Below is my column on Fox.com on the most recent controversial decision from Chief Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C. While accusing President Trump of a sweeping view of his power, the court seems to have an equally expansive view of its own power.
Here is the column:
Chief Judge James Boasberg is frustrated … and he is not alone. Recently, the D.C. federal judge reportedly “groused” that the D.C. appellate court had ordered him to reconsider a case about whether the D.C. government engaged in biased enforcement against political graffiti. Conversely, the litigants are equally irked over what they see as Boasberg’s bias after he responded by, again, dismissing their claims without a trial.
For a second time, Boasberg has barred pro-life groups from access to a jury after members were arrested for writing in chalk “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a sidewalk while Black Lives Matter writings were left untouched.
I wrote earlier about the emerging body of “Boasberg’s Law,” cases in which the judge has increasingly shown an untethered and expansive view of his own authority. Recently, Boasberg was found to have committed an “abuse of discretion” in twice finding that the Trump Administration was in contempt of court for failing to turn around deportation flights.
My disagreements with Boasberg are not over the underlying issues, but rather the court’s rejection of basic limits on its own authority. While chastising President Trump for exceeding his authority, Boasberg has been reversed for exceeding his own.
In the earlier case, Boasberg dismissed grand jury subpoenas in the probe of Fed Chair Jerome Powell. I have been critical of that probe, but Boasberg’s refusal to allow the subpoenas to be executed was based on an opinion that was rife with open hostility for President Trump, dubious sources, and biased observations.
I have similar reservations in this latest case. During the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, streets in Washington were covered with BLM graffiti and the police watched as protesters wrote slogans and slurs on stores, streets, and sidewalks. The government itself even commissioned a massive painting of the message on a street near the White House.
However, when Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America wrote their pro-life version of the slogan, they were immediately arrested and the chalk protest removed.
The D.C. Circuit’s reversal of Boasberg in the case was a major victory for free speech. Boasberg had applied the wrong standard to kill the case, holding that the group could not challenge the selective enforcement of the laws. In reaching that conclusion, Boasberg applied the wrong standard, imposing the heavy burden of proving that the city was engaged in “invidious enforcement.” While that standard was used correctly to dismiss an equal protection claim, it is not the standard for a free speech challenge.
The Court did not hide its dissatisfaction with the thrust of Boasberg’s opinion in dismissing the First Amendment claim:
“The First Amendment prohibits government discrimination on the basis of viewpoint. ‘To permit one side … to have a monopoly in expressing its views … is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees.’ The protection for freedom of speech applies not only to legislation, but also to enforcement of the laws.”
The appellate court sent the case back to Boasberg with the opportunity to apply the correct standard and to create a substantive record before issuing a ruling on the free speech claim.
Boasberg took the case and ruled again that the groups would not be allowed a trial. The new dismissal was issued despite the standard that, in seeking such a dismissal before a trial, the court must accept all material facts in favor of the nonmoving party or, in this case, the pro-life and pro-free speech litigants.
Boasberg rejected the factual claim that they were “similarly situated” to the BLM protesters. The litigants presented the results of discovery on the point, but Boasberg dismissed the claim on his own subjective view of the evidence.
They have now filed again with the appellate court to appeal his order.
Some of Boasberg’s factual findings are baffling. For example, he maintains that the groups did not show that MPD officers “even witnessed any specific defacement during [Black Lives Matter] protests.” However, the groups presented such evidence as bodycam video of officers watching as a protester spray-painted ‘I can’t breathe’ on the street near the White House two weeks after the arrests of the pro-life protesters. They submitted other video evidence of officers watching protesters spray-painting BLM messages outside of the Department of Justice.
Moreover, they presented what they claimed is guidance from Assistant Chief of Police Jeffery Carroll, in charge of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Special Operations Division, in the application of different treatment for graffiti.
Carroll reportedly admitted to being “present” at BLM protests featuring “defacement” of property, public and private and Lt. Jason Bagshaw admitted that he also saw defacement “related to” BLM protests.
This does not mean that a jury would rule for these litigants but rather that court cannot substitute its judgment for a jury when a credible and supported claim has been made by litigants.
Boasberg declares that no such credible evidence was presented. The fact is that a reasonable jury could conclude that there was a different treatment shown in the enforcement of these laws based on the content of the speech.
The biased enforcement of laws is a common reality in other countries where courts enable such selective enforcement. In countries such as Iran and China, no level of evidence is sufficient to overcome the bias of courts in showing a preference for one side.
