@Gillitrut's banner p

Gillitrut

Reading from the golden book under bright red stars

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 14:49:23 UTC 

				
User ID: 863


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Gillitrut


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 14:49:23 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 863


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's a little bit of SCOTUS trivia but the "Chief Justice" is just a particular seat on the court. Only 3 (of 17) Chief Justices were raised from an Associate and only 5 had ever been an Associate before becoming Chief.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This past Wednesday at the Supreme Court saw oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara. For those not following along this is the birthright citizenship executive order case. You can find the full transcript here.


As someone who listened to the live audio and has now read back over the transcript a couple times I think things went pretty poorly for the government. So much so I wonder if this was the straw that broke the camel's back with respect to firing Bondi. I'm very confident this case is going to be 7-2, if not 9-0, against the government.I'm not going to rehearse all the arguments, it's very long.


The government's oral argument mostly focused on the idea that for a child to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of the 14th amendment their parents had to be domiciled here. Where domicile requires (1) lawful presence and (2) intent to stay. The justices (principally Gorsuch, ABC, and KBJ) poke a bunch of holes in this argument. Pointing out both practical and theoretical issues with both parts of the definition. It is not my impression that the justices were especially convinced by Sauer's answers to those questions.


The respondent's oral argument, by my read, was much more focused. Why did Wong Kim Ark mention domicile in some contradictory ways as to whether it mattered? How to understand the association between the posited set of exceptions. If the different language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was any guide in interpreting the 14th amendment. Interestingly Justice Alito even jumped in on this first one to volunteer a reason why Wong Kim Ark might mention domicile in the question and the holding without having incorporated it into the relevant test.


This is all tea-leaf-reading, of course, but my current read is the government is very likely to lose.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As someone who would describe themselves as broadly anti-manosphere I think the problem is these debates are generally conducted at such a high level of generality as to be useless. They imagine "society", "men", and "women" as undifferentiated masses with uniform preferences in ways that don't really reflect reality.




Men & Women are judged and valued by society differently. Men are valued based on their ability to climb up social hierarchy to obtain status. Women's value is more reflected by their attractiveness, and reproductive capabilities. Masculinity (attempts) to provide useful guidelines and structure to achieve this end. Women simply do not exist in the same space, so their variation of being a role model wouldn't be a good representation of the male position. It would be a kin to a white man trying to be a role model for black boys - the critical social context is not there.




When you talk about "society" valuing people differently, what does that mean on the level of the individual? I am pretty confident my status in my TTRPG friend group and my status in my World of Warcraft guild and my status at work all depend on pretty different factors. Which one of those is "society"? All of them? None of them? Similarly, my wife sometimes goes down to the local bar to play Bingo and is part of a local beekeeper's group. Is it your assertion that her status in those groups is (primarily? substantially?) based on her attractiveness and fertility? Are those not "society"?




Women don't grow up thinking about how to be woman, because much of what defines femininity is there by default. You are simply born a sexy girl - you simply gestate a fetus - and then give birth to it. There is little to no skill barrier required in comparison.




I'll echo others that this is surely true for some women but, almost definitionally, cannot be true for most women. It can't be the case that most women are just born into, say, the top quartile of attractiveness! Some further fraction will have issues that impact their fertility as well.




The problem with "being yourself" as so often espoused by liberal types is that, it provides 0 road map to achieving the traits that women (and people in general) value in men.




The point with the "be yourself" advice is that there is substantial variation in what people value and it is better to develop a relationship or friend group with people who value you when you are the way you want to be instead of forming a relationship or friend group where you have to force yourself to be some way you're not. To take a personal example: I'm not particularly good at or interested in sports. Could I force myself to practice and get better and learn more for the purpose of fitting in with a friend group who was really into sports? Probably. But better for me to find a different friend group who enjoys the same things I do (video games, anime, ttrpgs, etc). Similarly I could probably force myself to suppress my interests for the purpose of attracting a woman who found those interests off-putting. But why would I want to do that instead of finding a wife who shared those interests? Speaking from some observational experience with my brother and a friend having to suppress your interests that way sucks!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Why isn't there a Presidential ball room already?




I suppose Presidents have largely not felt a need for it. I don't think it's a crazy position that the White House should have a larger permanent structure for holding events than the previous ~200 person seating in the East Wing.




Also why is there so much opposition?




How about because it will be ugly? My understanding is the proposed size for the new East Wing is somewhere between 50% and 200% larger than the White House depending on whether you count square footage or three dimensional area. Should the White House be dominated by one of its wings in height and size?


