domain:shapesinthefog.substack.com
Hadad
21hr ago
This is not an argument against guns, it's an argument against freedom for crazy people. The right move is to kill or permanently house them away from the general population, because they're actively detrimental to polite society.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
21hr ago
+1
Sometimes I forget how bad some people are at basic reading comprehension.
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
21hr ago
I'm not defending it as an inalienable right.
We did seem to feel a little differently about it decades ago, though, when we had labor shortages, low public entitlements, and loved rubbing it in the faces of communists that people were desperate to leave their nations for ours.
Hadad
21hr ago
Seems a difficult needle to thread.
For them, perhaps, but not us. But it's not our responsibility to make things easy for them, especially when a significant number of us don't want them here in the first place.
We don't need a non-citizen underclass. We don't need them here at all. And if they insist, we should exploit them.
... depends a lot on your definition of 'national injunction' and 'gain value'.
This at Table A-2 provides the most expansive definition of both, in that they were injunctions applying beyond the bounds of a courts jurisdiction and applied for at least some time, though because it measures them by what President was in place when the injunction was applied, not what President's administration started the policy that was enjoined (eg, several 'Biden-era' cases revolve around preliminary injunctions about military prohibitions on HIV-positive membership or joining, Harrison and Wilkins). (Contrast Harvard's 14 injunctions under Biden). Smashing those two lists together and focusing on the Biden admin, I'd count :
- Texas v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 3d 627, Tipton's temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Biden's 100-day pause on immigration deportations. I don't think this ever got reviewed before it self-mooted, but I also don't think it actually stopped the admin from just doing it and saying it was enforcement discretion.
- Faust v. Vilsack, 519 F. Supp. 3d 470, Holman v. Vilsack, No. 21-1085-STA-JAY, and Wynn v. Vilsack, 545 F. Supp. 3d 1271, loan forgiveness for racial minority farmers. I think this one held for at least the original program until it was repealed. Biden did work around it by using other programs or having supposedly race-neutral programs that only racial minorities were informed about, though.
- Louisiana v. Biden, 543 F. Supp. 3d 388, ban on new oil drilling leases in public lands, preliminary injunction. Reversed on appeal to give more tailored restrictions, trial court drew it back to thirteen plaintiff states. Also an APA case. It's not clear if it actually worked; the EO in question didn't stop scheduled oil leases, but the plan for future auctions dropped dramatically.
- Texas v. United States, 549 F. Supp. 3d 572, DACA, preliminary injunction on new admissions to the program. APA case, overturned on appeal.
- Texas v. Biden, 554 F. Supp. 3d 818. Termination of Migration Protection Protocols (aka Remain in Mexico). Kinda an APA case? Overturned by SCOTUS and the Biden admin had just made a new memo terminating it anyway beforehand.
- Texas v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 3d 351. Whether "shall" requires the administration to do anything to criminal illegal aliens, preliminary injunction. This is the one I keep yelling at Ben_Garrison about, you know how it ended.
- Arizona v Biden, 40 F.4th 375, second verse, same as above except it was overturned at the circuit level.
- Georgia v. Biden, 574 F. Supp. 3d 1337, federal workers vaccine mandate on the contracting side, preliminary injunct. 11th Circuit scaled it back to just the plaintiff organizations, their members, and the seven plaintiff states.
- Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden, 581 F. Supp. 3d 826, federal workers vaccine mandate on the employee side, preliminary injunction. Long procedural history, think the injunction was in place when the policy was repealed, mooting the arg.
- Nebraska v. Biden, 52 F.4th 1044. HEROES Act loan forgivness, preliminary injunction by the appeals court. Upheld by SCOTUS.
- Braidwood Mgmt. Inc. v. Becerra, 666 F. Supp. 3d 613. Contraception, abortion, and PReP mandate for ACA insurance coverage, weird procedural history since it's mostly a process question with RFRA stapled on the side, hence why it came up literally yesterday. The RFRA side got an injunction that looks like still applies but isn't universal? And the universal injunction on Appointments/APA was squashed early on appeal down to just the plaintiffs, overturned by SCOTUS.
- Monticello Banking Co. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, No. 6:23-CV-00148-KKC and Tex. Bankers Ass'n v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, No. 7:23-CV-00144. Something about the CFPB being unconstitutional and injunctions against data collection rules. I'm not even sure if these count as real national injunctions rather than just applying to a large organization with a lot of members.
