gattsuru
9hr ago
It's possible, but I'm skeptical -- AI isn't as bad as people say, but I don't think it's quite there yet, and more critically there's a massive space for additional programmer output -- and a lot of this stuff is happening at the same time that Microsoft is demanding vast increases in cheaper workers.
gattsuru
2d ago
With eight people, all older than fifty and some over eighty, facing serious burns, it'll be a minor miracle if there are no fatalities.
gattsuru
2d ago
Hm. Don't remember that phrase. Maybe this or this touch on similar themes, but they don't have that word specifically. And while it's definitely the sort of discussion Balioc goes over a bit, the phrase itself feels more like raggedjackscarlet or the-grey-tribe... except they don't have it either.
Do you remember about how long ago it was linked? Pre-COVID? Pre-split-from-SSC?
siikr.tumblr.com can be better for searching if you know the tumblr's name than either google or tumblr's built-in-search, though it's still not good.
gattsuru
3d ago
Apologies, KJA's pretty much my central example of Extruded Book Product; the comparison's not a compliment to either of them.
gattsuru
3d ago
Tchaikovsky's not quite a Zahn or Pratchett-level writer, but he's pretty worthwhile; will definitely second if any of his books grasp you. I dunno that I'd say better than Sanderson -- Children of Time had more interesting characters and core ideas, but the plot and especially denouement was a muddled mush in a way that even the more trite Sanderson stuff (or even some 'better' Kevin J Anderson stuff!) never hits. But definitely at least on the same or similar tiers.
Creative sex toys, generally dildos designed or themed around fantasy monsters. Some front page examples now include Kragg the Rock Dragon and Reggie the Mothman, along with the more typical werewolf or saytr or minotaur.
Bad Dragon itself is a specific company that pioneered in the field (and has kinda become the Kleenex of sex toys, double entendre not intended) and runs heavily on the furry theme, but there’s a small industry out there. Because of some worker disputes and BD focusing more on male customers, I’d expect most female novelty-seekers to work with a variety of other companies (or chase the zillions of Etsy shops focusing on the field) as well. See The Wandering Bard, or PhoenixFlame Creations, Primal Hardwere, Weredog,co,uk, or Paladin Pleasure for other examples in the business.
Uh, somewhere private, and only if you don’t mind getting blasted with every imaginable fantasy dick (and a handful of vulvas/tongues/butts). All of these are hugely NSFW.
gattsuru
4d ago
"We won't enforce the 10k USD/day, promise , unless it gets too gay" is putting a lot of trust in Ken Paxton.
EDIT: I agree that he very probably won't go after the vast majority of such websites. I also think the only thing limiting him from picking up the weakest-looking inmate and slamming them into the wall is wanting to get some as-applied challenges settled first, and the one-in-one-hundred risk of that will make a lot of changes in behavior.
Like heroin, consuming it feels really, really good, significantly better than 99% of other experiences, and it puts you in an incapacitated stupor, often for between 1-3 hours a pop. Some people want to try to keep children and teenagers from having unrestricted access to this drug. Do you think they have a valid concern?
I'm more on Team Gooner, which I'm sure will surprise absolutely no one, but this metaphor seems to occlude more than it illuminates. I've got some complaints about its accuracy, but assuming it for the sake of this discussion:
`1. Why is this 'drug' different from any other over-the-counter one, not just that people want to restrict children and teenagers from having access, or even that the state gets involved in restricting access, but that it's so vital that state restrictions can put sizable burdens on adults doing things entirely away from minors? Things like alcohol or cigarettes have the obvious physical ramifications that you're pretty clearly -- no one's getting cirrhosis of the dick, here. Am I missing some other parallel, or what distinguishes gooner materials from vidya or youtube or people who get way too into painting minatures or spend every weekend at a sportsball game?
`2. Why is this 'drug' so bad for minors such that we're willing to accept onerous restrictions on adults, and yet not something we need to hold against the adults themselves. There are restrictions like alcohol and cigarettes and the entire DEA. Maybe Texas won't end up being that bad, if only by the standard being set so low, or maybe we're just being cautious because it's so dangerous otherwise?
Or are restrictions going to keep going on from children and teenagers to everyone else? Because a lot of people, including the Texas politicians writing this bill, pretty clearly want to restrict it in general.