I suspect a lot of people are also disturbed by the process by which this was conducted. Previous significant renovations (construction of the East and West wings, Truman's renovation) were done in conjunction with Congress, paid for by the government. In this case a bunch of private individuals and businesses donated money to Trump (very specifically, not the US government) and the whole thing is being paid for privately. This is conceptually in opposition to the notion that the White House belongs to the government, to We The People, rather than being a possession of whomever happens to be President.


I think opposition being motivated by exclusivity is a weird take. The ballroom is much larger than the building it is replacing. Surely many more people will be invited, not fewer. That's the point of building a larger space to host events.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I guess I don't understand why Plyler v. Doe doesn't settle the issue. Quoting subsection (a) of the holding from the syllabus:




(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 457 U. S. 210-216.




The equal protection clause is, itself, the final clause in the first section of the 14th amendment (emphasis added):




All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.




Am I supposed to be reading into this a difference between "subject to" and "within" a state's jurisdiction? Does "jurisdiction" mean something different between two clauses of the same paragraph of the 14th amendment?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The American Renewal Act: A 127-Point Systems-Level Overhaul (Citizen Juries, 20% Market Cap, and a New Constitutional Anchor)
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think compelled civilian deference to the military is the opposite of how it should work. The military exists to serve civil society, not the other way around. There's a reason the Commander in Chief is a civilian.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The American Renewal Act: A 127-Point Systems-Level Overhaul (Citizen Juries, 20% Market Cap, and a New Constitutional Anchor)
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You want a constitutional amendment to guarantee veterans priority for boarding and deplaning commercial flights?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't disagree but I think a key prerequisite missing here is the President builds support, both in Congress and in the public, before launching hostilities. The President deciding to bomb some people and then everyone has to go along with it so we don't look weak isn't, and ought not be, how it works either.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I just wanna zoom in on this paragraph:




But you see a lot of people with an agenda trying to defang the war effort or get it cancelled or whatever. Many probably don't expect it to happen, they are just trying to set up Trump looking bad. An example of this is probably the war powers resolutions.




Is it your position that Congress passing a resolution compelling the President to cease hostilities is "probably" treasonous?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't have the text of the law to hand so maybe, but the article at least doesn't describe any. It does mention that Kansas' law differs from other states with similar requirements by invalidating existing licenses.




The bill prohibits documents from listing any sex other than the one assigned birth and invalidates any that reflect a conflicting gender identity. Florida, Tennessee and Texas also don’t allow driver’s licenses to reflect a trans person’s gender identity, and at least eight states besides Kansas have policies that bar trans residents from changing their birth certificates.






But only Kansas’ law requires reversing changes previously made for trans residents. Kansas officials expect to cancel about 1,700 driver’s licenses and issue new birth certificates for up to 1,800 people.




I get the impression those other states required new/renewed licenses to have the new sex marker, but Kansas' law makes that requirement retroactive, which is what invalidates the existing licenses.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Every trans person has lost the privilege to drive if their documents are immediately invalidated. Driving without a valid license is a crime in Kansas. Any trans person driving around with their old license would be risking arrest and prosecution until they could secure an updated license.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As a software engineer at a company pushing AI use pretty heavily this whole thing is crazy making. If nothing else AI has some of the people that are the best at branding on its side. At least on the implementation side that I've done with copilot an "agent" and a "skill" are just markdown files. Their documentation is very clear about this.


The idea with a "skill" is there's some repeatable task you might want an AI to do and you hit on a particularly effective prompt that gets it to do the thing. You codify that prompt in a markdown file in a special directory. Then when you ask your more general session to do a thing it can look in that directory for applicable skills and if it thinks one is relevant it will inject its contents ss context.


"Agents" are similar. I thinks it's been known for a long time that if you prompt the AI a specific way ("You are a software engineer proficient in ...") they can perform better at certain tasks. Agents work on this principle. As best I can tell the use of an agent can either be selected by the user or your general AI might select one based on criteria similar to a skill. It then starts a sub-session where the contents of the agent markdown are injected as a kind of pre-prompt before your actual prompt.


So when you hear Anthropic has created a skill or agent or whatever that can do X you should mentally replace that with "wrote a markdown file." "Anthropic published a new skill that makes AI good at COBOL" == "Anthropic published a markdown file that, when injected in a session, makes an AI good at COBOL." Of course, things start sounding more insane. "Tech security stocks dropped on news Anthropic wrote a markdown file." "IBM dropped on news Anthropic wrote a markdown file."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The Court also opened an entirely different set of worms, as it did not adjudicate if the tariff revenue that had been collected has to be refunded, or even who a refund would go to. I predict great long !lawyer bills~ debates over how, if tariffs are taxes on Americans, which Americans are owed the tax refunds.




