Also, 2A rights are still largely intact? Some states can screw with you a bit or place some minor restrictions on firearms, but none have been able to ban them outright.
A definition of the Second Amendment that only limits complete bans on all firearms (and presumably only when completely banning them for all or almost all people; unless The_Nybblr's problems are enough to have you eat crow), is itself accepting a progressive frame that boils the Second Amendment down to nearly nothing.
Literally today, SCOTUS denied cert on a case prohibiting gun shows on all state land, while allowing virtually every other lawful commercial transaction. Many circuits have routinely declared that wide classes of guns, or many components of every gun, are not 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment. Dexter Taylor is still in prison, after having faced a judge who literally said "Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York". I can't tell you what the 2024 or 2023 numbers are for NYC carry permits -- the central matter in Bruen -- because the NYPD simply will "not provide the number of applications pending or licenses issued" without a lawsuit. But the last lawsuit found they were issuing fewer licenses than before Bruen. States were allowed to hold laws requiring new firearms possess technology that did not exist and might not even be possible; to ban guns that people had owned for years or decades with no compensation.
I've made this argument for literally years, and in many ways it is getting worse, not better, with SCOTUS willing to punt even on outright defiance of its decisions. If you're going to bring, as you're opening gambit, that your side has not completely destroyed the thing, and this should be considered "largely intact", you're exactly the sort of trust issue that makes it impossible to believe you're arguing in good faith.
gattsuru
1d ago
Did the bill you highlight as The Best Option In Decades involve anything that would have done so? Or did it demand every case get sent to the DC Circuit, which has both a long history of limiting immigration enforcement and unusually strict standing analysis and limits on what judges could be appointed that favor progressives?
But after even that, would it matter if they did? From the opinion I linked above:
But once it is posited that a plaintiff has personally suffered a “de facto” injury, i.e., an injury in fact, it is hard to see why the presence or absence of a statute authorizing suit has a bearing on the question whether the court has Article III jurisdiction as opposed to the question whether the plaintiff has a cause of action. In the end, however, none of this may matter because the majority suggests that such a statute might be unconstitutional. Ante, at 10, and n. 4.
Oh, well, that's just Alito's summary, surely he must be exaggerating th-
For an arrest mandate to be enforceable in federal court, we would need at least a “stronger indication” from Congress that judicial review of enforcement discretion is appropriate—for example, specific authorization for particular plaintiffs to sue and for federal courts to order more arrests or prosecutions by the Executive. Castle Rock, 545 U. S., at 761. We do not take a position on whether such a statute would suffice for Article III purposes; our only point is that no such statute is present in this case.4
4 As the Solicitor General noted, those kinds of statutes, by infringing on the Executive’s enforcement discretion, could also raise Article II issues. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 24–25
This already was a "shall" law. Indeed, the oral argument (and that Solicitor General question on constitutionality!) was driven by the extent that "shall" had already been sprinkled throughout the relatively recent additions to immigration laws, driven by long periods of neglect by Democratic administrations!
What possible reason could or should anyone expect new versions to behave any differently, or actually apply longer than needed for additional epicycles to develop? How green would someone need be to think it'd just be This One Statutory Construction Gimmick that would make it matter here?
gattsuru
2d ago
I know it's a big enough distinction in Minecraft that there's been a few modded implementations -- even as early in 1.7.10 there were a number of times where the 'best' armor in a modpack was famously ugly or out-of-theme. Nothing in vanilla yet, but the recent emphasis on armor trims might make it have more sense.
Starbound and Terraria implement it.
I think the Horizon X West series has it.
gattsuru
4d ago
There's also a problem where even when these compromises are written into law, that doesn't hold them very long, sometimes even without a new law. The expansion of LawDog's cake metaphor to all of public policy is going to come at some pretty ugly costs, sooner or later.
gattsuru
4d ago
Yeah, I'll second OSHPark. They're a little slower than the standard Chinese options like JLC, but the price premium isn't very severe and they've generally been great from a support and quality perspective.
gattsuru
4d ago
Are you willing to put a bet with cash to a charity of your choice on disparate impact? Because that's not one of the ones I'm certain is going to get TRO'd and reversed the second a Dem President is in office, but I'd probably put north of 70% on the former and north of 90% on the latter.
After the past head of Catholic Charities shoes him out the back door?