`4. Why is it so hard for advocates of these restrictions -- either on minors, or on everyone -- to actually focus on this 'drug'? No one was gooning from a single 1970s Playboy or a couple grainy standard definition videos; it's supposedly something specific to modern porn that's so much worse... and yet the Texas law here wouldn't just cover a 1970s Playboy, but even material softer-core or less overtly prurient than that. Even people here treat hobbyist weird content as at best as acceptable side effect.
`5. There's a model of addictive personalities as responding to spaces they can't get fulfilled otherwise, in the same way that mineral deficiencies can drive people to find weird or even inedible things delicious. In addictions with serious chemical dependency or withdrawal it's hilariously wrong, but gooning doesn't seem to have those things, and some gooners even challenge themselves to go long periods without (... usually in November, for acronym reasons).
That old TLP article has a punchline in the middle about how "Pornography is a scapegoat", and while TLP puts it on ego and narcissism because... uh, well, he's a coastal psychiatrist. There's a pretty mindboggling set of statistics about the sorta thing (not-Aella) people usually do before consensual sex, and everything from dating to marriage to mixed-sex casual meetups are all down the tubes.
Is this missing nutrient model wrong, here? If it's right, might it suggest to something else that's driving more of the changes in behavior people think is downstream of a couple hours on an unexciting hobby and a jacked right wrist? Because if there's something broken in relationship formation well before sex (or, uh, handies), removing that outlet might cause people to start putting a lot more effort into working around the break... or it might end up with a stampede of people going over a creaky bridge held in place by one rivet. And given how broken relationship formation is (especially for <18s and <25s), I'm not optimistic about that.
gattsuru
4d ago
They have to get rid of "content harmful to minors". That's theoretically less expansive in many ways, but in practice it's far broader than all but the softest-core definition of porn.
gattsuru
4d ago
It’s a convention from role playing communities indicating either out-or-character comments or side discussions not attached to the main thrust of the current discussion.
gattsuru
4d ago
Yeah, the 'homeless person' concern is not the main objection, and I don't think anyone here's going to care what Texas' policies about low-cost IDs are.
That said, I think there are serious privacy and chilling effect concerns regarding this specific implementation and how it interacts with normal website management. The Texas law applies to any website run by a commercial entity (with a tiny number of exceptions), where more than 1/3rd of its content is 'harmful to minors', must do this verification or face sizable fines (up to 10k USD/day, plus 250k USD if a minor sees any banned content). Any web host operating in the United States that serves both adult and non-adult content, or even repeats content from its users, needs to do some pretty serious evaluations.
This wouldn't be too rough if the burden from age verification was tiny -- you take the precautionary principle to the max or divide the website and/or commercial entity -- but that doesn't seem to be the case. The plaintiffs here had a bit of a nut for a lawyer, but his claims that age verification could cost 40k USD for 100k users were plausible enough for a skeptical Texas court to accept it. That's steep but workable for a conventional commercial porn site; HB 1181 does not operate based on being a commercial site selling porn, but on being a commercial entity serving partially adult material. Even if he's off by a 'mere' couple orders of magnitude, there's a lot of websites and services where that's going to bring the risk-reward underwater, or outspend what sort of losses that a hobbyist is willing to lose out on.
gattsuru
4d ago
In this case, the law requires age verification for a web site run by a commercial entity where one third of the content on the site is 'harmful to minors', or the Texas AG can bring 10k USD/day charges even if no minor has visited the website. There's a lot of speech you do have a right to that can fall under that bar.
Maybe it's close enough to the right policy as to be worth that burden, but it needs to at least be considered in the context of what it's actually promoting, not just what the sticker on the front says.
gattsuru
4d ago
Presumably, all sexual material intended to arouse is deemed "harmful to minors"?
In theory, the term's pretty clearly picked to mimic federal obscenity-to-minors jurisprudence from Ginsburg, which... is a clusterfuck, but supposedly trades socially redeeming values against what extent the material is 'patently offensive to prevailing standards of what is appropriate'. In practice, I'd expect the Texas AG's going to act more based on what he thinks he can get away with and who makes particularly good news headlines.
I do not think that viewing PIV sex on video after searching for it is intrinsically harmful. The stuff which is harmful is all the stuff where porn differs from what one would recommend as sex acts for beginners.
There's some good arguments for this policy (and some against: do gay or trans versions of those get commissioned? should it recognize any kink at all, if in very 'correct' ways?). There's even been some, albeit mixed, efforts along those lines (one 'documentary' is very popular among het breeding fans, which... uh, Shinzo Abe meme, but probably not intended). You even get really awkward discussions about what the 'correct' age for this involves, and that's not a fun thing to even consider.
