Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
29 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Screenshot2025-05-30082109.thumb.png.68c92843cbda68922c335fd90d802faa.png

Best I can tell, the new conservative position on literally everything is "whatever that lifelong NY liberal and convicted felon wants". If he started talking about how awesome abortion is, like 90% of the party would immediately switch their positions. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Haha 1
  • Replies 32.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The ABA is one of a very few national law dog organizations for "general purpose" law.  Most others are either "practice-related" (e.g. American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association, American Trial Lawyer's Association) or more or less advocacy groups.

Therefore, it made sense that it would weigh in on nominees.

I think their ratings were pretty fair and they'll still be able to do them on the basis of publicly available information.  That a judge nominee doesn't make herself available to the ABA on a voluntary basis should be a black mark against them (it won't).

Most information about judicial nominees, including the questionnaire they fill out for the Senate Judiciary Committee, is publicly available, as is almost their entire judicial record, if any.  So, this is, as usual, pretty performative.

They very well may be able to sue over this as it is clearly viewpoint discrimination.

So the usual response of “this is all pretty normal, nothing to be concerned about here” from the lawyers who keep saying our judicial branch is a-ok!

Posted
17 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-29/federal-job-seekers-will-be-quizzed-on-trump-s-executive-orders?embedded-checkout=true

 

 

 

 

  Hide contents

Two other questions ask how applicants would improve government efficiency and about their personal work ethic.

Responses must be 200 words or fewer and the memo seeks to prevent any cheating. “Applicants will be required to certify that they are using their own words, and did not use a consultant or AI,” the memo says, referring to artificial intelligence. 

The 30-page memo, from White House Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley and OPM acting director Charles Ezell, implements President Donald Trump’s executive order ending diversity, equity and inclusion in federal hiring.

The order also required that the government prioritize hiring people “committed to improving the efficiency of the Federal government, passionate about the ideals of our American republic, and committed to upholding the rule of law and the United States Constitution.”

But Trump is also reshaping the US government’s workforce in other ways, overhauling the civil service system by giving him power to directly hire and fire as many as 50,000 jobs previously reserved for career federal employees.

 

“What we’ve seen is an overwhelming effort to cow the workforce and frankly ensure that there’s a loyalty to the president of the day more than anything else,” said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group focused on improving the federal workforce. 

Asking the new questions is “deeply problematic,” he said.

“Bluntly, it’s an almost partisan and ideological overlay without understanding the responsibilities they’re hiring for.” For example, there’s no reason why a dental hygienist at the Department of Veterans Affairs should have an understanding of Trump’s executive orders, Stier said.

Beyond the content of the questions, Stier said adding four essay questions to an already burdensome federal hiring process can only make it more difficult for the government to hire the best workers, calling it “a recipe for dysfunction.”

But OPM says the questions aren’t much different from those any employer would ask to make sure that a prospective employee fits with company culture.

“It is a best practice in hiring to ask all applicants the same questions,” said OPM spokeswoman McLaurine Pinover. “The answers can then be evaluated by the hiring manager and agency leadership to evaluate whether the candidate would be a good fit for the role.”

The federal personnel agency said the plan’s overall goal is to reduce the length of the hiring process to less than 80 days and create “a federal workforce that reflects the highest standards of merit and service.” 

The memo also implements new skill-based assessments, consisting of at least two tests of technical skills for many jobs, and eliminates unnecessary college degree requirements for many positions.

 

N/A

Posted

Ah, "many trillions of dollars" due to Trump's tariffs. 

The US GDP is $27.7T.  You'd think a substantial fraction of that in 4 months (actually less) would be noticeable.  I must be looking at the wrong numbers.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

"desperately needed tariffs". 

I like how he just skips to holy fucking shit mode immediately, every time. Judges rule against him = They hate Donald Trump and want to destroy America. No other possible explanation. 

Posted
42 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait, Kagan voted with the majority?

Blue sky says the vote is secret so not necessarily, just that she doesn't agree with Jackson's opinion for whatever reason.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Blue sky says the vote is secret so not necessarily, just that she doesn't agree with Jackson's opinion for whatever reason.

