So, do I sell because he’ll keep wrecking the economy, or do I hold because he’ll keep backing down? What do the licensed financial advisors here, acting in their professional capacity and accepting full legal responsibility for the consequences, think?

Challenging them is one thing. Disrupting the CEO’s public speech is another. I think almost every company would fire any employee who did that for any reason.

I think this is not a straightforward case as a matter of law, even though it is as a matter of justice. Generally, a court couldn’t reasonably order the US government to exfiltrate a person from a prison in a foreign country (even if he was there as a result of US government wrongdoing). This case is different because when the US government is paying the foreign country to keep that person in prison, the reasons why such an order would generally be unreasonable don’t apply.

The question is, where do you draw the line between the general case and this specific case? What if, for example, El Salvador decides to do what presumably makes Trump happy rather than what he’s being ordered to ask for, and refuses to free this man despite an official request from the US? Can a court decide that the US needs to try harder? What if El Salvador stubbornly keeps refusing?

We all know that this man would be back in the US if Trump wanted him back in the US, but how do you prove that?

After the tariffs were unveiled in front of TV cameras at the White House, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told those countries named: “Do not retaliate, sit back, take it in, let’s see how it goes, because, if you retaliate, there will be escalation.”

I’m sure that went over well. Xi loves sitting back and taking it in, especially when this is on Trump’s mind:

“'Oh, he used the word ‘rape.’ That’s right. I used the word ‘rape,’” Trump said at the Detroit Economic Club after his remarks were met with what sounded like some gasps from the audience. “They raped our country,” he repeated.

I’m curious about how well-informed most Americans are about the Soviet Union. Do they know that it was once a place where ordinary people were accused of crimes without evidence, taken away without a trial, and never seen again? Do they know that this generally happened because of the smallest suspicion that a person was not fanatically loyal to the government, rather than a violent criminal? Do they know that a million people were killed this way? And do they know that the Soviet Union was one of many places like that?

I expect that the Soviet Union doesn’t seem particularly relevant to younger generations of voters, but isn’t this the sort of lurid history that did interest them as adolescents? And don’t older voters remember the Cold War?

Titled “The Perimeter” and published on Monday, the report said the stated purpose of the plan was to create a thick strip of land that provided a clear line of sight for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to identify and kill militants. “This space was to have no crops, structures, or people. Almost every object, infrastructure installation, and structure within the perimeter was demolished,” it said.

The article presents this as a new revelation, but wasn’t creating a wider buffer zone on the Gaza side of the border one of the explicitly stated war goals? (And visible from space.) I’m surprised that there isn’t signage and barbed wire to prevent civilians from wandering in accidentally, but the rest seems to be describing what a buffer zone (or “kill zone”) is almost by definition.

I am not a lawyer, but I think that presenting the defendants’ case as written in their memorandum would not be lying, although I can see how doing so would make an honest man uncomfortable. Reuveni supported the morally right side when, in effect, he argued for the plaintiffs, but in doing so he failed to fulfill a lawyer’s obligation to zealously defend his client. If he wanted to do both, he should have declined to take the case in the first place (although presumably he would have been demoted or fired for that too).

With that said, a man can do the right thing now even when he could have done so earlier and didn’t (and doing so in court was certainly more dramatic than refusing to take the case would have been). I wouldn’t mind donating money to him the way that people of a different sort donated money to Daniel Penny.

I’m not sure how to reconcile my view with the principle that even the worst criminal defendants have the right to competent legal representation. I suppose I make an exception here because the federal government is never in danger of being railroaded.

I don’t think that’s how people would have “gathered for instructions on an attack” especially when “attack” would mean launching missiles. But I’m glad that and we can trust Laura Loomer to handle the sort of intelligence gathering that would guide strikes like this.

deleted by creator

Obviously the judge can’t order the dead raised, but if El Salvador won’t release him then does the judge have the authority to decide whether or not Trump made a good-faith attempt to have him released? I don’t think anyone knows at this point. It’s clear to all that Trump could in fact have him released (or at least have his body returned if he has been killed) so what happens if Trump says that he tried and El Salvador said no? Will the judge accept Trump’s transparent lie, or will he risk creating a Constitutional crisis that Trump would probably win?

I’m not optimistic. I don’t think the American system of government is capable of handling the executive branch along with a majority of the legislative branch acting in bad faith with the support of a large part of the public.

Newsom is directing his state to pursue “strategic” relationships with countries announcing retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., urging them to exclude California-made products from those taxes.

It sounds like he wants foreign countries to do California a favor without getting anything in exchange (and even that might be unconstitutional). Or is there something that he has the authority to offer in exchange which I’m missing?

Note that the argument about whether or not he is a gang member is beside the point. The White House concedes that he should not have been taken to El Salvador even if he is a gang member, but denies that the court has the authority to order the White House to make even the smallest attempt to bring him back.

The White House is saying that if they grab you and take you to a foreign country where you are imprisoned, that’s it. The courts can’t do anything. It won’t matter if you’re a law-abiding citizen or if taking you out of the USA was unambiguously against the law. Only the executive branch, the people responsible for your predicament, get to choose if and when they do anything at all to secure your freedom.

Read the document they submitted to the court.

I don’t see how that’s related to excluding particular countries.

Edit: What I mean is that I don’t understand how you conclude

So if you aren’t exporting/importing from those countries they wouldn’t be included. It doesn’t even matter if there was a trade surplus.

based on the formula.

I get that eggs are in a lot of recipes, but people’s obsession with them is still surprising to me. There are so many other foods to choose from.

Wouldn’t kids prefer to find something they actually want, rather than an egg (or especially a potato)? I know the fertility symbolism but I’d still rather look for candy bars.

Cuba, Belarus and North Korea were also not included

At least they’re being consistent. If Biden had excluded Russia along with those countries from some global economic policy, I wouldn’t be suspicious.

Have you actually looked at it? The sort of index fund that people put their retirement money in (if they invest in stocks rather than bonds) has doubled its value in the last 7 years. Quadrupled in the last 13.

That’s not how it works. Stock prices don’t fall below the level that rich people are willing to buy them at, specifically because rich people buy them at that level.

On the one hand, murder for the purpose of terrorism is more serious than ordinary murder, but on the other hand I think they might be overreaching given that people on the jury are more likely to be sympathetic to the defendant than they would be to an ordinary murderer. I suspect the feds are more interested in making a strong impression now than they are in the ultimate outcome of a case that will go on for years.

Earlier this month a court ordered a halt to deportations carried out under the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law previously used only in wartime. However, US media, citing administration sources, reported that the recent deportations were made under general immigration laws.

That’s all that the article says. We’ll see how the judge responds…

I’m spiteful enough that I would have returned my new laptop (despite needing it for a trip in a couple of days) if I hadn’t been able to bypass the account requirement by disabling the wifi.

What still pissed me off is that it would restart itself after downloading updates if it was left idle, and there was no straightforward option to turn that off. (I think I managed to break that “feature” but who knows how long that will work.) Turning my computer off is never acceptable unless I initiate it. It’s about as obviously wrong as walking into my house uninvited or borrowing my stuff without asking me.