I feel like the only practicable way to do this is to pay refunds to the people who paid the tariffs to the government. In some sense increased costs to consumers were caused by the tariffs but good luck proving that to a court (absent some kind of contractual provision for the scenario).




While I will defer to others for the legalese analysis, I am also interested in what sorts of quid-pro-quos the internal court politics might have had for Roberts to have led the majority here. There are a host of cases on the docket this term, with politically-relevant issues ranging from mail-in ballots to redistricting. While I think the tariffs case was outside any typical 'we accept this case in exchange for accepting that case' deal over which cases get heard, I will be interested if the administration gets any 'surprise' wins.




In terms of decision authorship the general process is that:


1. If the Chief Justice is in the majority, they decide who authors the opinion of the court.


2. If the Chief Justice is not in the majority, the most senior justice in the majority decides.


I think the justices try to maintain roughly even ratios of opinion authorship so maybe Roberts authoring this one meant foregoing authoring some other one but ultimately he's the one in control over who authors an opinion he's in the majority of. I am skeptical there was any horse trading involved to get to 6 votes either. Gorsuch's concurrence has a length section where he disagrees with the dissent's analysis, which would be enough for 5.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
New SCOTUS opinion day and today we have the long awaited Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. This is the case about Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, for those unfamiliar.


In a 6-3 decision the court rules that the IEEPA grants the President no authority to impose tariffs. I think crucially it's not just that they find these specific tariffs are not authorized by the statute, but that no tariffs are. That the phrasing of "regulate ... importation" in the statute is not inclusive of tariffs, as the administration argued.I think the breakdown of opinions is itself interesting.


Among the majority there is consensus that (1) the IEEPA does not grant the power to impose tariffs and (2) the administrations arguments otherwise fail but there is also a 3-3 split about why (1) is the case. The three conservatives in the majority (Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch) invoke the major questions doctrine. Finding that the phrase "regulate ... importation" is not clear enough for the sweeping powers the administration claims it conveys. In other statutes where Congress has delegated the power to tariff they have done so clearly and if they want to give the President almost unilateral power to tariff, they need to be equally clear about that. The three liberals in the majority (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson), meanwhile, thing that ordinarily principles of statutory interpretation are sufficient to arrive at this result. Jackson also writes a concurrence that goes into the legislative history to argue that Congress didn't intend to grant the power to tariff.


On the dissent side, Kavanaugh writes the main dissent (with Alito and Thomas joining) arguing that the phrase "regulate ... importation", as a matter of history and tradition, clearly includes the power to impose tariffs. Thomas also writes a separate dissent discussing the non-delegation doctrine. The majority didn't rely on the doctrine at all but Plaintiffs did raise it below and it did come up in the District Court's opinion.


Apart from the merits of the case Gorsuch wrote a concurrence where he calls out a perceived hypocrisy on both sides of the decision. On the liberal side, there are many cases where they have argued in support of sweeping executive power and expansive interpretation, which is the opposite of the side they take here. On the conservative side, those same justices have often argued for narrow or limited meanings of statutory authorization but here take an expansive view of what powers are delegated.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't think there is any set of necessary or sufficient political beliefs such that everyone who uses the term "conservative" would agree that an individual with such beliefs is properly classified as such. Especially if you intend this definition to stretch backwards into the past and possibly forwards into the future.


I think a prudent beginning to this line of inquiry is to ask: why care what "conservative" means? Did X call Y a conservative and one is unsure what X intended to convey thereby? Does one imagine one's self as possibly positioned in an intellectual tradition described as "conservative" (by whom?) but are unsure what that entails?


Once we understand what use we intend to put the term "conservative" the path to a meaning becomes clearer.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm looking at the linked court listener docket and I think your description is a little misleading. What you linked to is a motion by the United States as to why the documents shouldn't be covered by attorney client privilege but I don't actually see a ruling by the judge granting or rejecting the motion. So there has not yet been a decision in this case as to whether the documents are privileged, just an argument by the prosecution that they shouldn't be. Missed the minute order on 2/10.


That said, I think the prosecution is basically correct. Imagine rather than an AI you email a friend asking their non-attorney legal advice. Maybe you discuss statutes and case law or possible defenses. Would those emails be privileged? What if you fire up your search engine and start searching for statutes you may have violated. Relevant case law. Defenses. Is the existence or content of those searches privileged? My intuition is that they would not be. I don't see what is different about AI such that its use generates attorney-client privilege but the use of other legal research tools or avenues does not.


