We respond…
Well… Karma, they say… is a wheel. No one need buy this “true but trash” attempt… to profit off of testimony he owed, gratis, by dint of his public service, to the House Committees he ducked, over a year ago.
Sorry, John — not sorry, Don.
More seriously, I link the full 570 page PDF solely… to allow one John Hinderaker to write his review of it — before next Tuesday’s “on-shelves” date.
You’re welcome, John.
Onward.
The whip-smart John Carroll wrote this afternoon (only partially humorously) that the “non-clinical, uncontrolled trial” — is now underway(!) in Tulsa. He also quite soberly said it would be completely… unethical, if ever proposed by the NIH or CDC… or any University-affiliated hospital.
But that doesn’t mean we should not learn from it. These poorly informed people have literally risked their lives, to sit for eight hours minimum, inside a forced air arena, with at least 10,000 of them, packed in — after we all have learned that at least six of Trump’s own team tested positive for COVID-19. How many more inside are positive, without symptoms? How many more will fall ill in the coming weeks?
During his lackluster rally, Trump openly bragged that he told administration officials to slow down the testing, so that the number of positives would not spike. That, is an on tape admission of… a form of biological warfare, against his own fellow Americans. [As was this “Klan-demic” of his — in Tulsa.] Later tonight, Paul M. lamented the small crowds, but then seemed more concerned about the PR damage a spike in COVID-19 cases — and deaths — would do to Trump’s 2020 chances, than the fact that Trump will have killed his supporters — and, for no discernible higher goal, or reason. Charming.
Sadly, in any event, John Carroll’s more serious message should be heeded. We should study this event, and the spike in Tulsa (should it appear in 14 to 21 days), so that future generations don’t make the same mistake Philadelphia made, in the Spanish Flu of 1918 (compare Seattle of 1919 to Philadelphia in this regard).
I am out of ideas. I suppose that I offer this laughing graphic, derived from a Twitter user, to keep from crying — as our fellow Americans, including the one at 1600 Pennsylvania… are simply too stupid for words. Out.
नमस्ते
And here I thought the “Klan-demic” in Tulsa would be the craziest story out of Trump-land this weekend…
Nope — not even close — and it isn’t even noon on Saturday!
Bill Barr lied about Mr. Berman resigning… Mr. Berman replied that since Manhattan’s federal District Court Judges had (per statute) confirmed him, after Trump refused to have him confirmed before the Senate (after then AG Sessions had placed him in the “acting” role — on Trump’s own say so)… he could only be removed for a very narrow set of “for cause” reasons — and only by those same Judges. Hilarious — these jokers never understood even the rudiments of the government that they were supposed to be… running.
UPDATE: Separately, as to Bolton’s largely true but grifting book, we read that the able USDC Judge Lamberth just ruled “…For reasons that hardly need to be stated, the Court will not order a nationwide seizure and destruction of a political memoir….” Yup. Busy Fathers’ Day weekend, indeed. [End, updated portion.]
In fairness, I think Trump himself may have the power to fire him, under Trump’s own personally signed order — but that is where pure obstruction, and a new impeachment would certainly lie. So, I think Jay Clayton decides to bow out, and go back to a white shoe Wall Street law practice — leaving these malevolent morons… looking for all the world. . . like the Gambino crime family (remedial edition). Delicious. Onward.
नमस्ते
…That the Eskimos and Aleutian peoples, over the last several centuries… mostly consumed Vanilla ice cream, on a small pine stick, dipped in Belgian chocolate, and sprinkled with crushed South American nuts.
That is about the limit of the seriousness with which I am willing to regard Mr. Hinderaker’s latest screed — and it perhaps ought to be regarded even less seriously by all higher functioning adults. John churlishly suggests native peoples’ actual history is in some way diminished, by no longer serving as a rather garish cartoon — to sell frozen dessert products their wise ancestors would never have eaten.
And hey John, I too, have edited and omitted an adjective — before my final noun there, but in the penultimate sentence.
Of course John blathers on about ice cream novelty boxes, because he cannot face the notion that Bill Barr just attempted and failed, in executing a mini-Friday night massacre, in the NYSD.
Let’s call that… Barr’s Half-Ass-acre.
Out. Cheers!
The central question is… which one(s)?
Trump’s tax returns, and financial statements?
A summary reversal (9-0) of the attempt to “restart” executions — under the federal death penalty scheme, by Barr’s DoJ?
Any one of a number of pending religious freedoms / right to safe, legal abortion cases?