- Nuziard v. Minority Bus. Dev. Agency, 721 F. Supp. 3d 431. Another racially discriminatory aid program, preliminary injunction. I think they just made the discrimination a little more subtle, but technically the injunction applied to the end of the case and the plaintiffs got a result.
- Career Colls. & Sch. of Texas v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 98 F.4th 220. Higher Education Act loan forgiveness program. Preliminary injunction on appeal, under the APA. Currently at SCOTUS.
- Alaska v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., No. 24-1057-DDC-ADM, SAVE higher education loan forgiveness program. Preliminary injunction, under the APA. Stayed on appeal, though Nebraska effectively covered the same ground eventually.
- Missouri v. Biden, 738 F. Supp. 3d 1113, FEEL higher education loan income-based repayment program. Preliminary injunction, under the APA. I think upheld in 8th Circuit
- Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, No. 5:23-CV-0272-C. Something really technical about treating truckers like mechanics for 'locally prevailing wages and benefits' rules? Preliminary injunction under the APA, appeals are currently stayed.
- Tennessee v. Becerra, No. 1:24cv161-LG-BWR. Including gender identity to Title IX (and indirectly, the ACA). Preliminary injunction under the APA. Probably mooted by the election.
- Tex. Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, No. 4:24-CV-478. Corporate Transparency Act beneficial owner rule. Commerce clause challenge, the poor bastards. Stayed by SCOTUS, with Kavanaugh specifically writing this as an example of universal injunctions bad.
- EDIT: All. for Hippocratic Med., 668 F. Supp. 3d at 560. Abortion pill FDA approval under APA, technically a nation-wide stay, but had the effect of an injunction. Got smacked down by SCOTUS./EDIT
Honorable mentions:
- Price v. Barr, 514 F. Supp. 3d 171, permanent injunction against rule requiring permit to film in national parks, reversed on appeal. Not really a red-tribe-blue-tribe thing, at least directly; one of the few places I'd put myself and Merrick Garland on the same side.
- Arizona by and through Brnovich v. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 2022 WL 1276141. If you want to find anything on this, look for "Title 42 Immigration Case", or this clusterfuck. The preliminary injunction itself was against a Trump-era rule about immigration under COVID, but Biden hadn't officially stopped it, but Biden was defending or 'defending' it.
So there's a lot of cases, here. How you analyze them's going to depend on what you're looking for. Literally any case with an injunction broader than the plaintiffs that wasn't immediately stayed? I think you get somewhere around 15-17 cases, on about five major topics. Cases where this actually worked, if only until final review, cuts out at least five. In one sense it's damning that some of these injunctions got overturned by higher courts... but does that mean that the lower court got it wrong, the higher court got it wrong, or just that SCOTUS was trying to push the CASA button then?
Cases that would have changed if CASA was decided first? A lot of these are APA challenges that CASA specifically sets aside for future discussion, another handful were already being drilled down to their plaintiff states.
Cases that mattered? I dunno.
Throwaway05
21hr ago
I mean this is the point, their exists a class of people in society who are not safe to themselves or others due to a mental illness (this is different from the class of people who are this way due to personality structure, life experience, genetics, racism, whatever - we call these criminals).
For many mental illnesses denial of the mental illness, denial of symptoms, denial of need for medications - all these things are frequent parts of the pathology (sniff test to make it make sense: if you are delusional of course you are going to think you don't have delusions).
People who acknowledge they have problems end up with a voluntary admission not an involuntary one "man you nearly killed yourself dude, you think being in the hospital for a few days would be good for you?"
In any case you come in, take meds, stabilize, get discharged. Then you go home and forget to take your beds, have medical stuff that happens that makes the meds don't work, decide not to take them "because it went away" whatever. Then you get sick again and dangerous.
Rights restriction (such involuntary outpatient commitment, forced medications, jail time, indefinite hospital stays) is usually the way - harm reduction approaches such as banning firearm access are both cheaper and much less disruptive to the patient.
This is why I want Nybbler to come up with an alternative plan because realistically the problem is often "jail and no guns" or "no jail and no guns" (even if it is just fancy jail with extra steps).