I suppose I think the obvious way to get AI input and also remain privileged would be to use a lawyer as a kind of middle-tier. User query -> lawyer -> AI. AI response -> lawyer -> user.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
IME, the angle here is less about the content of the AI's responses than the user's questions. You sometimes see indictments that include, say, search terms a defendant entered around the time they committed their crimes as evidence for consciousness of guilt. They knew they were doing something that was (or could be) illegal.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I had a similar path. I was a 4channer (mostly /b/ and /pol/) in my late high school/early college years. I was already pretty libertarian (although, even then, more of the Matt Zwolinski/bleeding heart kind) and probably got pushed a bit further rightward. It was a gateway into a lot of MRA/MGTOW spaces. I was never too deep into redpill stuff (probably because I was in a relationship) and I never really fell down the youtube rabbit hole in this space. There were a few people whose early videos I enjoyed. Karen Straughan comes to mind (that's a name I haven't thought about in a long time!)


I suppose I find it a little funny I ended up a woke-liberal-type today. There's definitely a kind of "there but for the grace of god go I" when I see people who were clearly radicalized in similar spaces.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is the Grossman-Stiglitz paradox if people want more detail.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In general I think people can be aware that actions can have consequences without intending those consequences. To take one example, people who gamble are surely aware that they can lose money while gambling but I think it would be hard to argue they intend to lose money.


Or, to take a more violent example, punching someone can kill them, especially if it causes them to fall over, but how often do people who punch another person intend to kill that person?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Love me some specific vs general intent. Did Corner intend to hit the police sergeant with the sledgehammer (general)?  Almost certainly. Did he intend to do grevious bodily harm or resist or prevent a lawful apprehension or detainer (specific)? The jury couldn't agree one way or the other apparently. I'm not that familiar with UK law but the link for GBH seems to indicate a variety of lesser offenses I suspect Corner would have been convicted of.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think the geographic arbitrage you mention is pretty common. My mother and step-father were, at one point, considering moving to a pretty rural area of Kentucky since they could get a lot of land quite cheap. Additionally there's a size/quality arbitrage that occurs. When you're younger, have kids and a growing family, you probably want a larger house than when you're older and retired. So even if you stay in the same geographic area there's an arbitrage to a relatively less desirable house that may be better suited to your needs.


My impression is many homeowners also perceive their house and its equity as a retirement investment. In many (most?) places around the country your home is likely to be the most valuable asset you own. Even if one doesn't intend to cash out that asset themselves, it is something very valuable to leave to one's progeny. Either in the form of cash from a sale or as a place to live.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I feel like the situations are pretty different. Strzok was, as literally as possible, not-a-Fed when he sued the government. Part of his suit was alleging wrongful termination. He also was not the boss of the Attorney General, with authority to fire him if he didn't like the settlement terms. I am open to the possibility Trump has a viable claim but I am highly skeptical about how this process will play out, given he controls both sides of the litigation.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Connolly's case has nothing to do with the FACE Act? He was convicted under a state level ordinance...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yesterday in the Southern District of Florida Donald J. Trump, in his personal capacity, filed a lawsuit for $10 billion in damages related to the leak of his tax returns. The defendants? The Internal Revenue Service and the United States Department of the Treasury. I am not familiar enough with the relevant statutes to venture whether this claim is viable. Assuming it is, I am highly skeptical Trump and his co-plaintiffs could demonstrate $10 billion in actual damages (which is what the cited statutes allow them to recover plus costs and attorney fees). I also read both statutes as having a two year statute of limitations and the events giving rise to the liability occurred in 2019/2020 so it is not clear to me that the suit is viable on that basis.


The above may all be academic. My understanding of the relevant federal procedure is that judges are not going to raise issues like the statute of limitations or factual issues with alleged damages on their own initiative. Our system assumes the parties are adversarial, so the defendants would file a motion to dismiss citing the statute of limitations or contest any damage calculations they thought were incorrect. Of course, in this case, the plaintiff is also the boss of the defendant. With plenary power to fire them. Can Trump, as president, just order Scott Bessent (currently both the Secretary of the Treasury and Commissioner of the IRS) to settle the suit for the full amount? And fire him if he refuses? What is the precedent on presidents suing the government while they're president? Normally when one side of a lawsuit is not interested in pressing its case other entities that have a shared interest can intervene to do so, but it's not clear to me who is in that position here.


I guess (random layman thoughts) maybe there's an argument that federal courts don't have jurisdiction to hear this because the parties aren't actually in controversy as required by Article 3, since it's Trump suing himself? Just spitballing. Is there any legal mechanism, short of impeachment, to prevent Trump from gifting himself the full contents of the United States Treasury via lawsuit settlements?