We respond…
…But John applauds it, just the same.
This loser repeatedly pretended that private businesses — social media companies — doing what was best, in their view, to maximize revenue with their advertisers was government censorship. He did so for 6-1/2 Years. [What a douche.]
Now — faced with what he agrees is Trump’s actual government censorship (of the AP), he applauds it.
We always knew what he was. He’s just shown us — again, right here on Front Street, tonight.
He’s a… fascist.
Out.
This long running case, from Tangerine’s first stint on office — overruled his lawless border actions against children, among others… and had reached final verdicts, against Trump by early 2019. Those verdicts were appealed to the Ninth Circuit (by Trump 1.0). At the trial level, the court in Oakland continued to monitor and enforce the remedial measures [like granting blankets and soap and toothbrushes, as well as clean food and water, to children held (away from their parents!) in ICE / Border Patrol / HHS / DHS custody], all as the able USDC Judge Tigar had summarily ordered. [My backgrounder, here.]
After Tangerine 2.0’s inaugural, the political appointees in the office of the US Attorney ordered career federal government attorneys to file a brief in the Ninth Circuit, challenging (for the first time) the standing of the advocates for the asylum seekers, East Bay Sanctuary. The Ninth Circuit has asked the parties what should happen next — whether it should remand to Judge Tigar to look for the first time at the question of standing (after the Supremes decided FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine — the 2024 case that said fundamentalist x-tian doctors groups cannot prevent a whole state, or nation, full of doctors — from providing the abortion pill to people who use it to save their lives).
That “what’s next?” — from the two sides response was filed this past week. Here is what we’ve just read about it — and I think it is going back down to the trial court — since the Trumpians raised standing:
…[R]emand is also appropriate so that the district court can consider in the first instance the impact of the termination of the so-called “lawful pathways” on the Rule’s legality and rationality. The Rule is titled “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways” and is explicitly premised on the existence of what it calls “orderly options for migrants to lawfully enter the United States.” 88 Fed. Reg. 31314, 31317 (May 16, 2023). The most prominent of these “pathways” were the CBP One system for scheduling appointments at southern border ports of entry and country-specific parole programs for Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (“CHNV”) nationals. Id. The new [Tangerine 2.0] administration has now shut down these so-called “lawful pathways.” See Executive Order 14165 § 7(a)-(b), 90 Fed. Reg. 8467, 8468 (Jan. 20, 2025) (terminating the CBP One scheduling system and the CHNV parole programs)….
These developments go to the heart of whether the Rule is consistent with the asylum statute Congress enacted and whether the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. The stated rationale of the Rule is to incentivize asylum seekers to use the so-called “lawful pathways” by barring asylum to those who cross the southern border without CBP One appointments. See, e.g., Appellants’ Br. 1-2, 9-11, 37-38. And the existence of those “pathways” has been central to the [prior Biden Administration’s] government’s defense of the Rule in this litigation….
In Plaintiffs’ view, it is therefore appropriate for the parties to address how these developments impact the merits of this case. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 74, 77, 78, Las Am. Immigrant Advocacy Ctr. v. DHS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01702 (D.D.C.) (supplemental briefing concerning the impact of the termination of the CBP One system on the legality of a separate asylum restriction also premised on the existence of that system).
And the district court should consider the parties’ arguments on those issues in the first instance. See, e.g., Bafford v. Admin. Comm. of Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, 101 F.4th 641, 657 (9th Cir. 2024) (“As a general rule, a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.”) (cleaned up); NRDC, Inc. v. Winter, 513 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 2008)….
What a tangled ball of barbed wire Team Tangerine 2.0 makes of things — by not even considering what federal law requires — before he throws his spaghetti at the wall, to see what sticks. Ugh.
नमस्ते
As the below opinion and order makes clear (since it was handed down on a Saturday!) — the patience of the able USDC Judge Amir Ali in DC is wearing thin. Tangerine 2.0 lawyers keep re-raising matters already decided — as the law of the case. He is having none of it.
He denied a motion for reconsideration, and said again that the order he entered was clear: the AIDS charity funds must be reimbursed, and begin flowing again, immediately:
…To begin with, and as the Court has already reiterated once, “to the extent Defendants have continued the blanket suspension [of funds], they are ordered to immediately cease it and to take all necessary steps to honor the terms of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and other federal foreign assistance awards that were in existence as of January 19, 2025, including but not limited to disbursing all funds payable under those terms.” Glob. Health, ECF No. 28 at 5. That temporary emergency relief was to restore the status quo as it existed before Defendants’ blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated funds pending a comprehensive review, given Plaintiffs’ strong showing of irreparable harm and that Defendants’ blanket suspension of funds was likely arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See id. at 2; Glob. Health, ECF No. 21 at 5–13. Defendants’ instant motion does not contest or rebut Plaintiffs’ irreparable harm showing and does not contest or rebut the Court’s finding that the agency action here was arbitrary and capricious under the APA….