Again, doesn’t pass the sniff test.
EDIT: to be more clear: Dugan had the choice of maybe 50 days in jail, or getting deported, and took this action, which made either less likely. Literally while the victim was waiting in her court.
gattsuru
4d ago
Given how often domestic violence charges result in a metaphorical slap on the wrist, I don't think this really passes the sniff test. Theoretically, these charges could hit a little over two years imprisonment, but in practice the Milwaukee system gives 'nonviolent' domestic abusers (a category that looks to include these charges, because why would words mean things?) a median sentence of 50 days, and a third of those sentenced walk.
So I'm pretty skeptical at the first glance.
At a deeper level, I would be absolutely fascinated by a principle where state judges are allowed to determine what actions of federal law Act In The Interest Of Justice, but I think that's pretty settled.
gattsuru
5d ago
Do some napkin math for power consumption, weight (esp of wiring), and waste heat (est ~60% of LED power will eventually go into whatever surface they're mounted to as heat). It's easy to think of these things as rounding errors, individually, but they do add up, and it's easy for your eyes to get bigger than your stomach when it comes to them. LiPos let you get away with a lot of goofy things from a power consumption perspective, but they're not free.
gattsuru
6d ago
Oilfield specifically, no, Oncale's just the best-documented example of what people are worried about. There's some practical and procedural reasons trans women (or men, for that matter) are unlikely to work on oilfield or remote drilling platforms, and from a quick google search I haven't seen any examples.
Aviation, fire rescue, emergency medical services or elder care services? The exact dividing lines for examples gets complicated, especially since people have often wildly varying bars for passing (and for firefighters specially you're a lot more likely to see ftm, where 'post-op' is a lot more varied and... probably not something most straight guys are going to find more awkward), but people either transitioning while in the field or right before joining it aren't that unheard of.
Fortunately for society, but unfortunately for discussion on this matter, a lot contention gets solved through relatively low profile compromise, partly because people can be reasonable and partly because of the big exception in the ADA. So lawsuits tend to involve people either are very litigious who run into assholes (and note there the actual lawsuit targeted Cabela's, not the battery company where the shower situation actually would have mattered had Blatt stayed).
gattsuru
6d ago
To be fair, Anthony is fundraising on GiveSendGo, the same place Rittenhouse eventually got shoved to. To be less naive, I'll notice that GiveSendGo has not lost credit card processors for it (nor for the Luigi fandom), nor has a Harvard-backed organization hacked into GSG and doxxed contributors such that any have been fired.
gattsuru
8d ago
Depends on whether brightness or fine detail are more important. I'd probably go with the fine detail option, with what you're saying.
Regardless of what you buy, most are going to be somewhere around 2-5 lumen/LED. You don't have to beat the sun to be visible, but as a comparison most floodlights run around 1200 lumens, and automotive turn signals around 500-900 lumens.
None of them will be visibly bright under full sunlight (compare automotive high-beams at 3200 lumens), and I don't think it'd be practical for any clothing you'd want to wear. I'd expect a good quality thin diffuser will at least change color or perceived shade under a 144LED/m WS2815 setup (napkin math says ~500 lumen/meter post-diffuser) under normal outdoor conditions, but it will be subtle regardless of what LED strip you go with. And if you're wanting that sort of sophisticated animation, being able to control individual squares rather than long strips seems likely to be a bigger benefit compared to just adding additional parallel strips.
(imo, even 'normal' LED strips you won't want full brightness at night.)
There are premanufactured flexible 'sheets' of WS2815s that may be easier to work with for something like a vest, if they have enough density and brightness for your task.
gattsuru
8d ago
NeoPixels (WS28xx), DotStar (APA102/SK6812/SK9822), and most circuit-on-board designs do their own current control for each (zone of) LED -- the only real challenges for implementation are making sure you don't have too much voltage drop (because current control can't adjust for input voltage below the forward voltage drop), and if so just running additional power connections to the middle of the strip. They're not great for room lighting because of the color quality, though, even the RGBW variants, and diffusers only help so much. They're designed for constant voltage drivers; using a constant current power supply can cause problems ranging from comm issues to drastically reduced lifespan.
Cheap RGB lighting strips will almost universally do the series+resistor thing, as will even some decent single-color room lighting. Constant-current drivers and LED strips built for them exist, but you're usually stuck with very specific lengths of LED strip as a result; unless you really need the extra brightness uniformity, I dunno that I can really recommend any.