Judge Boasberg has had a distinguished career that is now being undone by a lack of restraint in these decisions. Again, I believe that the judge has been on solid ground in some of these conflicts, including criticizing the use of “intemperate and disrespectful” language in filings and demanding compliance with his orders. However, while Chief Judge Boasberg has described the President’s claim of expansive powers as “awfully frightening,” the same can be said about a judge who substitutes his own judgment for juries and disregards legal standards for disfavored groups.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Where is JT when the first amendment is under attack from the trump administration? Crickets..
“After the hearing, the Justice Department lashed out at the judge in a statement, saying he “threatened our attorneys with sanctions unless subpoenas were withdrawn, and blocked us from presenting the meticulous process of this investigation.””
Yea, that’s right The U.S. Attorneys should be sanction and if they repeat this BS the should be see what contempt of court brings them.
JT? Where are you? Hiding under your mommies skirt?
Anonymous the joker. She was all for the Department of Misinformation formed during the Biden administration. She thought it was just fine when the FBI visited twitter and Facebook to discuss what should be allowed on their platforms.
Now such a heart felt defender of the first amendment. Twisted sister.
In what world is speech a violation of the right to free speech ?
Boasberg will see his career ‘hit the fan’ after the mid-terms. A lame-duck has open-season to clean-house in the closing acts.
Excerpted from “Politico” on Judge Boasberg’s efforts to hold ignoramus loser cosplay cowgirl Krisi Noem accountable for continuing to deport migrants without a trial and in direct contravention of a court order forbidding her to do so:
““The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy,” Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, wrote for the majority, which also included Trump appointee Justin Walker. “These proceedings are a clear abuse of discretion.”
Judge Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, responded in an 80-page dissent that the panel’s ruling could undermine the authority of federal courts for generations.”
So, it was two losers appointed by the pathological liar who would have called violating court orders “high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy.” Since when is the Executive Branch allowed to ignore court orders? The judiciary is one of our checks and balances. Since when is violating the Constitutional right of persons to a hearing a “matter of national security and diplomacy”? Judge Childs is correct–letting Trump’s DOJ and Homeland Security to flaunt court orders does undermine the authority of federal courts–and it is wrong. Turley knows that.
Trump hates Judge Boasberg because he thwarts his efforts to ignore the Constitution and do as he pleases. Turley, as a teacher of law, should absolutely not preach disrespect for the judiciary, or advocate for undermining the authority of federal courts, but he’s gone MAGA, so everything is political.
I believe the saying “everything is political “ came from your chocolate Jesus, Barry Sotero.
Illegal immigrants don’t have protections for illegally entering into our country you stupid TDS ftard. Simple as that and I think u will soon find out Americans have had enough of this nonsense.
Bozoberg is a better figurehead for Hair Club for Men than he is on the bench, he’s just another Bolshevik.
$40Trillion in debt, it’s coming.
According to a leading immigration law firm in North Carolina–EMP LAW:
“The Constitution guarantees due process rights to all “persons,” not just citizens. This means non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are entitled to fair treatment under the law. This includes the right to defend themselves in court.”
According to polls, most Americans do NOT approve of Trump’s handling of immigration–or for anything else, for that matter. He continues to set records for low polling.
People have to be brain dead not to understand that all the government has to do is declare you an illegal immigrant to take your right to due process away, then they will do it, just to save itself the trouble. Yes illegal immigrants are persons who are DUE due process. I am all for deporting illegal immigrants and I welcome the millions having been deported or self deported – whatever the count is — but it should be in accordance with law.
In another thing that the President’s diehard fans may not be aware of, the immigration authorities are now by policy & arbitrary regulations, negating laws passed by Congress. How’s that for “rule of law?” In more ways than one. We could go on about how abusive & incompetent some of the USCIS paperwork procedures have become as well but it would bore us all. We know what’s happening here.
Sadly much of this is the fault of the Democrats and assorted civil welfare agencies that ate from the Congressional trough of “human services” too long and so developed a taste for the industrial scale importation of migrants, illegal or otherwise.
It has all been very tiresome and unfair, both how things went under Biden-Obama and and how they have swung the other way now. — Sal Sar
Ok Pol Pot
Straight to the Killing Fields
Every time Gigenius can’t make an argument, there’s some mysterious “poll”.
“the immigration authorities are now by policy & arbitrary regulations, negating laws passed by Congress.”
Oddly enough, to correct the Biden administrations TOTAL disregard for the laws passed by Congress.
Yep, people are upset Trump is not getting them out fast enough. Due process means for illegal entry means a hearing to confirm illegal entry and an immediate deportation order.
