"Lies" is a standard operating procedure under this administration.
The court should just call the bluff by passing an order "Every CBP official and their hierarchy up to the President will be fined $1 million/day until the tariffs have been refunded."
SCOTUS has already given the President complete immunity for anything done as part of an "official act", so that's not going to fly (even if it should).
> And it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't the president.
They have a cool loophole for it. President can pardon those who commit crimes he asks them to commit. See what he did for thousands of insurrectionists and a lot of his friends who bribed him.
It's one of several "checks and balances" whereby one branch can override another branch, in this case the executive can override the judicial. Congress (the legislative) can override the executive too, by firing the President if they feel he's breaking too many laws (or indeed for any reason they want). It's a wonder they haven't chosen to. It indicates Congress approves of what the President is doing.
I think this is sort of final proof that electing a king for four years with more or less total power as the presidential system outlines is fundamentally a shit system.
This is just a new (and primarily conservative) interpretation of the system (the so-called "unitary executive" theory).
There's a different interpretation where the existing laws constrain the executive, there is no "unitary executive", and the result is a highly constrained presidency. E.g. Biden attempting to use explicit language written by Congress to do something and being told he could not do so by the judiciary (for "reasons").
It isn't strange per se. The Chief executor by definition has discretion. The thing that's gone haywire now is that discretion is being used in a repugnant manner to most actually sane people.
Isn't it only immunity as long as Congress is controlled by the same party so that no impeachment/conviction? Otherwise, Congress technically still has that ability. That's also what Trump was screaming the whole time that Congress is the only way to hold POTUS accountable.
> That's also what Trump was screaming the whole time that Congress is the only way to hold POTUS accountable.
And this is just wrong - anyone can see that every branch must be held accountable by other branches. This supreme court has done more damage to America than most historical supreme courts.
SCOTUS didn't say that Congress couldn't impeach. As I understand it, SCOTUS said that POTUS couldn't be prosecuted as a civilian for things he did as POTUS. This puts an asterisk on the "no man above the law", as they are saying that if POTUS does something impeachable but Congress doesn't impeach/convict, then there's no other recourse for holding POTUS accountable. Trump is taking advantage of that for everything that it's worth.
Somebody really has it out for you killing your comments
I see what you're saying. As much as I dislike it, it makes sense if you agree with the Project 2025 view of the power of POTUS. Clearly the majority of SCOUTS does with that ruling. I don't agree with it as I don't think the founding fathers would have ever wanted POTUS to have that much protection, but I'm of no significance so what I do or don't agree with is just some guy on the internet yelling at clouds.
But the important thing is that Trump has restored gender integrity in girls' high school sports, he has bombed 7 countries instead of 5 like Biden did, and he has been deporting... uh, well, about the same number of undocumented people as Biden.
I guess that's three important things, not just one, but you get the idea.
We deserve to know if Claude was involved with targeting the girls’ school that was bombed in the first hours of the attack on Iran. 50-100+ girls are reported to have been killed.
Claude is integrated into Palantir’s Project Maven targeting system. The Pentagon has touted how many more targets they were able to attack with this system (1,000’s).
NY Times: Analysis Suggests School Was Hit Amid U.S. Strikes on Iranian Naval Base
Reuters now reporting "U.S. military investigators believe it is likely that U.S. forces were responsible for an apparent strike on an Iranian girls' school that killed scores of children"
What’s a “warfighter?” Do they come from the “Gulf of America?” We used to call them servicemen or service members. Emphasizing they served the people. I guess that’s too effeminate for our roided up and ironically hyper-insecure Secretary of Defense.
The term war fighter is distinct from service member. War fighter means mission critical and typically in a theater, while a service member might be someone sitting behind a desk in a less critical role. Similar to having mission critical production systems and supporting production systems.
When you perform your business impact analysis, these will bubble up in different ways, requiring some differences to the playbooks.
There isn’t really a distinction day to day on this in practice. It covers everybody - just easier to say than all the official titles and typically for morale helps to carry the name all the way to the back office to connect to what’s happening at the pointy end.
Not really a new term: “warfighter” always has made me cringe but it’s been commonplace in defense contractor pitches to DoD for many years. Basically, if you hear it being used you’re likely in the presence of someone who does (or did) DoD work. Totally unsurprising to see it here given this is a DoD contracting argument that we’re all watching from the sidelines.
You're right about the age of the term but it's nothing to do with combat, but rather just a nice sounding umbrella term that makes talking about joint forces easier because every military service has their own special name for their personnel (soldiers, sailors, Marines, etc..).
The POGiest of POGs are "warfighters" and individual organizations within the DoD proudly advertise how they serve runny eggs and chicken to warfighters every day or issue their uniforms/equipment with incredible lethargy or maintain their personnel records in 20+ different systems duct taped together.
"Service member" does get used a lot still. Usually abbreviated to "SM".
Source: Personal experience in both combat arms and non combat arms roles.
A new term was needed some decades ago. "man" titles have not been politically correct for a while, "member" sounds awkward and bureaucratic. In some other languages, "soldier" can be used for all military personnel, while English ended up with a more narrow meaning.
"Awkward and bureacratic" is literally the point of naming conventions commonly adopted by democracies. Titles like "president" or "prime minister", departments like "Department of Defense", referring to government employees as "civil servants", etc. are all intentional measures meant to strip away the prestige and egotism associated with positions of authority in an effort to avoid it going to people's heads, and to remind them that they are meant to serve the good of the public that pays for their existence rather than ruling over them.
"Service member" is awkward, because it has too many syllables. People won't use it when shorter alternatives are available. And it's bureaucratic because it's unspecific. It doesn't tell anything the service those people are members of, and it doesn't tell what kind of work they do.
Will prepaid SIMs from outside Mexico no longer be able to roam onto Mexican mobile phone networks? Another problem. Given the notorious corruption my guess is it will just cost $xx to get a fake CURP. I'm sure there are other ways to circumvent. This leaves criminals with ample opportunities to avoid effective tracking but leaves out the legitimately at-risk populations mentioned in the article.
That machine's form factor was so great, it was just saddles with that awful hot-running Intel CPU. I was hoping this device would be essentially the MB12, finally with the right chip. I guess they were going for target price, not target weight.
Just think about the overall platform. How does MacOS update? It interrupts the user with demands, requires an administrator's password under some circumstances, and takes 20-30 minutes. Now consider how ChromeOS updates: silently and instantly.
I wonder why no enterprise where I've worked is aware of this fact, including technically sophisticated ones from Dropbox to Goldman Sachs. When I asked my favorite LLM whether Jamf Pro—which I should stress does not come in the box with MacOS—is capable of this level of zero-touch OS updates, it responded affirmatively then spent 95% of the rest of the response telling me about well-known workarounds for when such updates hang.
Because a technically-sophisticated enterprise generally wouldn't pick Jamf unless they were an exclusive Apple house - they'd consider something like VMware's Workspace One (now Omnissa) that works across windows, mac, and linux.
And no need to ask an LLM - we can read the doc and notice there are 6 different deployment methods that work (out of the box) for the built-in MacOS MDM, several of which allow transparent, mandatory updates to user environments without requiring user interaction.
https://rectangleapp.com
https://www.tomsguide.com/how-to/use-this-awesome-trick-to-g...