A decision tossing the transparently stupid Texas attempt to (again!) invalidate the ACA of 2010?
Who knows? But if Trump starts tweeting “extra crazy“, on Sunday night (whether his Tulsa “Klandemic” rally happens, or not)… we would remind the readership that the White House will typically get Sunday night notice of all forthcoming SCOTUS opinions slated for Monday morning release.
So… if he’s foaming at the mouth — around midnight, on Sunday night, you may safely assume one of the topics he’s addled about… will be covered in one or more of the Supremes’ opinion(s), right here — on Monday morning. Onward. Should be… interesting.
And now, we quietly once again remember this day — the horrors inflicted, the sacrifices made by people completely innocent (to end it), the countless lives lost — the generations in bondage… the Texans who waited over two years to learn they were freed… all of which, in many ways, remains a stain on our nation… to this very day. [And yes, the lower left of my graphic is to remind that even now, work continues to free slaves — trafficked persons, around the globe.]
नमस्ते
And… largely (I think) because Mr. Hinderaker is no longer (apparently) mentally capable, of dissecting actual US legal developments (he’s been… 100 per cent mum, on all four blockbuster US Supreme Court decisions, this week — none of which really offered him any philosophical refuge)…
John returns (as I said he would, at the end of this post) to bashing efforts to modernize our language and nomenclature — to correct and largely excise the racist past history of how colonists uniformly mis-perceived, and thus mis-treated indigenous leaders they encountered.
As I predicted last night, John needs to join this battle — about what to call Native American leaders, because he knows the day is coming (perhaps as soon as later this summer, when the NFL presumably resumes playing actual football games)… when the Washington Redskins will face overwhelming pressure to change their team name and emblem.
John wastes inordinately vast amounts of time, and editorial pixels, on defending… things that don’t matter — like preserving racist high fructose corn syrup and fortified flour brands — and now, telling us that the application of thoughts of European royalty… actually were a valid lens through which to view the native peoples we stole this nation from.
Most glaringly, the notion of an “Indian princess” — as nothing like that term (drawn from European court life) actually existed, in that form, in Native life and local culture. And “Elder” was a better word than “Chief”. But it is (wildly inappropriately) important to John — to defend our cramped, racist prior views of a history we didn’t bother to actually understand — for a host of execrable reasons.
Onward… grinning at the doddering old fool he’s become….
So — the Supremes have not (yet) reached his financial records and tax returns… but as we’ve predicted for going on three years, Trump acted beyond his ken in trying to summarily end DACA.
Any Team Trump revamp of the withdrawal will have to come after November — so it will not come… at all. Note again that the Chief wrote the opinion. Saying a sitting President is acting in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner is. . . a very strong rebuke. Here’s the bit I most enjoyed:
…In short, the Attorney General neither addressed the forbearance policy at the heart of DACA nor compelled DHS to abandon that policy. Thus, removing benefits eligibility while continuing forbearance remained squarely within the discretion of Acting Secretary Duke, who was responsible for “[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.” 116 Stat. 2178, 6 U. S. C. §202(5). But Duke’s memo offers no reason for terminating forbearance. She instead treated the Attorney General’s conclusion regarding the illegality of benefits as sufficient to rescind both benefits and forbearance, without explanation.
That reasoning repeated the error we identified in one of our leading modern administrative law cases, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. There, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgated a requirement that motor vehicles produced after 1982 be equipped with one of two passive restraints: airbags or automatic seatbelts. 463 U. S., at 37–38, 46. Four years later, before the requirement went into effect, NHTSA concluded that automatic seatbelts, the restraint of choice for most manufacturers, would not provide effective protection. Based on that premise, NHTSA rescinded the passive restraint requirement in full. Id., at 38.
We concluded that the total rescission was arbitrary and capricious. As we explained, NHTSA’s justification supported only “disallow[ing] compliance by means of ” automatic seatbelts. Id., at 47. It did “not cast doubt” on the “efficacy of airbag technology” or upon “the need for a passive restraint standard.” Ibid. Given NHTSA’s prior judgment that “airbags are an effective and cost-beneficial lifesaving technology,” we held that “the mandatory passive restraint rule [could] not be abandoned without any consideration whatsoever of an airbags-only requirement.” Id., at 51.
