel Tower, because the French had severed the lift cables just before the German invasion.
But George Clooney!

Besides, we’ll always have Lutnick:
"We must learn to serve our AI 🤖 masters.”—The Book of Lutnick. "We must learn to serve our robot 🤖 masters.”—The Book of Lutnick  And don't think we don't all realize that!

Eye 👁️ On The Ball ⚾️

And also, too, as well:
Good to see he’s on top of things.

Thursday, May 15, 2025

Where Are The Cyber Ninjas Of Yesteryear?

But Biden Didn’t Recognize Clooney!

Man o' the people. (And: no. Not according to the USDA.
The level of food price inflation varies depending on whether the food was purchased for consumption at home or away from home: The food-at-home (grocery store or supermarket food purchases) CPI increased 0.5 percent from February 2025 to March 2025 and was 2.4 percent higher than March 2024; and

The food-away-from-home (restaurant purchases) CPI increased 0.4 percent in March 2025 and was 3.8 percent higher than March 2024.

USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) April 2025 Forecast

In 2025, overall food prices are anticipated to rise slightly faster than the historical average rate of growth. In 2025, prices for all food are predicted to increase 3.5 percent, with a prediction interval of 1.9 to 5.1 percent. Food-at-home prices are predicted to increase 3.2 percent, with a prediction interval of 0.9 to 5.7 percent. Food-away-from-home prices are predicted to increase 3.8 percent, with a prediction interval of 2.8 to 4.7 percent. [emphasis in original]
Business man who always knows the numbers.
The average price for a dozen Grade A eggs declined to $5.12 last month after reaching a record $6.23 in March, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It was the first month-to-month drop in egg prices since October 2024.

Overall, the average price of eggs of all sizes fell 12.7%, the steepest monthly decline since March 1984.
Or not. (A 97% drop in price would indicate a disastrous crash in the egg market.)
While artificial intelligence seems to be the preserve of ultra-powerful machines, a recent demonstration proves otherwise. Researchers have managed to run a modern AI model on a 1997 computer with a simple Pentium II processor and 128 MB of RAM. This experiment calls into question our certainties about the hardware requirements of AI and paves the way for unprecedented technological democratisation.
Does Trump think AI is something built like cars or refrigerators?

Meanwhile, Congress is going to codify Trump’s EO’s. 
Republican Chair: I agree with the lady. It’s been done that way for 20 years. We’re not going to change it now.
Or, you know, not.

Ye Olde Tyme Groceries Hat:
Seems to me that if there’s a senile guy doing nothing in particular the usual way and a senile guy setting everything on fire, the fire guy is the one who should be the focus of media inquiry
Or, I guess, not.

In Other Words, Trump Is Stuck In A Time Warp

 But you knew that already:

While many have speculated that the Qataris have offered Trump the luxurious plane to curry favor with the famously transactional president, there may be a simpler rationale: they just don’t want it anymore.

The royals have failed to sell the plane, which was put on the market in 2020, according to an archived listing. Giving it away could save Qatar’s rulers a big chunk of change on maintenance and storage costs, aviation experts told Forbes. Making Trump happy would be an added bonus.

Qatar, which has given away another blinged-out 747 and may have mothballed two more, epitomizes the fading demand for these huge, fuel-guzzling, highly personalized airplanes. There aren’t many who want to buy them, and many of the governments and royal families who own them have been trying to ditch them over the past decade.