If you're trying to work with battery voltage to a non-current-controlled output, I really recommend a buck-boost-buck voltage stabilizer. You can get 12v ones for small or mid-sized applications that will handle the full voltage range you want to run a lead-acid battery down to, and are good on output within about 5%. Only downside is that they don't like starting in <-10F cold temperatures.
There's a lot of good information on the WLED discussion boards (and, unfortunately, Discord). If you want to skip the programming side, WLED as a program is also pretty strong, if not necessarily well-documented.
Most of the NeoPixel/DotStar (or simple one-channel RGB 'mood lighting') strips intended for direct Arduino use will cap out around 60 mA per LED, simply because that's the cheapest and easiest configuration for the chips. Adafruit has some ultrabrights, but they're a nightmare of a form factor and probably too bright for what you're doing, even in the day. If you're willing to print out your own circuit boards, getting big LEDs onto a WS2814 chip is an option, but soldering the big heatsinks those LEDs come with onto a flexpcb is not an easy task, even with specialized tools.
Unless you're willing to deal with individual heatsinks on the ribbon, the easy tradeoff is just going with more LEDs in a smaller form factor. You can get individually-addressable ones up to 120LED/m this will have almost four times the brightness of a 30LED/m cheapo strip, along with better resolution. The WS2814s or APA102s are usually going to be the brightest in a given form factor. Going to higher voltages won't get you that much extra brightness, but it will have an impact and drastically simplify the wiring for even moderately-sized runs due to voltage drop issues, so 24v is probably the easiest to do with a 'normal' setup. This does significantly complicate the driver board, though.
Circuit-on-board options would be even brighter, but they're generally not going to have as high a resolution, and a lot of COB boards can only address 'zones' of multiple LEDs (sometimes over an inch per zone, which is how these COB strips advertise such high LED/m values). That said, do look closely at any purchase option; even 'standard' neopixel strips on are often zone-based (cfe here at 120LED/m and 20 zones/m, or here at 896 LED/m and only 16 zone/m). Low zone density will usually result in lower brightness when compared to a (admittedly often theoretical) strip of the same LED density.
Depending on the complexity of your intended LED patterns, this may or may not be an acceptable tradeoff.
WS2815s are always going to avoid zones and can be found in much higher density, but they're individually much less bright (at the benefit of being much more power-efficient) and only go up to 12v, along with having higher passive power draw. If you need a lot of detail and don't want to have to fuck with 24v power, the 300+LED/m strips might be worth looking at. I'd still recommend grabbing a sample unit and making sure it's bright enough.
gattsuru
8d ago
It's a technically fantastic film, and I was impressed the one time I watched it. But I don't want to watch it again.
It's a great film, and I can understand why it might rank among people's favorites. It's just (intentionally!) not an enjoyable film. If it's something someone should watch, it's better that they find it on their own.
gattsuru
9d ago
At least in my shop, the workflow has been to generate a spreadsheet with alphabetized dependencies, marked by version and environment, across all projects, and leads review them once a month. Yes, for internal development this is all stuff that's getting looked over anyway during normal PRs, but a second set of review's not always a bad thing. For external tools, or dependency-of-dependency issues, or where an old library is getting increasingly out-of-date, it can be a first impression matter, and that has highlighted some concerns or vulnerabilities that weren't visible without delving deep into log files.
((That said, b/c we have some python situations, it's also had 'semver, damn near killed him' sorta problems where a 'bugfix' update also broke everything subtly. And a larger number of cases where 'this second library looks like a typo of the first library' that was just QT being QT.))
I've been trying to figure out a way to automate date-of-update fields for at least some of those dependencies, but it's ... been kinda a pain in the ass. I dunno if commercial SBOM tools do that. Most of the ones I've looked at only advertise highlighting 'known risk' versions and 'known good' ones, which I'm less a fan of. It's not fun and it's not hugely effective even at small scales -- I can't really do much more than google a lot of dependencies for server tools, since we're a pretty small shop and that's far out of my field of experience -- but it's not just box-checking either.
gattsuru
10d ago
Federal law generally prohibits the purchase of firearms from (a resident of) a state other than the state of residence. While there are some states with 'neighbor' carveouts, but to quote the ATF's website:
New Jersey's state law closes off that exception as a category:
Yes, Nybbler could theoretically leave the entire state and establish residency elsewhere. I'm skeptical this is the sort of requirement we'd accept for any other right.