[To] date, [Team Tangerine 2.0] Defendants have not adduced any evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse aside from conclusory statements from a declarant who has “serious questions” about these topics. Glob. Health, ECF No. 25-1 at 2. Even in asserting the argument now, Defendants do not explain how it would bear on the reasons for granting the TRO, including Plaintiffs’ showing of irreparable harm and their likelihood of success in showing that the blanket suspension violated the APA….
Trump loses — as does Musk — at every turn, largely because they cannot comprehend (or more precisely, lack the patience) to go through the careful APA (statutorily) mandated processes, to change domestic spending priorities.
Or, they won’t even try to seek a new act of Congress to do it, either (as they know not even all GOP members would vote for such a measure). But that’s all good for those of us who still believe that America is wealthy enough to take care of all of our basic health care needs — regardless of ability to pay. What a strange, strange time — but do not let their chaos wear you down — or dissuade you from doing what is right. Onward.
Onward.
नमस्ते
That’s… rather impressive, in a perverse way, actually.
These North Korean state-affiliated actors are “worse” than old man Saddam. [He stole a billion in 2003 from Bank of Iraq — as the US closed in.]
Y I K E S.
But the fact that ByBit still (48 hours later!) can’t figure out how about $5.3 billion in value was stolen from it… is just silly. Per CoinDesk:
…The total assets tracked on wallets associated with the exchange plunged from around $16.9 billion to $11.2 billion at the time of writing, according to data from DeFiLlama. The exchange is now looking to understand exactly what happened…
“What happened…”?!?
It would be fair to surmise than over 90% of all crypto-affiliated tech folks… just pretend to understand the software they install.
OTOH, Real Banks all know how to lock the physical vault at night. [And we can all accept the small risk of a dynamite forced entry.]
These ones and zeroes pirates… clearly do not.
Stay away — or lose it all, eventually.
That’s the moral of this story.
[And to be clear — of course, the theft of forced labor, over centuries (from enslaved peoples, the world over), has wildly eclipsed them all — but as a single event, discrete in time, and organized by a small group of individuals… this may be the largest single heist in human history.]
Out.
No figures have been disclosed by either company, or the Young family estate and trust, or Purdue itself. That should be at least one good indication that this is largely a show pony. [And the appearance of Merck’s name here on the midwestern plains… likely flows from Merck’s current CEO’s (Mr. Davis’) time — nearly two decades ago, as a mid-level tax lawyer — at Lilly.]
To be sure, it is a very timely one (for appearances) — given that Tangerine 2.0 is at least blustering — that he may start removing tax breaks for US pharma concerns that do almost all their manufacturing outside the US. Obviously that is a patently stupid way to achieve a policy goal, but this initiative addresses the issue — since everything is appearance over substance, for him anyway. Here’s the university’s presser, and a bit:
…Purdue University, in collaboration with Eli Lilly and Company and Merck & Co. Inc., announced… the funding and launch of the Young Institute Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Consortium, a collaborative effort to pioneer advances in making medicines….
“We’re on the frontier of Pharma 4.0 — autonomous experimentation, advanced robotics, big data, smart factories, AI and machine learning,” said Karen Plaut, Purdue’s executive vice president for research. “Through this partnership, we will have a global impact in solving complex problems in the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical manufacturing ecosystem.”
The consortium will elevate and enhance pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical advanced manufacturing by developing disruptive innovative technologies, autonomous systems, and smart AI and digital technology, together with industrially relevant education and training for the next generation of scientific leaders and researchers. The collaboration also underscores a commitment to onshoring pharmaceutical manufacturing while bolstering domestic production….
Yes. Yes — of course. I’ve lived long enough (since 2016, anyway) to know that almost nothing Tangerine burps about — related to pharma… ever becomes binding law or even semi official regulatory policy. So we will just… nod and salute, smartly — as this particular parade rolls through town. It too — will pass. Onward.
नमस्ते
Rigby acerbically writes in comments overnight thus, after some “archive / dumpster diving” — clearly (and thanks, man — that is a “hold your nose” kinda’ job!):
…By the way, I wish somebody would ask John about this post from 2014.
It sure is rich reading in 2025. Very rich indeed….
That is spot on.
These days, Trump purports to eviscerate the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth, and Hinderaker sees it as well-within “the muscular power”- of the Executive.
Mr. Obama tried to make sure that spending on health care would reach Americans in the deepest need of it, as plainly authorized by the Congress under the ACA of 2010 (or Obamacare, if you prefer)… and Hinderaker said it was the “gravest possible abuse” of his office. [Genuine Questions Dept.: is it party affiliation, or skin color, driving this flip-flop — or… both? You, gentle reader — may decide.]