While the factual setting is different here, the error is the same. Even if it is illegal for DHS to extend work authorization and other benefits to DACA recipients, that conclusion supported only “disallow[ing]” benefits. Id., at 47. It did “not cast doubt” on the legality of forbearance or upon DHS’s original reasons for extending forbearance to childhood arrivals. Ibid. Thus, given DHS’s earlier judgment that forbearance is “especially justified” for “productive young people” who were brought here as children and “know only this country as home,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 98a–99a, the DACA Memorandum could not be rescinded in full “without any consideration whatsoever” of a forbearance-only policy, State Farm, 463 U. S., at 51.
The Government acknowledges that “[d]eferred action coupled with the associated benefits are the two legs upon which the DACA policy stands.” Reply Brief 21. It insists, however, that “DHS was not required to consider whether DACA’s illegality could be addressed by separating” the two. Ibid. According to the Government, “It was not arbitrary and capricious for DHS to view deferred action and its collateral benefits as importantly linked.” Ibid. Perhaps. But that response misses the point. The fact that there may be a valid reason not to separate deferred action from benefits does not establish that DHS considered that option or that such consideration was unnecessary….
Grinning — again — ear to ear. There is increasingly an “island of the lost” isolation underway, as to the three reliable dissenters: Thomas, Kavanaugh and Alito — as the 19th Century “Know Nothings” wing — of the Supremes. Gorsuch joined in part, but only in part. And all nine agreed, in various parts, that Trump’s actions exceeded his authority.
That alone… is astonishing.
नमस्ते
Yep. John is old enough to remember. [Jemima’s cartoon face was “RE-imagined” by the company — in the early 1970s, to move away from the imagery I present from the historical record, all over this post.]
Hell, I’m old enough to remember — and I’m more than a decade his junior. [Click each to enlarge — especially the “Old Time Planation Flavor” one, below left.]
Quaker/Pepsi is finally retiring the Aunt Jemima brand, due to its slavery antecedents. Long overdue — but still good news. [Mr. Hinderaker whines that a more than century old brand is being rendered “invisible” — for “racial palaver”. Let’s then examine that claim: above right is the pre-1920 version. Not so sure that’s palaver, John-Boy. It is Certainly not the positive image/model you tell us Jemima was/is, for young black girls.]
For his part, John pretends this is somehow unfair — to an anonymous, fictionalized cartoon — of a smiling and “friendly” (his words) woman on the label.
He simply omits the history — seen at right — to reach his malevolently ignorant result.
But I’d all but guaranty one or more of these was in his home, growing up (either the box, or in a “Boys Life” magazine with one of these ads).
So again — Hinderaker… proves himself a racist — and this time, not even for some stupidly long lost… Confederate cause.
It’s all pretty sad, actually. Can anyone (with a working forebrain) possibly defend continuing this legacy of shamefully branded pancakes and high fructose corn syrup?
Fecklessly, Hinderaker just chose to… ignore the plainly well known public historical record. Not much of a defense, at all.
Of course — for John, this is a proxy battle he needs to join, as he knows the real battle is coming… when he’ll rise to defend the execrable NFL Washington team emblem… as being perfectly appropriate — or the MLB Cleveland one.
Disgusting.
Given that it has been a momentous week for landmark opinions from the Supremes… and given that we would normally expect new opinions — tomorrow at 9:30 AM EDT… permit me a decidedly wild speculation:
Might we see an opinion authored by the Chief, declaring that Trump’s financials are fair game, in evidence, for a Congressional investigation (as plainly contemplated by — among other statutes — 5 U.S.C. app. 4 § 101)?
Just thought I’d take a wild leap, here. [I realize this would be light-speed early, for a decision, of any kind.]
But, if Justice Gorsuch is (finally) willing to read the plain English — and logic — of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean what it says (i.e., make good on the promises embedded therein), then perhaps a 6-3 majority will also read plain English — and logic — into the post-Watergate-era Ethics in Government Act of 1978. We shall see…. smiling.
नमस्ते
It is eerily quiet over at the boys’ joint. No one (apparently) wants to tackle the idea that “on the basis of sex“… means what it says, in plain English. No matter — views like theirs are clearly dying off, with them. Note that Roberts made it a six to three majority, here. [Only Paul M. has even mentioned it, now a day later. Precious.] Onward — and… end update.
Very late in arriving, and the 137 page opinion (authored by Gorsuch) is breaking the internet at the moment. This will be is NOW a working link to it as soon as the tubes unclog, but only Alito, Cavanaugh and Thomas dissented.
This plainly invalidates Trump’s executive order of Friday, as unconstitutional, as to government/military employees.
…The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles out an employee to fire based in part on the employee’s sex, and the affected employee’s sex is a but-for cause of his discharge.
Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision….
Grinning, ear to ear.
नमस्ते
