erichdelang.bsky.social
Just another Twitter refugee looking for what we had there once upon a time. It's not going to be Mastodon or Post.News and probably not Threads, so let's see if we can't make this our home.
1,404 posts
256 followers
64 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
And think about what those limits are and more importantly aren’t the next time they publish Tom Cotton calling for violent suppression of protests, Chris Rufo calling for expanded freedom of scholarship in Black Inferiority Studies, or op-eds calling for the unapologetic murder of Gazans.
comment in response to
post
They’d say that they’re all for disseminating contrarian views that their readers don’t share, but there are limits to that sort of thing and endorsing murder is one of them. And, as far as that goes, fair enough.
But make sure to remember that they *do* in fact have limits on what they’ll publish.
comment in response to
post
While this opinion is nearly universally rejected by the educated elites that make up their readers (myself included) it is quite popular across the political landscape, though generally more so with younger voters and less so with more conservative ones.
But the NYT would NEVER publish that piece.
comment in response to
post
Nah, sorry. You can’t take away all negative words. If you want people to stop using the r-word (as Matt and Noah have taken to doing openly at the Bad Place) you can’t pull “intellectually deficient” and “psychotic” as well. This ain’t San Angeles - people are going to talk shit.
comment in response to
post
At ~$0.25/hour for the game purchase price, even accounting for the hardware, there are few hobbies cheaper, certainly not hunting/fishing, cars, golf, concerts, FanDuel, etc. Instantaneous (hardware) expense is high, but $/time is a real bargain.
comment in response to
post
Dunno man. I just bought a new gaming PC for significantly more than that. Gaming economics are weird - my last PC was from 2020, and between Elite Dangerous, Cyberpunk 2077, and Baldur’s Gate 3 (leaving Eve Online aside) I’ve got probably 750 hours in for $180 worth of investment.
comment in response to
post
We’ll never remove him from office, but this can be a useful vehicle for damaging congressional allies that stick by him ahead of 2026, but we need some of what we’re warning about to manifest and that to penetrate public perception. We go early and later it’s “Dems always call for this / not news.”
comment in response to
post
This isn’t for everyone, of course. Most people implicated in related crimes can and should go through the regular system because they don’t have the fame and fortune to neuter it and “within the law/norms” is always a better way to proceed.
But the core villains here cannot get away with this.
comment in response to
post
Yep. We’re talking show trials in a very real sense because their broad guilt is beyond dispute. To the extent that we’re talking about due process, it is for the historical record and truth and reconciliation purposes, not to make available a path to exoneration.
comment in response to
post
Bottom line - we don’t even need to talk about this right now as long as we’re all clear that we’re going to have to do some stuff that is outside traditional norms and that the three wise monkeys that are our national press who are sanguine now will be SCREAMING then and we have to ignore them. <>
comment in response to
post
That doesn’t have to be anything that violates the TOS. I’m not being coy about “Nuremberg Justice” and I’m not sure Will is either.
The important thing is that Musk & his ilk have to be defanged and rendered harmless no matter what. That end justifies whatever means are necessary to achieve it. 5/
comment in response to
post
My point is that if we offer outlaws the protection of the law when it comes to shielding their fortunes and their freedom, they will always rule us.
We need to take some of the time between now and retaking power to get comfortable with ends not determined by the currently available means. 4/
comment in response to
post
While the entire time the media is braying incessantly about “looking forward not backward” and making peace offerings and not letting ourselves sink to their level, urging a pardon or a commutation or dropping charges so he can become a talking head at CNN.
3/
comment in response to
post
Or even if convicted, appeal long enough for the GOP to retake power and pardon him, if his baseless appeal wasn’t accepted at some point by a judge that can’t be removed without a 67-strong senate caucus that we’ll never have with the senate membership determined the way it currently is. 2/
comment in response to
post
The important thing is that, whatever it is, it’s not something available today.