“The Constitution guarantees due process rights to all “persons,” not just citizens.”
Correct
” This means non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are entitled to fair treatment under the law. This includes the right to defend themselves in court.”
Incorrect, life is not fair there is no right to fairness, no two people agree one what fairness is.
Due process is what is required when a persons seeks to infringe on a persons rights.
There is no right for an illegal alien to be in the united states – therefore there is no due process required to remove them.
If DOJ wishes to send an illegal alien to prison – they re entitled to the same due process as any citizen
If DHS wishes to send an illegal alien home – they are entitled to very little due process.
“According to polls, most Americans do NOT approve of Trump’s handling of immigration”
False – recent harvard harris polls have found Majorities to support every aspect of Trumps immigration policies.
Further they have found support has RISEN 6pts from 2025 to 2026. In most cases those policies have no mere majority support but supermajority support.
Regardless if you beleive those polls are wrong – get people elected to change the law.
Trump is following the law.
“He continues to set records for low polling.”
False, Trump is polling higher at July in the 2nd year of his 2nd term than any 21st century US president.
He is also polling higher than Biden at anytime in his presidency after august 2021
He is polling higher than Obama and Bush during most of their presidency.
Laughable, fair treatment under the law…
Like Hunter Biden received or Bill and Hillary received, or like Trump received? Sanctuary Cities that completely ignore federal immigration laws, criminal gang banger traffickers, rapists and murderers released as if their crimes are misdemeanors.
Do you mean “fair “ like that?
When our Liberties and Freedoms are used against us to subvert the rule of law you have anarchy and ultimately vigilantism. It’s funny how the meaning of a word morphs depending upon the danger one finds themselves in isn’t it.
courts may not order whatever they please – you seem to fail to grasp that Judges too must comply with the constitution and the law.
The authority of the courts is to enforce the law and constitution – not to do whatever they please.
“Trump hates Judge Boasberg because he thwarts his efforts to ignore the Constitution and do as he pleases. ”
Higher courts have consistently found that it is Boasberg that is ignoring the constitution and is acting way beyond his legitimate authority.
These are not MAGA questions. They are constitution and law questions.
In the rare instances that Trump has gone beyond his constitutional powers – the courts through the supreme court have properly restrained him.
That occurs with every president.
What is commonplace with TDS judges like Boasberg is acting outside their constitutional powers to thwart the president fromacting to enforce long ago established constitutional law.
Gotta hand it to X. This could’ve been a boring comment section where everybody just nodded along with Turley. Instead he shows up with the sharpest counterargument he can find, and by the time we’re done working through it, everybody understands the law better than when we started. That’s a real contribution. Bravo, X. Keep ’em coming.
OLLY
Exactly !!!
If not for people like X, this blog would simply be a mindless congregation of cult members, like you, who congregate here daily to nod your heads in agreement with the nonsensical diatribes that Turley puts forth every day.
It is more likely than not that Turley doesn’t even write this garbage, but if he does, he is simply writing it with extreme bias to deliberately stoke the rage of the MAGA mob.
Thankfully, people like X see through this charade and point out the reality of Turley’s deliberate deceptions and distortions.
So, all conservatives are “cult members.” That kind of absurd statement is not only laughably false, but it is only ever made by an actual cult member.
Professor Turley’s well-reasoned articles are “nonsensical diatribes” because they don’t parrot the political narrative favored by the Left. That kind of absurd statement is not only laughably false, but it is only ever made by an actual cult member.
Professor Turley – a moderate Democrat who is a widely renowned legal scholar and sought-after commenter on all manner of legal issues – is “writing with extreme bias to deliberately stoke the rage of the MAGA mob.” That kind of absurd statement is not only laughably false, but it is only ever made by an actual cult member.
Conservatives and MAGAs are not the same thing since Trump came around. MAGAs are members of a cult of personality who worship a malignant narcissist. Conservatives do not agree with them which is why they have set up organizations like “The Lincoln Project” and “The Bulwark” to push back. Turley is NOT a “moderate Democrat”–no one on the MAGA payroll can claim that–he may have been a Democrat at one time, but now, he’s MAGA. Does he ever write anything favorable to Democrats? How about all of the obsessing about Hunter Biden, but ignoring Trump’s worthless sons starting a robot business and getting a multimillion dollar government contract. Calling Turley a “moderate Democrat” is just a MAGA selling point, like claiming he is a “widely renowned legal scholar”–notice who he writes for–the NY Post, Fox.com and he is a regular commentator on MAGA media. Turley NEVER discusses the numerous court cases lost by the Trump DOJ, the multiple scandals, like Blanche being referred for disciplinary violations, the Trump slush fund case that includes immunity for IRS violations and paying reparations to J6 Defendants, all of the Trump grifting–including the latest–selling, for $100,000 a month, early access to Trump tweets–so they can game the stock market. He never comments on things like accepting the Qatari air craft, purchase by Middle Eastern oligarchs of his worthless crypto currency, Bezos paying millions to Melania for that dud of a “movie”, in exchange for which he gets favors, giving nuclear bombs to Saudi Arabia (which gave Kushner $2 to bail out his failing business), starting a war based on a lie, violating international law by deliberately bombing civilian infrastructure like bridges and desalination plants–there are so many controversies, it’s hard to keep up, but Turley stays mum and looks for obscure stories, ways to attack Democrats and attack Trump’s enemies.