I dunno. I was a late bloomer. I don't think I have a good model for a lot of what'd be best, here, or even what a lot of potential harms would be. There's a lot of motions in both law and psychology about how any exposure to even 'normal' sex early on can cause harm, but then we're relying on a bunch of (mostly 1970s) psych research, and I would prefer not to.
But my suspicion is that the Texas move was never about protecting minors in the first place, it was about getting the filth off the Texan internet by pretending to care about minors seeing boobs and dicks.
I'd expect it's even less good than that: the end result's just going to make the stuff operated by American businesses less profitable and crush smaller actors, and scare straight websites that intermix adult and non-adult content.
gattsuru
4d ago
I think the implication of the proceedings was that this was not true, clearly wasn't true, and the court didn't want to waste time and money on sorting it so used other procedural grounds to close the matter.
But from a due process perspective, that's an abomination. If the problem genuinely was that the court believed TB had a criminal history or other occurrences of mental health breakdown, TB has absolutely no reason, having read the court's public record, to actually go and find proof on those things. There's not even a reference to what better proof would be about.
((Admittedly, because it's quite possible TB presented perfectly adequate proof, given that the expungement process requires petitioners give permission for a full background and mental health record search, and the law requires the court to ask the committing facility. I don't trust New Jersey judges.))
And more critically, it's trivially resolvable. Assuming without evidence that the court would be crippled by asking for criminal records, it costs the judge mere seconds to write out that the plaintiff needed to provide them. Instead, if he doesn't die or run out of money or patience first, TB's going to back to court with a list of his medications in his pocket, proudly mispronounce every single one, and the judge will find some other excuse that doesn't really matter.
Most principled third parties read about these situations and fear some authoritarian judge taking rights away (which does happen) but the vast majority is "please give me something, anything to work with.....okay I guess you won't."
And if judges want us to believe that, they a) need to actually write it into the public record, and b) have public records giving normal people reason to distrust them.
gattsuru
4d ago
That's fair; it's definitely better than the parade of 'well, you can't kill me this way' or 'oh, but I got bad advice from a defense attorney that I ignored anyway'.
gattsuru
4d ago
I am not a lawyer, nevermind a class action lawsuit lawyer. The federal government's lawyer said that there were questions of typicality and gave a few groups, primarily based on the distinction between whether parents were temporarily permitted into the United States at the time of the birth. If he got his way, this would point to a couple different class actions...
But class action plaintiffs can prove they are typical members of a class by bringing more members into the plaintiff side of the bench; if you have plaintiffs on record as belonging to each of these groups, you defeat a typicality challenge.
This could be an issue for other universal injunctions, but I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is on this one.
gattsuru
4d ago
The law's focus is about pornography to minors. A covered web host can be liable for ten thousand dollars per day even if they're never viewed by a minor, and the only way to host more than 1/3 "harmful to minors" material requires collecting identification proofs of age or collecting financial proofs of age (and a stayed requirement to post giant blocks of text). Likewise, someone wanting to request material from a covered web host must provide identification or financial proof of age, even if they're an adult, and even if they're requesting non-obscene-to-minors material.
Maybe those tradeoffs are worth it, but rational basis review doesn't do any such analysis.
... 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.
gattsuru
4d ago
The specific law here holds that a "commercial entity" (some carveouts for Google) that serves material on the internet "more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors" must use either commercial or government identification of age, or be subject to fines up to 10k USD per day plus 250k if a minor sees it. There's pretty widespread potential to interfere or discourage adult-to-adult speech that is only obscene to minors, or even some speech that isn't obscene at all so long as it comes from one of these companies.
There's also a compelled speech problem in the original bill, 14-point font inclusion of a substance addiction help line level. This is currently blocked, though it had a weird period where that block was under an administrative stay for nearly six months.
gattsuru
4d ago
Basically credit card transactions or services using those transactions. It might allow MindGeek-like auth, but the US doesn’t really have that. Presumably with a good faith effort to validate that the credit card holder’s name is above 18, though it didn’t come up in any args I could see.
gattsuru
5d ago
Problem in this case is that it's possible that any DNA under the victim's fingernails match one of the Gutierrez's compatriots, and Gutierrez still entered the trailer and participated in the murder -- just without being scratched. Indeed, because one of his compatriots lived with the victim and had 'found' the victim's body, some of the samples should be reasonably expected to be not-Gutierrez's even if he was totally guilty as can be.