I think that's right, the vote is not stated, so Kagan could have voted to deny, but didn't join the written dissent for whatever reason. It doesn't always mean she disagrees with what's written in the dissent, just that she didn't join in writing it or put her name on it, which also is common for any number of reasons. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Blue sky says the vote is secret so not necessarily, just that she doesn't agree with Jackson's opinion for whatever reason.

Yeah, I think that's accurate.

These decisions are not intended to be precedential, or really all that big a deal, mostly procedural.  But, they have tended to become something else over the last few years.

These stays are supposed to balance the likelihood of winning/being right on the law against the irreparable harm that results if they are wrong on the law.  So a high likelihood of winning "trumps" great harm, while great harm can outweigh a shakier case.

One kind of unusual thing recently is that the Court has recognized the harm that results to people if they are deported without due process.  That harm is so great that even if the government is right, they're gonna stay it because of the harm.  That sort of factual sensitivity is actually somewhat unusual from the Supreme Court, especially this one.

Jackson basically concedes that the government is going to win this on the merits, but argues that the harm is so great that the district court decision should remain intact until the government pretty inevitably wins.  A great humanitarian position, but I'm not sure such a great one on the law itself.

The simple fact of this is that these parole programs are created by fiat and can be ended by fiat.  That's one of the several flaws in our immigration laws.  Raises the question whether the Supreme Court should correct or mitigate all wrongs or just the ones that rise to the level of violating the constitution.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I wouldn't feel sorry for Trump if he received that cancer diagnosis.  The difference is, Trump is a truly horrible human being, and Biden is a run of the mill politician.  And, I don't care if I go to hell.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Adios, muchachos.  The Hispanic Americans that voted for this will maybe voice their opposition via a social media post.  

For us libtards, it’s “adios muchachx”.  NPR out front yada yada. 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Whenever you tell yourself that they can’t go any lower, just realize they’re still close to the ceiling and not anywhere close to the floor. 

 

But he had that nice tweet that every Democrat on Twitter rushed to highlight as positive. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

But he had that nice tweet that every Democrat on Twitter rushed to highlight as positive. 

That should have been painfully obvious to anyone that he did not write. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I wouldn't feel sorry for Trump if he received that cancer diagnosis.  The difference is, Trump is a truly horrible human being, and Biden is a run of the mill politician.  And, I don't care if I go to hell.

If there’s a god, dotard will have stage 5 rectal cancer, that will visually leak out during a meeting with the PM of Canada. 

Posted
33 minutes ago, Red Five said:

That should have been painfully obvious to anyone that he did not write. 

It is. So why do those motherfuckers always run to praise him. Every media outlet also does it. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

It is. So why do those motherfuckers always run to praise him. Every media outlet also does it. 

"It's nice to see in these polarized times, that we still have a president who is capable of decency and warmth, blah blah fucking blah...."

Fuck off. 

Posted
36 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

If there’s a god, dotard will have stage 5 rectal cancer, that will visually leak out during a meeting with the PM of Canada. 

well i'm hoping for a demise that perfectly matches his disposition and the energy he has put out into the universe...his bowels rotting and disintegrating and leaking out his ass in a flood of shit would do the trick! 👍

image.gif.ee5522f37bc353be53ff3da9442f5c16.gif

Posted (edited)

Let me guess: the Treasury is going to invest $1000 for every newborn (only those who have parents who are citizens of the United States, however) into Trump coin (or some other Trump affiliated financial vehicle).   What could possibly go wrong?

Never. Ending. Grift.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
Posted
1 hour ago, Mdhorn said:

If there’s a god, dotard will have stage 5 rectal cancer, that will visually leak out during a meeting with the PM of Canada. 

If there was a god then Trump and Epstein would have blown up on that plane 20 years ago. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
41 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

If there was a god then Trump and Epstein would have blown up on that plane 20 years ago. 

Maybe there is a god and we just reap what we sow?

Posted

Democrats are finally fighting back:

https://www.semafor.com/article/05/30/2025/california-opens-inquiry-into-paramount-and-trump

The California State Senate has invited two former top CBS figures to testify in a new inquiry into whether the network’s parent company has violated state laws against bribery and unfair competition.