And while it is possible he misspoke, there is no magical way I can know this.
That's fair had he mispoke, but you could also try to do a Google.
gattsuru
11d ago
New Jersey's "shall issue" purchase permit requires anyone who wants to buy a gun to submit the names of two adults, who have known the applicant for three years, and will vouch for that person. While the statute itself only requires those adults to be unrelated for carry permits and does not require those adults to be NJ residents, many jurisdictions will reject purchase permit requests not matching these 'rules' (sometimes as explicit policy). This is not a trivial ask for a large portion of people working in New Jersey, given that the state has gone out of its way to smother gun culture and slaughter the hostages; if you don't work in police or military sectors, you may not have any gun-friendly people among your coworkers or neighbors.
If you've ever seen a mental health professional, you're required to provide their contact information. Don't know it, or a shrink you saw twenty years ago happen to be antigun? Gfl. This includes not just involuntary commitment -- the recent A4769 explicitly prohibits purchase permits for anyone who's ever had a "voluntary commitment", and the permit form itself now asks if applicants have ever "attended, treated or observed by any doctor or psychiatrist or at any hospital or mental institution".
In all cases, failure to provide accurate information has been used to reject later applications with correct info, even where a genuine mistake occurred. There's a still-used "To any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare because the person is found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm" prong that many jurisdictions have been throwing for pretty much whatever reason they want.
All of these things are readily discoverable through a quick google search. And The_Nybbler has mentioned most of them here, in ways that can be discovered by doing an author:the_nybbler "new jersey" search. Instead, you've thrown allegations of a felony or domestic violence condition, and pointed to a survey run by an explicitly antigun policy outfit, which gets numbers that are wildly out of line with every other analysis and the state's own estimates.
Similarly, New Jersey's response to Breun's explicit text that :
But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. See Part III–B, infra. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.
hasn't been quite as bad a tantrum as Hawaii declaring multiple islands a sensitive place, but it's pretty close.
There are a few challenges to these laws pending, but they have threefold problems:
- It takes the better part of a decade and hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring a lawsuit with even a chance of success, in the ideal situations. There's places doing it, like ANJRPC, but there aren't many, they can't fund every case, and for a variety of reasons they have to very selective about what cases they do bring.
- SCOTUS has been overwhelmingly willing to let these cases percolate, even where defiance of the upper court ruling is pretty explicit.
- It's very easy to moot specific as-applied challenges, without making large-scale changes to the law or its application. That's especially true for carry permits, but courts have bucked normal proceedural rules to find cases with even live monetary damages moot.
And that's ignoring the 'special cases' bullshit, like Koons taking seventeen months (and counting) from oral args before a decision was released, or Bianchi having a judge sit on a dissent long enough to have a separate case she was also sitting on conflict with it to block the majority of judges from publishing an opinion.
gattsuru
11d ago
XPlane or Prepar3d are better as instrument trainers, but you can still get MSFS to the point where it can be blessed for BATD purposes (effectively, can clock a limited number of hours on it as a pilot). The biggest worry I'd have is that they are still buttons; even high-end yokes tend to be horribly unrealistic when it comes to physical feel, and many parts don't really have good physical equivalents even if you're willing to pay an arm, leg, and first-born child.
In normal conditions a pilot only really has to manage the aircraft in the sense of a checklist, where there's literally very exact steps involved for procedure at every point in the process, but high crosswinds, bad visibility, (very) low fuel levels, equipment failures/non-ops on aircraft or ground, or particularly annoying airports can make that less true. In those situations, being able to identify the feel of different types of whole-aircraft movement go, or knowing how to count off time properly in your head under stress, or how to handle procedures that aren't covered in flight simulator work could be more relevant.
Critical voices certainly did exist, but they didn't get much national spotlight.
It is kinda interesting that the two examples you brought up don't actually mention the conditions that brought serious controversy (eg Kelsey's family separation, 'kids in cages' conditions) during the Obama presidency. Instead, the objection is just that he wasn't maximally dgaf about illegal immigration, or to an extent wasn't able to be maximally dgaf because of legal restriction.