There's been fact-based determinations before focusing on guilt (even, rarely, ones that raised serious nontrivial questions of guilt: McCollum is pretty embarrassing to Scalia). I'm hard-pressed to see how that'd happen here.
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton - Pornography 6-3 conservative opinion, Thomas. First Amendment does not prohibit Texas from requiring age-verification for pornographic websites. Kagan writes the dissent.
This one's weird.
The law is probably reasonable enough or close to reasonable enough (if not necessarily my idea of well-designed), but the lower court just set it against rational basis review. Previous SCOTUS decisions either put restrictions on adult content either fully in strict scrutiny (Ashcroft I and II, where restrictions were on the basis of the content's adult nature) or rational basis (obscenity to minors, movie theatres). And strict scrutiny, at least in a free speech context, is ruinously hard to achieve, in ways that even Thomas probably doesn't want to water down. The closest obvious parallel in previous law was adult theatres, which was admittedly a pretty jank decision of its own by pretending it was separating the effects of the content from the content to justify rational basis review. But that'd be the same as no review at all.
I guess this case didn't fall close enough to the commercial speech restriction cases for the adult theatre side to be even remotely palatable? But it's Thomas, and his willingness to go to the bat for bizarrely aggressive paternalism (eg, en loco parentis) is one of the bits that's long been a go to, for better or worse. Instead, he reaches (through BSA v. Dale for some reason) to the draft-card burning regulations from US v. O'Brien, saying restrictions on speech here are incidental to restrictions on behavior, so intermediate scrutiny. From that view, it's not unreasonable.
Then Thomas differentiates it from the strict scrutiny CDA cases by saying those "effectively suppresse[d] a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive”. But the analysis is just limited to privacy concerns and stigma (aka, more privacy concerns). Yet these restrictions have potentially massive costs to speakers, not just receivers, on adult-content sites or even mixed-content that don't go up to that mark. Likewise, he tries to distinguish the CDA as regulating noncommercial sites that would not readily take up credit card processing, but HB1181 applies to all commercial entities, not just commercial sites. Burden can't drive level of scrutiny up, but this sort of perfunctory analysis gives little idea of what the actual analysis is, especially since intermediate review is a little ad hoc to start with.
Some of that burden review is probably because the Free Speech Coalition advocate comes across as kinda a nutcase during oral args. He mentions costs to site managers once in oral arguments and it's a stunning 40k USD per 100k users, and then spends much more of his time ranting about the motivations of anti-porn people. But then intermediate scrutiny's biggest bite is specifically in the prong of the O'Brien test that asks if the government interest is tied to the suppression of information, which is where the whole anti-porn thing rises anyway.
It rounds out to normal -- Thomas does everything short of wink-and-nod to say that pretextual restrictions on obscenity-to-minors that try to cover restrictions on adults are invalid -- but it's just such a bizarre way of getting there, and it's going to invite a lot of mess from lower courts.
Gutierrez v. Saenz - ... My read: SCOTUS lets a death-row inmate file a doomed, pointless post-conviction motion that doesn't have any hope of success but will probably delay his execution for a few more years
Yeah, probably. I'm really skeptical that a DNA test with no return of Gutierrez's DNA from the few samples available would factually demonstrate that he was outside of the trailer (or for a positive result to have his advocates want him in the chair), and while I could kinda see the arguments for allowing it anyway, it's hard to care. There's a chance Texas will just punt on killing him, but it's Texas, so that's a real far outlier. The process and procedural stuff might matter for other cases, perhaps? The court just didn't like the lower courts ignoring past dicta?
gattsuru
5d ago
Given that we could end up in situations where newborns in certain states acquire citizenship and other newborns don't, I would've thought the Supreme Court would issue a decision on birthright citizenship within the present term. Is it just that there's not enough time?
They don't have a current case on it; almost everything is early in preliminary process at the district or appeals level. The oral args brought up cases in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuit, there's no chance of the feds winning the 9th Circuit barring pod people, and the feds committed to requesting cert if they lost (for whatever a lawyer's promise is worth, lol). Bondi's statement, charitably, would involve a fast resolution to one of those cases, an October term hearing, and decisions months after that. This timeline might not give us an answer until Spring or Summer 2026 (although I think it'd be obvious before then).
