I don’t know it’s been pointed out yet, probably and I missed it but Gov Pritzker’s speech the other day was fire.
If you’ve got 14 minutes to kill, it’s worth a listen.
3 Likes
Unidentified federal agents with a roadblock to inspect cars in DC. @jbendery.bsky.social on Bluesky
In past days, this crap would be immediately thrown out as unconstitutional as unreasonable search and seizure. I think SCOTUS will rule this is fine as long as they only search cars non white drivers.
1 Like
I thought it was settled law that it was acceptable for the cops to have temporary checkpoints where they stop every car, or stop every third car, for sobriety checks (or “sobriety checks”), as long as they were strictly adhering to an objective, systematic set of criteria (i.e. you can’t decide whether to stop or wave through based on skin color).
I may dislike what’s going on with the military deployment to the Distict, and recent antics of federal minions in general… but it undermines criticism of their antics when we claim their antics are illegal and point to perfectly legal tactics as evidence.
I think part of what makes all this hard seems to be a strategy like this:
- bluster that you are going to do something illegal, like use the national guard to institute martial law in a big city, or at least something martial law adjacent.
- Actually do something different that is lawful, like guarding federal buildings.
- Use this to get people used to the idea that (1) would be ok, because it was talked about happening, and then seemed to have happened with all being ok, when in it didn’t actually happen.
best case, you can actually do something closer to (1) next time.
worst case, you at least keep your political enemies off balance.
3 Likes
It’s my understanding that sobriety checkpoints are generally ok, but setting up checkpoints where you search people or detain people without cause arent.
That’s why I mentioned “sobriety checkpoints” in addition to the (sans quotes) sobriety checkpoints.
Removepaywall.com works here
1 Like
The order is stayed to allow for an appeal. Eventually it’ll end up at SCOTUS, and it’ll be interesting to see which way ACB sends the ruling and why.
Meanwhile he apparently has an exciting announcement coming regarding the Department of Defense?
Official change to dept of war i’m guessing. Cuz child.
The guy just can’t help himself.
1 Like
There has been a kind of omerta amongst the billionaire class with Trump due to fear of being targeted.
So this is a good change.
No milestone. Just going to spend money for some pork.
This seems like something DOGE should put a stop to. Also, is this something Trump can just do or is Congress supposed to allocate spending for this sort of change before it can happen?
Part of the issue is that the original panel that evaluated permanent HQs for Space Command chose Hunstville in 2021. Biden overrode that decision in 2023, arguably making the transition worse. Trump, of course, makes everything about himself, claiming it is him giving the location.
1 Like
Maybe more folks will recognize my Rocket City Trash Pandas hat now.
2 Likes
This is, IMO, a larger escalation of force than it seems. The military has not historically destroyed suspected drug smuggling vessels. The military, with its carrier fleets and airforce, has the capabilities to disable smuggling vessels crewed by 11 people. Historically, vessels would be disabled if necessary, boarded, and arrests and press conferences would be made.
However, we’ll have to take the Trump administration’s word that these 11 people killed were as much gang members as is everybody currently being deported.
I posted about this in another thread. Executing civilians in international waters that are suspected of running drugs is a violation of international law. Trump may get away with his authoritarian BS in the US given a bootlicking GOP and SCOTUS, but executing civilians in international waters is likely to cause a backlash. It certainly is an unprecedented escalation.
2 Likes
I would like to believe that. But, backlash from whom? I don’t know who has any leverage here.
3 Likes
The gross overcharging of crimes in DC continues to meet with grand jury opposition.
What was happening in the criminal case of Nathalie Rose Jones, who was facing charges in Washington, D.C., federal court this summer, wasn’t typical.
A grand jury of Washington, D.C., citizens on Tuesday had denied the Justice Department’s request to indict Jones, who was accused of a federal crime for allegedly posting an Instagram threat against President Trump.
In the nearly empty, dimly lit courtroom, Judge Moxila Upadhyaya listened to arguments from attorneys for nearly 15 minutes and surveyed the case file before her. She paused, looked up at the federal prosecutor standing 10 feet away and asked what the Justice Department planned to do next in the case.
The prosecutor had no answer but said he’d have a response “as soon as possible,” maybe within a few days.
But this grand jury’s rejection of the Justice Department’s request for an indictment was one of at least four such instances in the past week, in which a grand jury denied an indictment in the District of Columbia.
“Not only have I never heard of this happening, I’ve never heard of a prosecutor who’s heard of this happening,” said former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who served in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Washington, D.C., until January 2025.
“The office’s failure — again and again — to secure indictments suggests that the administration has absolutely destroyed its credibility with jurors,” Ballou told CBS News.
Another former federal prosecutor, Victor Salgado, said, “It is exceptionally rare for federal grand juries to reject proposed charges, given the low evidentiary bar for indictment and the Justice Department’s policy of pursuing cases only when there is sufficient evidence to both secure and sustain a conviction.”
1 Like
A vaguely systematic look at the breadth of the authoritarian steps taken by the current administration:
1 Like