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
21hr ago
Listening to Ms. Clark, Ms. Zito said, changed her life. She started a Bible study group, cut down her drinking and stopped dating casually as she focused on finding a husband. She stopped using birth control, taking up a natural family planning method recommended on Ms. Clark's show, and became dubious about abortions and vaccines. She no longer identifies as a feminist.
To Rightists with daughters reading this: are you concerned that they might encounter "natural family planning" on the internet and really f*** up their life?
It's fascinating to me how this line has been misinterpreted throughout this thread.
Ms. Zito started focusing on finding a husband, and at the same time swtiched to natural family planning. This pretty strongly implies, if not outright states, that Ms. Zito is still at least considering making love to somebody, despite the lack of a Mrs. in front of her name. Otherwise, after all, she wouldn't need any plan at all. If she's currently celibate, she didn't "take up" a natural family planning method! You don't need any birth control when you're celibate until marriage! You just...don't fuck, any time, until you get married!
Isn't this a great example of Jugaad Ethics from the Right? Taking the junker of Abstinence Only sexual ethics, and hitching it to the strong horse of woo-woo affirmation feminism? You don't have to not have sex that would be too difficult, just time your cum properly (in ways your male partner will be completely unable to track!) and you're trad enough!
The entire article feels that way. A pastiche of traditional femininity.
This feels much closer to Female Dating Strategy and online Gold Digging subcultures, than it does to any kind of ordered idea of patriarchy. We're getting this weird amalgamation of right wing and left wing ideas, of patriarchy and mid-century modern freedom of choice.
HereAndGone
21hr ago
Alexander Turok is the Hyacinth Bucket of TheMotte. His dream? To have room for a pony, someday. His greatest fear? To end up amongst people like Rose.
(Me, I'm Daisy and am sufficiently low-class that I don't give a flying damn about trying to shin my way up the greasy pole of social climbing status).
Hadad
21hr ago
So I continue to hold him in the hospital against his will even though he is no longer a threat to himself or others? (he is only a threat after he goes home and stops taking his medicine).
If the only thing keeping you from killing someone is an unsupervised medication schedule you're not being forced to take, observed while talking, or guarded while taking, you are not in fact safe.
Normal people aren't one or two med cycles away from murder. This man is not safe at all, and does not deserve freedom.
Furthermore - who pays for this? Indefinite hospital stay is expensive as hell. What about the other people who need that bed?
Fair point, I'm down with just killing the rabid ones.
Hadad
21hr ago
If only those were women's standards. But it's not. Some of those things aren't important at all, in fact - not a criminal? Criminality's huge social proof of studliness to an awful lot of women.
Throwaway05
21hr ago
So I continue to hold him in the hospital against his will even though he is no longer a threat to himself or others? (he is only a threat after he goes home and stops taking his medicine).
That seems more rights destroying than preventing gun access, no?
Furthermore - who pays for this? Indefinite hospital stay is expensive as hell. What about the other people who need that bed?
Throwaway05
21hr ago
The way states usually handle this is that the person has to have some thing happen like a: has a psychiatric illness b. is a credible threat to themselves or someone else.
The presence of criteria for a psychiatric illness is important here and does most the political protection.
A really common teaching interaction is something like "haha, yeah man this patient is delusional because he is Trump supporter and thinks Obama isn't a citizen" attending puts on a very serious face "no, absolutely not. Political beliefs are not delusional unless they are totally culturally dystonic and fixed, the fact that he won the election is proof that is isn't delusion blah blah...."
Psychiatry is in general a pretty pozzed specialty but they don't fuck around when it comes to that kind of stuff.
You will absolutely see patients get discharged who are odious, violent, domestic abusers, substance users and all kinds of other crap because they don't actually meet commitment criteria and aren't psychiatric.
Now you are more like to see something like "this patient does meet commitment criteria yet we'd usually let him go because it's probably safe to do so however he was using racial slurs towards the staff so in he goes." This is unprofessional but still unfortunately legit.
Rov_Scam
21hr ago
I don't think there is an intended recourse. I think the court was uncomfortable with the idea that some judge in Kansas City whom nobody has ever heard of could issue a national injunction preventing the president from exercising power anywhere, and they just ran with it. There was some suggestion that class actions should be used instead, but class actions are notoriously difficult due to class certification problems, and it seemed like the court was recommending class actions precisely because of these problems.