“Qatar, like many modern states, is shifting toward leaner, more versatile aircraft, which offer better economics and more discreet presence for official travel,” Linus Bauer, managing director of the Dubai-based aviation consulting firm BAA & Partners, told Forbes. Giving the plane to Trump would be “a creative disposal strategy” that marks “a farewell to a bygone model of geopolitical theater in the skies.”
I didn’t realize this was a much bigger plane than AFOne, though I should have since Trump complained that POTUS needs a bigger plane to keep up with the Joneses (really small dick energy). This next little factoid really raises the question of the “cost savings" in this offer:
When the plane was bought in 2012, its list price was $367 million, not including the interior, which took three years to complete and likely cost tens of millions of dollars.
And we’ll have to strip it down to the skin and start over. On a much bigger frame. So at much greater cost and effort. Think we can beat the three years it took Qatar? The expert Forbes consulted thinks it would take at least five years to get the Qatari jet ready for Presidential service. That’s starting after the plane is stripped down and cleared for security purposes. Even Boeing will have its two jets finished by then.
Unlike the passenger version of the 747-8, which can seat 467 people, the HBJ jet is a flying mansion designed for just 89 passengers, with two bedrooms, entertainment and meeting rooms, and a sumptuous beige and cream-colored interior created by the Parisian design house Cabinet Pinto that features furnishings made of sycamore and wakapou wood, silk fabrics and natural leather.
Yeah, that’s gonna need a lot of work! Besides, it’s a gas guzzler in a world of fuel efficient cars. And it’s a dinosaur, as well as a security risk:
Beyond poor fuel efficiency, large ostentatious planes are a security risk, notes Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace consultant with Aerodynamic Advisory. “These things are big targets.” And bigger planes can only land on longer runways, limiting their usage. “There are a lot more airports you can get into if you have a narrowbody, and many more still if you have a traditional business jet,” he said.
Oh, by the way, above and beyond conversion costs:
Giving the 747-8 to the U.S. would also allow the Qataris to avoid maintenance costs that are only getting higher with the 747 fleet shrinking worldwide and fewer mechanics available who know how to work on them, said John Goglia, a former airline mechanic and member of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. The 2020 sales brochure noted that the plane was due for a landing gear overhaul in 2024 and a 12-year check in 2027. A check in which the airplane and engines are taken apart, typically carried out every six to 12 years, can take months to complete and cost millions of dollars. “The numbers are staggering,” said Goglia.
This is why you want to see the maintenance records before you buy the used car. Especially one somebody is giving to you.

And Trump’s jealousy of all those big Middle Eastern government jets? Qatar and the Saudis both are down to just one each in regular service. Damned things just cost too much to operate. No one wants to buy their fleet, either.

But they know a sucker when they see one.

“THIS IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL THIS IS HAPPENING EVERYWHERE”

 As I was saying;

She added, “I noticed that you didn't take the substantive question to us. You only took the nationwide injunction question to us. Why wouldn't you take the substantive question to us?”

Pressing Sauer more Kagan added, “You're losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here, you know, they'll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?”

Sauer attempted to answer but was swiftly cut off.

“You're ignoring the import of my question,” Kagan said. “I'm suggesting that in a case in which the government is losing constantly, there's nobody else who's going to appeal. They're winning. It's up to you to decide whether to take this case to us.”
The substantive question is the application of Sec.,1 of the 14th Amendment to all persons born here.
The Justices are hearing arguments on the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Sauer’s argument is that the 14th Amendment was for the children of slaves and not undocumented migrants.
But that’s not the issue the government brought before the Court. The government is only challenging the validity of the nationwide injunction. Hence, the question:
Pressing Sauer more Kagan added, “You're losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here, you know, they'll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?”
Can the Court allow that kind of patchwork quilt?

Justice Jackson nails where we are right now:

“Your argument turns our justice system into a catch me if you can kind of regime from the standpoint of the Executive where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.”

🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯
And furthermore:
Justice Jackson - “Other parties are incidental beneficiaries of a court saying ‘stop violating the law.’ I mean that’s like every person in the country.”

YES THANK YOU
Justice Alito is a legend in his own mind. You’ll see when you get there (further down the screen). Not that I’m seeing a lot of support for the government’s 14th amendment argument.
During the oral arguments over birthright citizenship, Kagan pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer to make the case for Trump's executive order and shot down one answer by telling the attorney, "I mean, that's a lot of words and I don't have an answer for if one thinks — and, you know, look, there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions. But I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that, it's quite clear that the [executive order] is illegal, how does one get to that result?"