But I don't think CASA prohibits all preliminary protections. The majority opinion openly invites class certification and class-wide relief, and the extent that the feds tried to argue against class certification during oral args was kinda a joke:
KAVANAUGH: If you were to oppose it, on what basis would you plausibly oppose [classwide certification]?
GENERAL SAUER: There may be problems of commonality and typicality, for example. For -- for example, there's two different sets of groups that are affected by the Executive Order. There are those where the mothers are temporarily present and those where the mother are illegally present, and in both cases, the father is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. So there might be issues of typicality. Adequacy of representation might very well be an issue. So there would have to be that rigorous application of those criteria. Now the argument may be this is a case that is a natural candidate for a Rule 23(b)(2) certification. That may well be true. The government hasn't taken a position on that. Our position is not that class certification will necessarily be granted.
((I'm increasingly thinking SCOTUS picked such a broad case because the more grounded alternatives for preliminary relief are fairly straightforward.))
What are the chances that the Supreme Court actually strikes down birthright citizenship? My impression from the start was that this was always going to be a losing case given how far back the precedent goes, but I'm far from an expert.
It's pretty low. The legal arguments aren't as obviously wrong as at first glance, but they're still a long reach, and mixing that, the reliance interests, the seeing-as-a-state problems, everything like that... I don't want to say zero, because zero isn't a probability, but it's low low. I'd honestly consider 9-0 more likely than 6-3 or 7-2.
gattsuru
5d ago
Trump v. CASA is very specifically about universal injunctions; none of the majority really delves into the likelihood of success in the merits, and I'm extremely skeptical that it could get more than two votes max on the merits of the underlying lawsuit.
I'm skeptical the EO will even avoid pretrial mass relief: the majority openly invites state-wide injunctions or class action lawsuits, and this would be one of the cleanest Rule 23 class actions possible. I'd be willing to bet 100 USD to a charity of your choice that there are at least three circuits where almost all children of illegal immigrants are covered by an injunction before the end of the year, and I'm only going that low because of friction effects.
I'm not disagreeing with the factual findings. Literally in the post you're replying to, I said:
Indeed, the question raised by the petitioner during appeal was specifically "the trial court improperly relied on his current physical condition, age, and stated reasons for seeking expungement". While I don't think that's meritless -- I raised some statutory interpretation questions, again literally in the post that you're replying to -- I do fully recognize that there's absolutely zero chance of them being successful. Likewise, I recognize that because of the commitment's age bringing any serious challenges to would be difficult even were New Jersey and its federal circuit any less biased against gun rights, and because of the petitioner's age and the speed of New Jersey courts, any Second Amendment-related or due process legal challenges would be doomed.
My argument is that these are bad; that they defy broad rights and due process and justice, and yet can't be meaningfully challenged and won't be meaningfully recognized. We've had this distinction before.
T.B. in this case might have failed a test for expungement in a fair system, but he didn't get a fair system. Instead he got one where his rights could be taken away in an ex parte hearing with no due process or representation and standard, and to retrieve those rights he could present only limited information against an explicitly adversarial judge who could moor any denial in anything the judge wanted under any standard of evidence and using any information or no information at all. Indeed, he didn't even get a system interested in pretending to be fair, where the judge can make some handwave toward what T.B. would have to do in order to comply with the law.
There's a trivial sense where they're bad in ways that undermine all of the defenses that you entered this discussion with. But there's a more general one where it's no defense at all to say that the bad procedures are established by statute, and that the biased judges are just part of a biased system, and that there's just going to be people who fall between the awkward interactions of laws that don't mesh together, and that people simultaneously should know that any constitutional or due process arguments would actively doom whatever trivial chance their 'conventional' petition might have and that outside observers can't point to the blatant disregard for constitutional rights or due process.
There are imaginable universes where we are, as a society, so attached to legal formalism that all of these things weigh against constitutional rights, and the constitutional rights lose. There are imaginable universes where all those frictions and safety risks weigh against constitutional rights, and the same happens.
The courts can, have, and did in the last week jump over themselves to protect the rights of a murderer to 'prove' that he might have only planned and assisted with the murder of an innocent woman. The courts can, have, and did jump over themselves to defend an illegal immigrant who beat his wife and allegedly participated in human trafficking from getting deported, with everyone on the Left and their dogs and you specifically talking up the importance of due process.
We aren't in those universes. You know we're not in those universes. That this disagreement is only imaginable for matters that happen to line up with your political goals leaves any argument presented under them as below contempt.
More options
Context Copy link