If I were litigating these matters, I'd take a "flood the zone" approach that would call into relief the practical problems of prohibiting national injunctions. It's just as easy for me to file a suit with 100 plaintiffs as it is one with 1 plaintiff, so I'd file suits with hundreds of named plaintiffs in friendly jurisdictions. I'd amend these suits regularly, as more plaintiffs came forward. Do this in enough districts and the multidistrict litigation panel will get involved and consolidate all the pending suits to one district for pretrial matters. If this happens, I then start filing suits in the unfriendly districts, which will immediately get stayed for enforcement under the standing order from the MDL judge.
If the cases aren't referred to MDL, which is a possibility if I'm only filing one case per district, it isn't necessarily a loss, because now I have 94 cases running in parallel. If more than one attorney takes this strategy, then it complicates things further. You could end up with hundreds of suits running in parallel, with hundreds of plaintiffs each, creating one massive headache for the government that will take forever to sort out and make the administration expend resources that it wouldn't have to if it were just one case in one district.
Throwaway05
21hr ago
Guns are significantly more lethal than kitchen knives and screwdrivers. In the case of suicides for instance, it is very common for people to attempt suicide and then regret it. Means that are more lethal (especially more impulsively) are more likely to lead to completions.
I gotta imagine that most doctors have seen at least one patient who shot themselves in the head or attempted to do so and somehow survived. It is roouughhh.
The person who took a handful of melatonin in a suicide attempt is much better off afterwards.
Hadad
21hr ago
Framing citizenship as a "reward" is completely nonsensical.
No, it's actually just correct. Being a citizen of the US is a reward for anyone not entitled to it by blood. We're the best. Everyone knows it.
You're correct that dirt isn't magic, but you're completely ignoring the fact that blood isn't either-- citizens by Jus Sanguis don't have an intrinsically stronger claim
No, it's actually blood. Blood is deeper and more true than everything you list.
Throwaway05
21hr ago
He goes to a pshrink and mentions that he's feeling suicidal thoughts
This does not meet commitment criteria. He should be committed if he attempted to kill himself, or if he is likely to kill himself if sent home. Suicidal ideation is not enough. Suicidal ideation with plan and intent or suicide attempt is.
Well, obviously, you just keep him locked up, indefinitely
So you would rather lock people up indefinitely than allow them to go free and not have guns?
cjet79
21hr ago
Someone being reasonable and apolitical can definitely draw that line. It's just that it's too easy for bad actors to start being political.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
21hr ago
I see Nybbler beat me to it, but this is a useless thought experiment because it can just as easily be rerun for kitchen knives and screwdrivers.
Mantergeistmann
21hr ago
Wasn't there that one Texas judge all the conservatives kept shopping to?
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
21hr ago
Guy threatens to kill you for raping him. He gets admitted to the hospital. He gets discharged and still wants to kill you after he stops his meds, so he strangles you with his bare hands. How do you prevent this?. Well, obviously, you just keep him locked up, indefinitely. You might think this is a major infringement on his right to liberty, and you'd be right. Just as taking away his gun rights is.
Guy is feeling kinda depressed. He goes to a pshrink and mentions that he's feeling suicidal thoughts. Pshrink commits him. He gets out 3 days later. Now he's lost his gun rights, but that doesn't bother you. You're not a strong advocate of the Second Amendment.
cjet79
21hr ago
Getting arrested for trespassing seems normal, and that would ultimately be the charge.
Throwaway05
21hr ago
These are not in fact the options. Another option is to not deprive those who have been involuntary committed of their right to keep and bear arms once they are released.
Guy threatens to kill you for raping him. He gets admitted to the hospital. He gets discharged and still wants to kill you after he stops his meds, so he goes to a gun store, buys a gun, and shoots you.
How do you prevent this?
There's no evidence it's been misinterpreted. She stopped dating casually, and stopped birth control. This means she is open to family formation. Pre-marital sex that leads to a marriage isn't the optimal traditional path -- but it is a realistic one. Where do you think shotgun weddings come from? Plenty of traditional marriages began when a couple got pregnant, and realized "well, guess we best get married now", and then stuck it out.
More options
Context Copy link