It is fascinating that Mr. Obama won the first time (2008) with a landslide, in the popular vote, unseen in three decades. While this time (depending on whose figures one accepts, Trump won by a razor thin margin on the popular vote — or didn’t win at all. And we know he lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020, according to John, himself). But Hinderaker sees Tangerine 2.0 as the purest embodiment of the democracy — but after 2012, once the GOP controlled Congress, Hinderaker barked on and on that we are a “republic” — and as such, we act only through our LEGISLATIVE representatives, not through the POTUS we elect. The POTUS he said then, was a mere care-taker of the laws the Congress had already passed. Fascinating, indeed.
And to be clear, Mr. Obama followed the process — complying with the APA at every step.
Trump? Not even a whiff of understanding that there are laws about administrative procedures, ones that must be completed, before taking away people’s benefits, or prior rights, at federal law. [And Trump is trying to abolish agencies created by Congress as independent of his branch (like the SEC, and Dept. of Education) — well beyond his reach. John thinks he can LAWFULLY do it — Putz.]
So yes — Rigby is right: Hinderaker is a malignant hypocrite. And probably worse — it likely had to do with the fact that Mr. Obama is his better (in every way — outscoring him soundly, while at Harvard Law), and is a man… of color.
Hilarious.
Ruling that a preliminary injunction was warranted here, the able USDC Judge Abelson, sitting in Baltimore, Maryland said at a minimum — Trump’s order attempts to infringe free speech, based on content — without imminent lawlessness afoot. People are allowed to advocate for, and openly discuss inclusion, without any order restricting it. On that grounds alone… the at right is and was a dead letter.
But he went on to hold much more: primarily that Trump’s Black Sharpie lacks the authority to do it, without the Congress. As is true of just about every one of them he’s signed so far. Here’s the full 63 page overnight opinion, and a bit from NPR, this morning:
…In addition to the mayor and the Baltimore City Council, the plaintiffs include the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which represents restaurant workers across the country.
Their attorneys claim the groups are already suffering the effects of the executive orders as Trump encroaches on the powers of Congress and seeks to suppress views he doesn’t agree with.
“But the President simply does not wield that power,” they wrote in the complaint. “And contrary to his suggestions otherwise, his power is not limitless….”
To be clear, this is a nationwide but temporary order — but the plaintiffs have made a compelling showing that Trump’s “theories” of the law surrounding executive orders (if they may even be called that) are… BUNK.
नमस्ते
So… Let me get this straight: Tangerine 2.0 needs his US Justice Department to send threatening letters — to members of Congress, who speak in strident terms about him.
These boys are… wussies, of the first order.
Trump did not just threaten violence — he created it, personally — on J6, leading to the injury of dozens of police officers, and the death of Ashlie Babbitt…
But when he said disparaging (and more than occasionally violent) things about HRC, and Joe Biden, and Barack Obama… no one sent him a sternly worded letter from the US Justice Department.
That is so, because any competent POTUS, or POTUS-candidate, knows that the Justice Department serves the public — not the preznut.
But this joker thinks he controls… everything.
He does not.
Rather than create some stilted paragraphs — from whole cloth here (on this five page opinion entered tonight by the Supremes), please just trust the expert analysis of one Amy Howe, at SCOTUS Blog (I always do):
…The Supreme Court on Friday left in place for now an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that instructed President Donald Trump to temporarily reinstate the head of an independent federal agency tasked with protecting whistleblowers from retaliation. The justices did not act on a request from the Trump administration to block the order by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, which had restored Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel for 14 days, beginning on Feb. 12. Instead, the justices explained in a brief order, they put the government’s request on hold until Jackson’s order expires on Feb. 26.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, dissented from the court’s decision not to act on the Trump administration’s request.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated, without explanation, that they would have denied the government’s request….
The explanation is that… temporary orders are not “final, appealable” orders. Res Ipsa Loquitur. Sheesh.
नमस्ते
We had warned you that he might look for a way to favor Tangerine 2.0 (even by manipulating the procedural rules) — and tonight, he did. Despite clear contrary black letter law, he has largely “invented” several factual disputes, which in his opinion require a full blown evidentiary hearing, and because he then resolved one factual dispute in favor of Trump [the claim that “some” (but by no means not many, even in Trump’s telling) USAID employees are “defying orders“], he says Trump may begin the “pencils down” pause (to enable an audit) while evidence is being collected. He punishes all — for the acts of a very few — if they even be that.
And all of this sort of misses the point: Trump has no authority to stop payments mandated by the US Congress. That comes from a statute. See, Marbury v. Madison.
Here’s Nichols’ order.
I think it is fatally flawed in its reasoning. But the evidence will eventually come in in favor of the USAID employees, and he will end up granting them back pay, front pay and reinstated positions — and filling in all these missing payments a month or two from now. This much is clear, this is not a real win for Tangerine — the plaintiffs will be able to show he acted lawlessly here.
Disappointing, but onward, resolutely — just the same.
नमस्ते
Powerline Lies... 