Gigenius made up every word of this.
Ohhhhh, look, it’s X as Anonymous. You are as transparent as your arguments.
“OLLY
Exactly !!!
If not for people like X, this blog would simply be a mindless congregation of cult members,”
This is X. What a clown.
OLLY,
As you know, and most others do as well, I generally do not bother to read GSX as, well, it is nothing but AI garbage. Garbage in, garbage out is all it amounts to.
Although your comments and comparing this case as to what the Framers were facing prior to and leading up to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution were very interesting. I think it also really highlights how wrong Boasberg is, as the higher court, and PT, points out.
You should read everything X says! He comes here everyday to correct Turley about the law, the Constitution! X knows everything! About construction! About rent! About being a landlord! About elections! About airplanes! About algae! And now he is pointing out how wrong Turley is but that DC federal judge and that DC appellate court were wrong too! You all need to shut up and listen to X! He is the smarts person he knows! Just ask him!
As I’ve said on this blog about X many times, anyone could write his comments before he walks in the room. Just start from the premise that rights are something government hands out rather than something it’s bound to respect, treat the Constitution as an obstacle to clear rather than a line to hold, and be audacious enough to believe your read of the law beats a law professor’s. The rest writes itself.
don’t remember you saying that about X, but others have.
Well I’m glad others remember me saying that. Perhaps a regimen of Omega-3’s might help with your memory issues.
“As I’ve said on this blog about X”
No, you said that about rights and formation, yada yada, in general but not “about X.”
So what, now your memory is coming back to you? 😂 Dude, I appreciate the opportunity to point out your enumerable flaws in reason and logic. But my oh my, you could try to make it just a bit more difficult.
what a stupid comment. My memory has not changed,can you read?
This is what you said, “As I’ve said on this blog about X many times, anyone could write his comments before he walks in the room”
As i said, I do not remember you ever saying that about X, but OTHERS have thrown that at him.
Now you come back with a stupid comment about reason and logic?
I don’t read your comments every day, I maybe missed it when you “said on this blog about X many times” so I’ll give you that, although “many times” would indicate that I should have seen it somewhere.
Has nothing to do with reason and logic on my part, that was really dumb, OLly.
Nope. You don’t even remember what you wrote less than 2 hours ago. As i said, I do not remember you ever saying that about X, but OTHERS have.
thrown that at him.What’s truly dumb is your feeble attempt to dunk on me, admittingly without knowing the full history of my comments. I really don’t actually care. It was a lay down and I had the time.
Thanks for your attention to this matter. 😉
His comments on military and scientific subjects are comedy gold.
Appreciate that, Upstate. I’m right there with you. And that’s really what stuck with me too. The founders weren’t debating legal procedure in the abstract. They were describing something they’d actually lived through, a single official deciding your fate with no jury and no accountability to the people affected. Seeing that same shape show up in Boasberg’s ruling isn’t a stretch. It’s the same grievance wearing a different coat. The appellate court already said as much once. Worth watching whether it has to say it again.
It’s the only law he’s ever going to practice.
I think that it is time that a judge, ANY JUDGE, that is overturned by a higher court more than a set number of times, should be automatically reassessed and possibly removed as not knowing and/or following the law!
These are the facts:
2021, Judge Boasberg dismissed the lawsuit filed by the pro-life groups (Frederick Douglass Foundation v. District of Columbia). He ruled that the groups could not prove “invidious intent” (intentional, malicious discrimination) by the D.C. government.
In August 2023, a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his dismissal. The appellate court ruled that Boasberg had applied the wrong legal standard. They clarified that for a First Amendment free-speech challenge regarding selective enforcement, the plaintiffs did not need to prove malicious intent; they only needed to show that:
The two sets of protesters were in similar situations. The government enforced the law differently based on the content of their speech.
