President Donald Trump

Trump posting satellite snuff footage

if it contained drugs, could’ve easily been boarded

https://bsky.app/profile/krassenstein.bs...

Yeah... couldn't have contained much drugs, couldn't have involved important members of the cartel. Just kinda watching some nobodies get hit with a drone strike.

Texas loaded busses with desperate migrants and
dropped them off in Chicago like trash in the middle of winter.
We welcomed them into our communities. Now Texas is sending its
National Guard to terrorize them on our streets. In our neighborhoods.

It’s because they have a black mayor. Same as DC. And LA.

And most every other city he’s targeting.
A big exception is Boston. Their mayor is an Asian woman.

They’re not very subtle in their racism.

https://bsky.app/profile/pantagrapher.bs...

But you and Luciom said it did in this case.

the difference is that the Dems wouldnt brag about it

oh wait they totally would have.

More like they just decided to leak it themselves instead of going after wikileaks

Fuentes and Candace were both 'in the tent' before Epstein and Gaza.

So, race should be factor in who is allowed to immigrate?

In addition to being a really, really terrible idea.

because unlike a lot of other stuff, setting tariffs is straightforwardly and clearly an explicit power of congress only, in that text.

So it becomes about "can Congress delegate that power to the executive, and did it delegate it with IEEPA in a way that is consistent with what Trump did?"

"can congress delegate" is still a constitutional question, a more nebolous one. For me the answer is NO, but for the vast majority of jurists in the last decades it's clearly yes (rococo included) so that wasn't a question that changed votes in that decision.

So the question was only "did congress with IEEPA delegate tariff setting powers to the executive of the kind Trump used?"

And you'll notice THAT ISN'T A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. That's a statute interpretation question. "is the 1977 law written in a way that allows that" isn't a constitutional question, after we decided that the constitution allows laws that delegate tariffs to the executive can exist.

Now THAT question is less 100% clear cut than the previous ones. Why? because "regulate" is an ambiguous word with absurd possibilities of interpretation for example. And because "emergency", who decides what an emergency is and so on, isn't an obvious element as well.

So the court applied "constitutional principles of interpretation of statutes" to the question. And those "principles" aren't clearly written in the constitution rather they are developed through case law.

The principle used goes something like "when it's about core powers of the state, delegating them requires very clear indication of a will to do so and very explicit designations as to the limits of that delegation" (major question doctrine), which has been clarified very recently in 2022, when SCOTUS told Biden that LOL NO, he couldn't forfeit ALL STUDENT LOANS just because covid relief statutes gave the president a power to change the terms of student loans ok?

There were also other elements at play in determining the case and i am simplifying here but you got the core of the picture.

A LOT of judicial decisions aren't about interpretations of the constitution. They are mostly about stuff like the above

It's either you filter for individual qualities, or for the median qualities of the origin country.

In the first case you can fully disregard ethnicity and culture.

In the latter case those become prominent, because median IQ, education level, crime propensity and so on vary a lot depending on the origin countries and that has a racial/cultural element to it.

It would be better to filter individually, but that's not what american politics want to do.

To be clear Canada and Australia and Switerzland filtered for individual quality for a long while with enormous success. For reasons i cannot understand, both Canada and Australia very recently decided to open the floodgates to infinity multicultural unfiltered immigration and it was a disaster.

Australia is a nice case study. It filtered on country of origin until 1970 more or less (basically "white only"), and it worked very well (useful immigrants that easily integrated and so on). It then swapped to quality individual filters, and it worked very well anyway (high income /education and so on). Then they dropped / lowered filters in tghe last few years, dunno why

My understanding is that libertarians are pro-open borders if and only if there is no Welfare State.

I suspect you'd be as happy as a clam at high-tide over at Unstuck.

I essentially voted for Trump in 2024 for border security and assuring a conservative SCOTUS for a decade or three.

I always enjoyed watching Pat Buchanan beat up on poor old Tom Braden on CNN's Crossfire in the late 1980's.

I would still probably vote for Trump over Harris.

That's one of the most ridiculous takes I've ever seen.

If Trump doesn't like a city, it's probably not because of the color of the mayor. It just so happens that the most awful big cities often have mayors that are POC.

There are a gazillion legit ways to criticize Trump. You don't need to play the race card this time. (Although for some Lefties that's their favorite tool in their toolbox.)

It creates an illusion of action, and the use of lethal force instead of a more conventional law enforcement approach is also a piece of political grandstanding meant to convey how this administration doesn't hold back.

The drug trade is dominated by vast criminal organizations who deal in death as casually as me and you buy groceries. Assuming this was actually a smuggling vessel (which can be hard to tell after blowing it up), the US government spending tens of millions of dollars in sinking a skiff will impress these organizations about as much as me falling down the stairs impresses my cat. Which is to say very briefly, with slight bemusement, after which the day continues as planned.

Genuinely, their "employers" probably prefer smugglers (if we assume that was what they were) to blown up as opposed to arrested.

Yes. I think this is a relatively clear case by constitutional standards. Not logically inevitable like a simple geometry proof, but a relatively clear case, at least as to the ultimate conclusion.

What would a "more conventional law enforcement approach" be in *a foreign country inimical to the USA*?

Did you also enjoy his writing on VDARE over the last two decades?

Can't think of a less Christian figure than Pat Robertson in the 80s, of course a raging hypocrite like you would love his shtick.

Cutting your leg off is one way to deal with a torn ACL. But you probably should conclude that the cost is too high, even if you really don't want to have to deal with a torn ACL.

I understand that this tweet is parody from Newsom's press office, but emulating Trump is a road to nowhere.

https://x.com/govpressoffice/status/1962...