On this, I can confidently say there were, in fact, people on the left who noticed the lack of improvements under Biden- indeed, I was one of them.
A claim presented without evidence can be dismissed... well, I'm not going to say as readily, because I'd like higher standards of discourse, here, but I'll again point to all the people who didn't complain even as things got -- often dramatically! -- worse have names or at least nom de plumes present before this week.
Unfortunately, since the Biden administration spent most of its existence being attacked relentlessly from the right (and towards the end, even from the center and even from some leftists!) about the perceived border crisis, and calls for harsher crackdowns on immigrants polled pretty well, it was, unfortunately, a pretty foregone conclusion that the Biden administration wasn't going to try and improve those conditions...
'It wouldn't have worked' is not a good argument, any more than it would have been a reasonable cause for me to duck out here.
I very much do not grant this! ... Especially since, frankly, conservative anti-lockdown hysterics at least as good as they got, if not more. Certainly, where I live, "lockdown measures" were a total joke due to Republican-lead efforts to fight the lockdowns.
I was (and to a lesser extent remain) a COVID hawk, if a bit more libertarian-minded a one ('changing hearts and minds' rather than arresting people has a lot to commend it!). Whether COVID measures were or were not 'right' is an entirely different question than what you're running into here.
If we're supposed to care about process, it matter if the Biden administration paid attention to the process. It matters if the Biden admin told the Supreme Court, while trying to maintain a stay of a lower court decision holding a policy unlawful, said that they wouldn't extend the policy, and then just remade the same one with the serial numbers filed off. Left-leaning people here actually believed it (or at least pretended). It matters if Newsom gets to cancel Easter one year, get slapped down by SCOTUS for putting much heavier restrictions on religious organizations than bike shops, does the exact same thing a second year, gets slapped down a second time, and instead comes back with the same policy with the serial numbers filed off. In many other cases, state or federal regulations were pushed at length and then gamed through mootness so that they could not be challenged at all, either by revising the policy trivially faster than courts could react, or requiring behaviors in time periods that made judicial redreasability impossible.
Yeah, it'd suck if sometimes process leads to less-than-perfectly-ideal results! But that's what principles are; if they never cost you anything, they're just convenient slogans. Not least of all because no small number of your political opponents have different ideas of what those ideal results are!
It's not like COVID is alone, here; if you really want to draw some one-off exception to just that, I can give similar lists for (and, indeed, the "just arrest everyone" example above is unrelated to COVID!). The Saga of Defense Distributed likewise turns on 'oh, this settlement the federal government signed? Doesn't count, now'.
gattsuru
13d ago
The sort of situation the underlies Oncale-style scenarios -- long on-site deployments in grungy conditions with little or restricted access to non-company facilities -- is rare, but does still exist. Some of those fields are historically male-dominated, like oil field work in Oncale's case, but whether that's -dominated in the sense of near-zero remainder or just a lean varies. Restroom access tends to be far more common and serious a problem (and there's reasons for Ally's Law, for a non-trans context), though.
Yes, it's possible to leave your job (and sometimes career), or to some limited extent just suffer through it (the trans woman coworker I've mentioned before did Have To Negotiate re: restrooms, but just ducked the hotel room and shower questions, sometimes at pretty significant costs), but that's 'voluntary organization' in only slightly more of a sense than public schools are 'voluntary' where home-schooling or moving is an option.
Moreover, the line between public-commanded and voluntary private organizations gets fuzzy, in the modern day. The government does, actually, put rules about the spacing of toilets and showers in your private member-only org. At best, this turns into a trans-equivalent of what the New York vampire rule was trying to do to gunnies; it might be theoretically possible to comply with the law and carry a firearm/use a gym shower as a post-op trans person matching your presentation, but in practice actually doing so, and even a business trying to work with you might not be capable of actually doing so in a way you could trust. More often, it invites restrictions on those private orgs that don't cooperate.
There's a fair criticism that the trans movement is a good part of why that's the case. I agree this would be a more compelling argument had activists spent the last ten years trying to win hearts and minds, rather than argue for Bostock maximalism-and-then-some or obfuscate even the most egregious abuses of their proposed alternative policies when the shave-my-balls guy starts trolling random beauty salons.