When the attorney sidestepped her questions, conservative and Trump appointee Coney Barrett jumped in to ask if he really thought he was answering her colleague's questions.
This isn’t a sign the Court is on your side. Nor is this:
Justice Elena Kagan hits Trump's birthright citizenship executive order: "On the merits, you are wrong," she tells Solicitor General D. John Sauer. "The E.O. is unlawful."
This is what was being discussed:
In one exchange, Justice Elena Kagan asked, if they assume this is a completely illegal executive order, how do the courts actually stop it?

Sauer said it would file a class action.

Kagan said that he would then argue that there isn't a class to certify under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sauer agreed, so Kagan asked what other options there were.

Sauer suggested every affected individual would sue.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned if Sauer was seriously proposing such an idea.
And should you be wondering about the Alito-Thomas wing:
Alito is SO big mad - he’s slapping the panel. Basically suggesting some trial courts suffer from Trump derangement syndrome and can’t be restrained by panels

“The court of the appeals gives it the back of the hand???”

I’m sorry you’re impugning lower courts for issuing sloppy opinions????
A complaint from the Godfather of sloppy opinions (his Dobbs opinion was an embarrassment). But Alito just really doesn’t like judges who are not…Alito:
Wow, Alito is really telling on himself with this question. ("judges have disease that makes them think they're the smartest person ever")
He also seems to think district judges just should not make such momentous decisions, an argument that runs headlong into the Kagan/Brown buzz saw (was he even listening?)
Justice Alito is throwing shade on federal district judges. He's not wrong about the practical problem. But his suggestion that the multi-member nature of SCOTUS constrains the arrogance of him and his colleagues is . . . not reality-based.
I really think Kavanugh is slipping the stilleto into the ribs here:
Kavanaugh: “tell me what I can write in my opinion ruling for you, Trump admin, about why this wouldn’t be so bad.”

That fucking Guy.
I’m just gonna close by repeating that Justice Kagan was NOT having it:
Elena Kagan: “okay, what if you lose everywhere and then you never take the case to us so there’s never a nationwide ruling?” A

“If I was in your shoes I would NEVER approach the Supreme Court with this case”

“You’d need somebody to lose. NOBODY IS GOING TO LOSE IN THIS CASE.” Elena Kagan getting INCREASINGLY agitated.

“THIS IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL THIS IS HAPPENING EVERYWHERE”
Alito would have looked smarter if he just hadn’t said anything.

“Fake News “📰

 You don’t say…

Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Rattner pointed to the signing by Trump, who called it one of the most "consequential" moves of his presidency, as another "surreal, parallel universe Trump moment."

"He was going to lower prescription prescription drug prices by 30 to 80 percent, the executive order actually does nothing," he told the MSNBC hosts. "He doesn't have the authority to do any of those things."

"But then he said just recently, I heard it on [MSNBC's] 'Way Too Early' this morning out in the Middle East, wherever he is, that a lot of Democrats are going to vote for this tax bill, going through Ways and Means because it was going to lower drug prices," he added before bluntly stating, "There's nothing in the tax bill that would lower drug prices."

"So the president is off on one universe and the world is on a different universe, and he is talking about a world that does [not] exist," he pointed out.
A “surreal, parallel universe Trump moment,” you say… Can’t imagine such a thing. Wonder if they got that on “Morning Joe”?

A family member recently admitted he voted for Trump in ‘20, but not in ‘24. Didn’t vote for Harris, either. Basically because she’s a Democrat. I think a lot of people vote that way. But he professes to be well informed and open minded, and I’ve no doubt he thinks he is. But he’s bothered by Trump’s policies, not his utter ignorance and incompetence, or word dribbling like this.

It’s not that Trump’s rambling nonsense doesn’t penetrate the “shell” of non-Democratic voters. It’s that this stuff doesn’t even make the news. If it does, my family member would consider it “slanted” because he never hears about it otherwise. And that, of course, is the problem. Seriously (though it’s a tiresome trope), if Biden had been rambling nonsensically like this at a breakfast in a foreign country? This is Grandpa muttering in his Cream of Wheat at the breakfast table. But unless it’s reported as consistently as it happens, it’s “out of context” or “fake” or just “biased reporting.” (My family member also says he’s found a news source he thinks presents “only the news.” But like the MSM, it’s not presenting this kind of drooling in public as “news.”) “Journalism” does Trump a big favor by refusing to say that not only is the Emperor stark naked, but that his brain is tapioca pudding. George Clooney criticizes Biden and it raises serious questions about Biden’s mental acuity. Someone on the Right criticizes Trump and it’s a sign of friction, or even fractures, in MAGA or the GOP. The substance of the complaint disappears beneath the gossip of who’s on whose side. Clooney criticizes Biden, and it’s about what Clooney said. A celebrity supporter criticizes Trump, and the story is about their standing in Trump world.