Paramount offered President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign $15 million to settle a lawsuit filed against CBS over a lightly edited interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris in October, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week. Trump refused the settlement, threatening to file an additional suit against the company, seeking federal approval for its merger with entertainment company Skydance.

The settlement talks have infuriated many staff members at CBS as well as many national Democrats who believe that Paramount is caving to pressure from Trump to settle a frivolous lawsuit.

In a new letter sent May 30, the chair of the California State Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee, Josh Becker, and the Judiciary Committee chair, Thomas Umberg, invited former 60 Minutes producer Bill Owens and former CBS News president Wendy McMahon to testify in an upcoming hearing on the recent proposed settlement of a lawsuit.

The California Democrats, whose party controls the chamber, said the hearing would focus on the incident “and this matter’s potential impact on the competitive marketplace, media sector, and rule of law in California,” adding that it wanted to focus on whether the company breached fiduciary duties owed by Paramount board members to shareholders, misused corporate funds vulnerable to shareholder derivative litigation, or violated federal anti-bribery laws and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

“This inquiry is therefore not only about one company or one lawsuit, but about protecting the integrity of California’s communications economy, ensuring that public-facing media enterprises compete based on content and quality, not influence, capitulation, or political appeasement,” the letter said.

The letter continues: “Perhaps even more concerning is the potential chilling effect of Paramount’s settlement on investigative and political journalism. Such a settlement would signal that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed when paired with regulatory threats. It would damage public trust in CBS News and other California-based outlets, diminishing the state’s stature as a national leader in ethical journalism. Paramount’s capitulation would also undermine two essential pillars of a liberal democracy: a free press and an impartial, rule-of-law regulatory system.”

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Democrats are finally fighting back:

https://www.semafor.com/article/05/30/2025/california-opens-inquiry-into-paramount-and-trump

 

The California State Senate has invited two former top CBS figures to testify in a new inquiry into whether the network’s parent company has violated state laws against bribery and unfair competition.

Paramount offered President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign $15 million to settle a lawsuit filed against CBS over a lightly edited interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris in October, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week. Trump refused the settlement, threatening to file an additional suit against the company, seeking federal approval for its merger with entertainment company Skydance.

The settlement talks have infuriated many staff members at CBS as well as many national Democrats who believe that Paramount is caving to pressure from Trump to settle a frivolous lawsuit.

In a new letter sent May 30, the chair of the California State Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee, Josh Becker, and the Judiciary Committee chair, Thomas Umberg, invited former 60 Minutes producer Bill Owens and former CBS News president Wendy McMahon to testify in an upcoming hearing on the recent proposed settlement of a lawsuit.

 

The California Democrats, whose party controls the chamber, said the hearing would focus on the incident “and this matter’s potential impact on the competitive marketplace, media sector, and rule of law in California,” adding that it wanted to focus on whether the company breached fiduciary duties owed by Paramount board members to shareholders, misused corporate funds vulnerable to shareholder derivative litigation, or violated federal anti-bribery laws and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

“This inquiry is therefore not only about one company or one lawsuit, but about protecting the integrity of California’s communications economy, ensuring that public-facing media enterprises compete based on content and quality, not influence, capitulation, or political appeasement,” the letter said.

The letter continues: “Perhaps even more concerning is the potential chilling effect of Paramount’s settlement on investigative and political journalism. Such a settlement would signal that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed when paired with regulatory threats. It would damage public trust in CBS News and other California-based outlets, diminishing the state’s stature as a national leader in ethical journalism. Paramount’s capitulation would also undermine two essential pillars of a liberal democracy: a free press and an impartial, rule-of-law regulatory system.”

 

Insane it took this long for anyone to lift a finger about this brazen bullshit. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Let me guess: the Treasury is going to invest $1000 for every newborn (only those who have parents who are citizens of the United States, however) into Trump coin (or some other Trump affiliated financial vehicle).   What could possibly go wrong?

Never. Ending. Grift.

 

 

 

 

image.gif.84a01db7ceeedc7b223a99a1dd0b9851.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...