((Though in turn, there's a counterargument that this policies impact otherwise normal people, not just activists, and for every Andrea James there's a few dozen non-trans trans activists that are aggressive nutjobs.))
But regardless, it's worth keeping clear eyes on what the ramifications of a policy actually involve.
gattsuru
14d ago
What's the terrain and the path look like? If it's paved or nearly-flat hard clay, you can get away with pretty cheap caster wheel like those used for tool carts, which have the advantages of being trivial to install and swiveling. If it's muddy or sufficiently uneven, then you're going to want hefty pneumatic wheels -- either wheelbarrow, or hand cart -- though I'll caution that they're a lot more sensitive to alignment. If it's gravelly or sandy or if this isn't going to get used often, they do make 6+ inch hard rubber tires that aren't fun to work with, but are a lot more resistant to sliding due to underinflation, or to being punctured.
gattsuru
14d ago
The trouble with this claim...
((well, the broader trouble. Specifically for Abrego Garcia, the man had a 2019 hearing at which he had an opportunity to demonstrate that he was a US citizen or lawful resident; this specific case clearly can't happen to citizens.))
... is that there's a surfeit of lurkers with absolutely no history on the topic always pouring out of the walls, and a deficit of actual principled people. The punchline to this post is that Kelsey Piper suddenly became quite outspoken on immigration policy literally the day of the inauguration, after literally years of ducking it as someone else's field.
I can make the argument that playing stupid games with legal technicalities is bad because I've done so for years, and I've called balls and strikes whether on 'my' team or against it. It's important enough that even as I don't have much time to do online stuff in general right now, I'm writing this, here.
Do you? Fine, you're a brand new poster, you're probably not going to write a ton of top-level posts given this. Do you have any examples of Democratic-friendly figureheads writers who actually were horrified, during the actual Obama presidency, about those terrible conditions? Anyone who looked into the conditions encouraged by Biden-era rules and noticed what the results were, on your side?
Okay, immigration is not a field everyone spends all way writing about. Do you have any examples of any Principled Worried Person who panicked that COVID gamesmanship about religious services or with visas would Possibly Hurt People Who Count? That a state governor said "just arrest everyone"? Anything?
There's a fun philosophical distinction between whether someone 'really' does something because of their internal state, or because of what they do. I don't particularly care. If I can't tell the difference from outside between Kelsey and The People Who Really Care, it's not something that can change how I have to model your behavior, if Really Caring doesn't modify your behavior.
From your own link of the full text of the bill, the one that's in your write-up from the last time you tried this:
This actually shows up three times, once in SEC. 235B. PROVISIONAL NONCUSTODIAL REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS., and a second time in SEC. 240D. PROTECTION MERITS REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS, and a third time in ‘SEC. 244B. BORDER EMERGENCY AUTHORITY. It's the only times 'original jurisdiction' shows up in the entire bill!
Someone told you this, a year ago. In the thread you're linking to, now!
You never argued that, either; you just asserted it, and then shrugged when people repeatedly pointed that there was no reason to suspect any such improvement, and many reasons to suspect that it would make things worse. Your post last year was nearly eleven months after US v. Texas's opinion had dropped, and yet here today you still repeatedly pointed to "shall" terminology that US v. Texas held does not and likely can not ever be legally binding.
Yes, yes, I can read. I can also read the multitude of examples in the dissents and concurrence for Texas highlighting both how capricious the application of this novel standard was, and the opinion's unwillingness to commit to any statutory language being able, either as a matter of constitutionality or practice, of having done so in the immigration context.
Oh, boy, I'm sure these are accurate and complete summaries of the cases at hand. Let me get a big drink of water and --
That is, Nielsen revolved around the question of whether a statute commanding that the government "shall take" custody of this class of criminal aliens only applied if those criminal aliens were detained immediately after release from jail. It had nothing to do with a requirement for the government to take custody of those criminal aliens and not doing so.
That is, Guzman-Chavez revolved around whether the government was allowed to do something that statute mandated that it "shall" do, not whether the government must actually do so.
So, now you've proven zero out of three attempts to show "shall" as enforceable in any approach at an immigration detainment or deportation context, despite the very laws in question being driven by long periods of administrative neglect of the law. Do you care to try a fourth time? Do you think it's a coincidence that you keep conveniently making this class of mistake? Do you think anyone reading you could possibly miss it?
More options
Context Copy link