No wonder real information about Trump goes unknown, or is dismissed as “fake news.”

Same Song, Second Verse

He doesn’t even know what the arguments are about.
"Big case today in the United States Supreme Court. Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'SUCKERS' that we are! The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it! We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America. Birthright Citizenship is about the babies of slaves."
The Court is hearing arguments on the validity of nationwide injunctions, NOT on the interpretation and application of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.
He then offered, "As conclusive proof, the Civil War ended in 1865, the Bill went to Congress less than a year later, in 1866, and was passed shortly after that. It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years. It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection. Please explain this to the Supreme Court of the United States. Again, remember, the Civil War ended in 1865, and the Bill goes to Congress in 1866 — We didn’t have people pouring into our Country from all over South America, and the rest of the World. It wasn’t even a subject. What we had were the BABIES OF SLAVES. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Good luck with this very important case. GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.!"
Tl;dr:  It’s too late to do anything about black people, but we can still get rid of the brown ones! White Afrikaaners can come have all the American babies they want.
Moments later, he followed that up with a second post, claiming, "Remember, it all started right after the Civil War ended, it had nothing to do with current day Immigration Policy!" which he had already mentioned.
"We lost our chance to get rid of the blacks with the Civil War! Let’s not lose this chance!”

The AEA is older than the 14th Amendment. It had nothing to do with immigration, either. Kim Wong Ark says the 14th covers immigrants. Although in the late 19th century the concern was with Chinese immigrants. 

Same song, second verse. A little bit louder, a little bit worse.

(The issue before the Supremes is the question of nationwide injunctions from one district court. But if the trial court can’t issue a nationwide injunction, then everyone outside the circuit (if not the even smaller district), is presumptively covered by the EO until the Court rules on that issue. Which means children born outside that district are not presumptively American citizens. It creates, IOW, an insane patchwork and chaos as states try to decide what a birth certificate means anymore (as would the federal government, which issues SS numbers to children at birth, because they are citizens at birth.) Would we now decide citizenship based on race? Because no one is going to question the legitimacy of white babies. 👶)

“I Think That’s Pretty Simple”

You gotta admit, there’s a certain spectacle in watching a turnip trying to talk.

But, you know, Joe Biden didn’t recognize George Clooney at a party once, so….

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

Every Accusation Is A Confession

The gob, she is smacked. Again, if Biden said this... And we close with: How to make an albatross:
Ossoff: That the depth of corruption, self-dealing, and self-enrichment by the Trump family during this term is something we have never, ever seen in the United States.

At no point in our republic have we seen anything like this. You've got the president's family going out ahead of his official visits, doing business across the region. You've got the meme coin—where foreigners are directly enriching the president, his family, and his businesses—and some of them are being quite open about it. Some of the folks buying this coin are explicitly saying they're doing it to curry favor or gain influence.

And the president is selling private dinners and tours to people who invest in his family businesses.

Not to mention the airplane, which is maybe the most extraordinary, single, obvious constitutional violation in presidential history.

It is really mind-blowing.

Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop 🛑

 


NTodd (unsurprisingly) makes an excellent point:

Funny thing is, Congress has kinda pre-consented to accepting the gift on behalf of the United States, if he were to really to take it, but of course that means it become property of the People. It's in statute, and the disposal process is spelled out by Federal regs. Which it's why it's extra amusing when people compare it to Obama's gifts. Dude didn't keep the stuff, most of it is held by NARA (they have a whole Gifts of State collection!).
If Congress is stuck with “pre-acceptance,” the GOP is royally fucked. 