Nobody has committed treason in the literal sense, so that crime cannot be charged and its punishments are inaccessible. In fact there is no crime that you could try Musk for that he couldn’t $$$ his way out of. 1/
comment in response to
post
I HATE, that as a person with not even a passing interest in the subject (if you want kids, have ‘em, if not, then not, leave me out of it) I know exactly who you are talking about.
comment in response to
post
If by this you mean “require a paid account for ‘verification’ for this sort of scam so they can turn it into a revenue stream” then hell yeah they will!
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Yep.
“This *is* what you voted for. If you want something else, vote for something else.”
comment in response to
post
And I gotta say, “accept & flatter voters' instincts, even when they're wrong” with the implied “because they’re reactionary babies who can’t handle new information” is more condescending than anything else liberals might otherwise do.
comment in response to
post
Exactly.
The solution to this is a bipartisan agreement and law that provides various kinds of automatic stabilizers, not one-off nonsense depending on who is president.
comment in response to
post
There it is.
comment in response to
post
For your next TTE supercut. Bakersfield, CA, taken today.
comment in response to
post
I’ve got “that’s a Shor, eh?” But can’t get anywhere with the first part!
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
It’s more than that.
It preserves “how could you violate a court order, the most important and sacrosanct of all American traditions” to be used for political enforcement of absurd rulings against future Democratic administrations.
comment in response to
post
And
comment in response to
post
See also the thread that ends with this post.
comment in response to
post
Basis of habeus is “bring us the body,” so “you have possession of this individual, bring them to the court and prove you are lawfully holding them.”
If the first part isn’t true, habeus isn’t in play. You can’t file habeus with the DC Circuit to get Israeli hostages released.
comment in response to
post
That they are in our custody or control, and therefore responsibility.
comment in response to
post
Ok. I believe you.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, and for the important work you do out there.
comment in response to
post
I’m not making a legal argument here. I’m in no way qualified to do that.
I’m asking about weaponizing this ruling in a lawfare way that’s intended more as a means of civil resistance and petard hoisting than the practice of immigration law.
comment in response to
post
Yes, that’s what I’m saying, and like I said, maybe stupid.
Is there a way that that’s worse for the detainees than not having had the petition filed? Is there a way it’s better for the government?
How much time are we talking on a case by case basis? Particularly in us vs. them terms?
comment in response to
post
Completely non-lawyer here brainstorming WAY out of my element.
The idea isn’t necessarily to see the case through to conclusion here - just to force the government to make the individual cases for AEA designation, precisely as the court outlined today. Basically calling their bluff. That a no go?
comment in response to
post
Pending the outcome of Abrego Garcia, the other case that saw SCOTUS action today, yeah, that may or may not be the case.
comment in response to
post
Could this be a weakness too?
I’m thinking about this thread here. If we set up this kind of network, and it had good participation by a bunch of frustrated liberals who want to do something, could we bog them down in geographically diverse habeus petitions and paralyze them?
comment in response to
post
There literally aren’t enough lawyers, on either side, to provide meaningful habeas review to every detained immigrant in the US. What’s being suggested here is impossible on a practical level. We’ve never been able to do it at any time in our history, even when the stakes were relatively lower.
comment in response to
post
Correct. But in a very real (if not legal) way, the two cases are inextricably linked, something noted in the AEA dissent to the per curiam opinion. You may find this, from Steve Vladeck, helpful: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/140-the-disturbing-myopia-of-trump
comment in response to
post
That’s what the *other* case (García Abrego) is about.
Currently administratively stayed by SCOTUS, both responses filed (plus an amicus brief), but who knows when they’ll get to it. DOJ says they have no remedy, we’ll see what the court says.
comment in response to
post
Well, and assuming there’s another Democratic president (which, like me, they appear to be assuming) they need “violating a court order” to retain its stigma so when they start ruling against that president she can’t just ignore it and point to the Trump Administration.