anon_
20hr ago
The question is how do we get there from where we are. Congress is supposed to govern but is some combination of unwilling/unable to do so.
anon_
20hr ago
Eh, it's pretty simple. The 6 in the majority only really disagreed about whether the result is reached by MJD (R,G,B) or by regular statutory construction (S,K,J).
Gorsuch's concurrence doesn't add more except to call out both the dissenters and the liberal wing for their hypocrisy, and especially to roast Thomas.
Hardly incomprehensible, but I totally agree that there isn't now a clear marker of whether future arguments that hinge on MJD will stand or not.
anon_
23hr ago
I've made no secret of being a big fan of the Major Questions Doctrine, it seems like an important part of restoring the responsibility and authority of the legislature to legislate precisely and clearly.
Congress continues to be the most broken of the three branches, maybe the Court putting the Presidency back in the constitutional box will help things along.
anon_
2d ago
Aspirationally sure.
But even then, maybe they valorize the warrior types, the determinant of the overall mission success is their ethos as soldiers.
I guess i don’t object to the claim about what they want, i object to the implication it has on what makes a successful/lethal military.
anon_
3d ago
Okay, fine. When you think of the term 'warrior', one figure that comes to mind is the Samurai; landed lords, skilled in warfare, but also educated in politics as well as more intellectual pursuits. Knights, in the European tradition, were likely similar.
The issue is that a modal modern soldier is a bit more like a squire, or a wakashu/kosho in the Samurai tradition, than a person of eclectic skill. The most important thing for many is that they keep their equipment in running order, follow SOPs diligently and keep accurate records.
Of course, you have fighter pilots and SOF that exercise the kind of unstructured problem solving your referencing. But even that makes the point -- we need 25 aircraft squires support crew for each plane. And for them, it's more about being a virtuous mechanic than being a warrior.
Maybe one way to square the circle is that the goal of the organization and the virtues that make it possible are not always the same. The tip of the spear accomplishes the goal, but the determinants of success are in creating, fielding, maintaining and supplying it.
anon_
3d ago
They are both outrage-sampled. No videos that aren't good scroll bait material are passing through the filter.
And in any case you can make some inference about the underlying distribution. There are 20K ICE agents and 750K sworn law enforcement, about a 35x ratio. Even accounting for sampling bias, if you find comparable (even if more for LEOs) behavior at the margin, it's pretty damning.
anon_
3d ago
Yeah but there are far fewer ICE agents.
So if the outrage-sampled videos are about the same; it tells you something about the base prevalence.
anon_
4d ago
Suppose I have a colleague who has written a function, and I tell him that actually his function fails for x=-1/3. What he then does is to add the following:
This is an old criticism, older than me and I'm old as all hell. And indeed, it would make sense without realizing that training always has a constraint (implicit or explicit) on the size of the function, or in the case of LLMs, the number of parameters.
anon_
4d ago
I don’t believe the Trump admin could frame the shootings as a mistake. That would imply incompetence. That makes them look weak.
At least in private, I don't think even the most based Trump supporters will claim that the rank and file ICE are some fit and well-trained force with high tactical acumen. You can't hire and train that many people that quickly and expect to get great results. Indeed, they probably know this much more keenly than everyone else.
Of course, that's part of the whole game of chicken.
The entire school segregation move and the evil parents yelling back in the day may have fizzled out after a few viral videos of white kids getting their ass kicked by black kids during segregation.
Might have gone even harder if it was viral videos of white parents beating up a 15 year old black kid in a newly integrated school.
anon_
21d ago
This is totally retarded. The standard that best protects officers from being second guessed in the courts is the "moment of threat" rule (although it was dialed back a bit in Barnes) in which plaintiffs and courts cannot go back indefinitely into the encounter. That sort of thing is abused a lot in State civil courts that don't need to follow federal precedent -- for example in a civil suit in CA, you'll see arguments that officers precipitated the conditions for deadly force by standing in the way of a vehicle.
You really really don't want to open the door to evaluating these kinds of things based on what anyone did in the minutes up to the use of deadly force, let alone days before or just general "this guy is a thug" vibes. Even if it's true, it undermines the entire analytic structure and that structure is by far the most beneficial to law and order more generally.
anon_
21d ago
For those old enough to remember the abortion clinic protests of the 90s, it's not at all a new thing.
And Clinton definitely (and IMO rightly, no matter what you think about abortion, you don't get to shut down a clinic by personally obstructing it) did throw people in jail for similar acts in clinics.
anon_
23d ago
I feel like those are the least sympathetic such cases. People that were ordered removed by the Obama administration and just refused, well, even Obama was in favor of deporting them (and his clip of 3M over his 8 years is comparable enough to Trump's run rate of 500K a year).
The most sympathetic cases are something like "immigrant goes to ICE appointment, has existing status yanked and is arrested right on the spot".
Granted some large proportion of those existing legal statuses were Biden-era bullshit, I'm not defending that they were justified, but a lot of those folks did have a valid-on-paper withholding of removal. And while the left doesn't acknowledge it as legitimate, the same law that makes it possible for the Biden AG to grant WoR also justified the Trump AG revoking WoR on the spot. Still, it's bad look as compared to giving them notice that WoR is being revoked, a chance to try the process and appeal through the BIA and ultimate removal if they ignore their legal duty to leave.
anon_
23d ago
Politically moderate and factually moderate are different things.