Even though this jet has to be stripped to the bulkheads, it will forever (or for the rest 2025 and 2026, which politically will be forever) be the “flying palace.” 

And Democrats can force Republicans to allocate the funds to turn it into an acceptable AFOne. Which won’t happen any faster or cheaper than the two Boeing is already working on. If the GOP refuses, then: “WTF, guys? You accepted this! Now what?” 😹

Can you say “Albatross”? I thought you could.

It will be the “bribe plane.” It will be the “flying palace.” It will be the Spruce Goose that could fly, but never will. A physical manifestation of Trump’s complete ineptitude. The gift that keeps on giving as Democrats in ‘27 scuttle any funding for it and direct the AF to strip it for parts or the DOD to use it for target practice. Hey, it was free, right? We don’t need it. Why waste money even maintaining it? Drop it in the ocean, it would still cost less than the two jets that fell off the Truman. 

And I still wouldn’t be surprised if Qatar just walked away from this mess without trying to so much as arrange delivery. I really think they thought this would be as easy as buying Trump’s crypto, and now they don’t know whether to shit or go blind.

Future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades. 😎

Qatar PM: Unfortunately, I see this story is taking a different direction and it’s being politicized while it’s a normal government to government deal… We bought this airplane from an American company. It's basically part of a cooperation that we have been doing together between Qatar and the United States.
Laying the groundwork to walk away…. Pretty much where this is going….

🛩️🛩️🛩️

Is it a slow news week?
Appearing on “The Arena,” the CNN legal analyst added that while the Constitution’s “rarely invoked emoluments clause” prohibits a federal official from accepting a gift from a foreign government, he noted an exception.

“Congress actually can vote to allow it,” he told host Kasie Hunt. “And so I think that may be why you’re seeing some unease from members of Congress, because now it's fair game for you, Kasie, or anyone else to ask these members, ‘Hey, if this comes up, are you going to vote yes or no on allowing the president to take this plane from Qatar?'"

“'I didn't see the tweet' is not really going to work in this scenario
The reason the emoluments clause is in Art. I is because it is up to Congress to decide. Were Congress doing its job, there would be hearings into Trump’s crypto coins. But the U.S. Air Force is responsible for AFOne, and Trump can’t just say: “I want it, I want it!”, and get the Air Force to take it. Just like Trump can’t just live and work at MAL, rather than the high security fortress that is the White House. When he was elected in ‘16, Trump disparaged the White House and insisted he’d stay in Trump Tower. That inspired a lot of thumb-sucking and harumph grumping about the logistics of the Presidential motorcade blocking Manhattan traffic on the regular; and gutting out Trump Tower to provide the security and communications and offices already in the White House.

And somebody finally explained to little Donnie that he didn’t have the choice.

Nor can he fly in any plane he chooses, including the one he owns. So he can’t tell the Air Force to take the jet, and just repaint it (he tried that once, too, Until the AF explained it would cost too much and make the plane an easier target in flight) and just let him have a flying palace he can keep when he leaves office.

None of that is going to happen because of the emoluments clause and national security laws (what, you think they slap together what AFOne needs based on who’s in charge of AFOne procurement at the time?), and volumes of regulations (government runs on rules and regulations, whether Donnie likes it or not), and lots of people who really do care about national security (which is why Donnie conducts presidential business and lives in D.C, not MAL year-round).

All this talk about the Qatar jet is all just bafflegab and lip-flapping. Trump can no more accept that jet on behalf the government than a 7 year old can buy a car.* Even if Congress shirks its constitutional duties, it would still have to approve a few billion to get the jet ready for the job (you know the Air Force is not going to take that money out of their budget). Money the next Congress would probably revoke (as soon as ‘27). Which change in membership would be hastened by the vote to pay for it; and by hoping no one noticed they never voted to accept it in the first place.

Really, is the news this slow this week?

(*Don’t come at me with silly scenarios about 7 year olds with trust funds. Minors can’t own property. Period. It can be held in their name by a designated adult, but that’s it. Even the stuff Mommy and Daddy give them, belong to Mommy and Daddy.)