And yes, of course the median voter has a veto, that’s representative government. The point was doing it without losing the median voter and without getting outsmarted by your opponents.
Of course a party or a politician can decide to just go balls out for a few years and get whalloped. But it won’t lead to a long term accomplishments.
anon_
24d ago
The vast majority of arrests and deportations around the country are conducted peacefully, with fewer officers, and without any bright lights or fanfare. ICE are moderate and reasonable in all places except where they face immoderate and unreasonable opposition.
That seems like a far more principled defense than actually justifying some of this stuff.
Instead you have Homan and Bovino talking out of their asses.
anon_
24d ago
The problem is that if you want to actually get through the ~8M folks that need to be deported at 500-700K a year, you need a durable political coalition that can actually keep it up for 10-12 years.
That won't happen if you piss off enough of the marginal bleeding hearts that there is no way to do it. A paroxysm of 4 years of Trump's ICE (which he's already pulled back on, less than 9 months out) won't actually accomplish your goal.
People seem to forget that outsmarting your opponents is an allowed move in politics. Try harder not to be outsmarted.
And we’re not going to give them all trials, they’re here illegally, deportation is their due process.
Actually I think the Right could lean in to due process as a meme here -- especially with regards to folks who have had asylum denied, had their chance to appeal to the BIA and already ignored a final order of removal.
And yes, for those folks, deportation is the right next step. For those at other stages, they deserve some notice and a solid (5 days? 10 days?) chance to self-deport.
anon_
24d ago
I want to present the claim that what ICE is doing in Minneapolis is inefficient at its stated goals, broadly unlawful/lawless, and disproportionate.
All of this is necessary because of Sanctuary Policies that the Police Don't Co-Operate with DHS, so ICE Must Go Looking For The Criminals. Why don't they hang out outside the county jail and question people on their immigration status there on their release? Why don't they hang out at the courthouse
Indeed, so one can believe the first statement (or at least for the purposes here, leave it aside), and believe that your (a) explains the game-theoretic place that got us here. Immigration enforcement could largely be carried out by local/state law enforcement, they don't need to do a whole lot beyond sharing fingerprints with DHS (an Obama initiative).
In this game, the next move will be for those jurisdictions not to arrest illegals (already the case in CA) and, when possible, to allow them to attend court via Zoom (already in MN/IL/NY). That's why "how did we get here" is important.
engaged citizenry that ten thousand people decided to go out in extremely cold temperatures and make their voices heard, peacefully.
So too did the thousands of people in Birmingham and Montgomery that went out to oppose desegregation. And insofar as they weren't obstructing kids from attending school, that's their prerogative, but it doesn't make them right. Indeed, the whole point of free expression is that they get to express themselves regardless of the correctness of their position.
And to the extent that "voices heard" is an organization intent on obstructing law enforcement or aiding & abetting criminals, then we should do what JFK did in the 60s: send in the 101^st airborne.
anon_
27d ago
It is not dereliction of duty. That is a military standard that applies to the military. And it would be impossible to prove he knew in advance that he would behave like a coward once he faced real danger.
Right, which is why we need deterrence of punishment after the fact.
A town can only afford to hire so many police officers (and firefighters), they should be assured that the ones they hire will do the job.
anon_
27d ago
at least three other officers had arrived seconds later and also failed to stop the gunman
We should try this for other crimes. Your honor, there were 3 other guys also (robbing the bank|rioting against ICE|storming the capitol)!
anon_
30d ago
Is this exculpatory evidence? I don't think so. If it were, then every criminal who starts running from the police "because they got scared" would then have, at the very least, a get-out-of-evading-arrest-free card to play at all times.
Not in the hindsight sense. The standard is whether a reasonable person observing what the officer did and within the time the officer had to evaluate would have perceived it as a threat. If that reasonable person would see that Good was trying to get away, then it wouldn't be legal to shoot her.
Non-compliance with law enforcement orders has to remain chargeable.
Chargeable, yes. Arrestable, absolutely. Deadly force, not without more.
anon_
1mo ago
Absolutely agreed.
But it is also lawful to protest a police action without obstructing it. I’m sure there are examples of protests in Minnesota that are & aren’t.
anon_
1mo ago
Seems like a strong case that this is part of a conspiracy and not protected (see 2(b) of the article) -- at least on that fact pattern.
Then again, if some kids in the hood do whistle whenever the cops pulled up and some other guy does buy them fast food, it's gonna be hard to actually make that case.
The other part wrestled with in the general case is when there is dual-use speech, which again, depends on the fact pattern.
anon_
1mo ago
OTOH blinking your brights to warn of an oncoming speed trap is.
So much here depends on the analogy chosen.
anon_
1mo ago
Obviously we need someone more upright and trustworthy. I thereby humbly accept this burden as my duty.
Well, at the least the official salary could be $1-2M.
As it is, senators make less on paper than some random car dealership owner or Silicon Valley engineers.
More options
Context Copy link