The appellate court sent the case back down to Boasberg with explicit instructions to apply this easier-to-meet standard and allow the parties to gather evidence (discovery).
After the case was sent back, both sides engaged in discovery to collect evidence (including the bodycam footage of police watching BLM graffiti). Following this, the District of Columbia moved for summary judgment, asking Boasberg to throw out the case again before a jury trial.. The law allows Judge Boasberg to issue a summary judgment based on court rules.
In February 2026, Judge Boasberg dismissed the case a second time. >b>Applying the appellate court’s standard, he ruled as a matter of law that the pro-life chalkers and the BLM protesters were still not “similarly situated” because a small, orderly group cannot be legally compared to massive, fluid crowds during widespread civil unrest.
Because Boasberg dismissed the case again at the summary judgment stage, the pro-life groups appealed his decision back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court is reviewing his second dismissal to determine if he properly followed their instructions or if the case finally needs to go to a jury trial.
Boasberg did exactly as he was required to do. Adhering to the appellate court’s prescribed standard.
This standard comes from a case United States vs. Armstrong.
In Armstrong, African-American defendants indicted on federal crack cocaine charges argued they were victims of selective prosecution. They presented an affidavit showing that in every single crack cocaine case handled by the local federal public defender’s office that year, the defendant was Black.The Supreme Court rejected this evidence and set a notoriously high bar for the “similarly situated” comparator.
The Court held that to even get discovery (access to internal government or police files) to look for bias, a claimant must present a credible baseline of “clear evidence”.
To be “similarly situated,” the individuals being compared must have engaged in the same conduct, violated the same statute, and yet faced entirely different outcomes without any legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to explain the gap.
This is where the pro-life group runs into trouble because they committed their crime in the within orderly, peaceful and calm circumstances. The BLM crimes were committed during a violent riot, and in the middle of chaos and little to no police presence. The Supreme Court in 1996 set the bar high. When complaining about selective prosecutions. This is the result and why Boasberg is able to dismiss the pro-life group’s case.
The appeal will determine if judge Boasberg’s application of the appeal court’s standards was satisfactory.
X
The appelate court told Boasberg to look at first amendment issues.
You either violated the first amendment or you did not.
While a party can claim that a first amendment violation AND a selective prosecution violation is aparent because of disparate handling of similar cases. All you have to do to win a first amendment case is to prove your first amendment rights are being violated.
Not they are comparatively being violated.
The Armstrong case you cite is irrelevant.
No X
Armstrong is a racial discrimination case, and it sets a CORRECT standard for proving racial discrimination.
The core to Armstrong is that statistical evidence is insufficient to prove intentional discrimination.
It is not applicable here.
The party in this case is claiming a first amendment violation.
There is no statistical standard for the first amendment,
there is no comparative standard.
There is no similarly situated standard.
Again you and Boasberg are engaged in ideologically directed reasoning
Reasoning from the desired outcome, rather than the facts and law.
The best test for bias is the “shoe on the other foot standard” and as I have noted – your logic is completely inverted when you seek to prosecute ideological oponents such as Trump and j6ers.
Corts are requird to be ideologically blind.
A test for blindness is do similar cases produce the same outcome without regard for ideology.
Violent offenders are NOT similar to non-violent offenders therefore they are NOT suitable to compare.
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
X
The “similiar situations” standard is irrelevant if the first amendment is an issue.
You can facially violate first amendment rights, or you can ‘”as applied” violate them.
There is not “compared to other cases” test – nor can there be.
An as applied violation means the law itself meets the standard of neutrality,
but it is not being enforced neutrally.
Again there is no comparative standard. Either the law is being enforced neutrally or it is not.
Further neutrality is NOT the only requirement for an as applied constitutional violation.
You can as an example have a law that does not on the surface appear to violate the first amendment,
but “as applied” violates the first amendment EVEN if it is applied the same to everyone.
The plaintiffs’ appellate brief can be found at adfmedia.org. It argues that Boasberg usurped the role of the jury on the “similarly situated” question, which is fact intensive. There were two small peaceful and compliant groups whose messages were treated differently. Video was available for both events. Boasberg did the work that should be done be a jury in determining what was a fact and what weight to give different facts when they cut in opposite directions (though it seems there were few if any of these identified by Boasberg). The brief argues effectively that the groups were similarly situated in all material respects, and in any event that a reasonable jury could so conclude. So long as that is possible, it should have been handed to a jury to decide at trial.
Daniel,
Once again, thank you for your legal analysis and writing in such a way, us non-legal types can understand.
X
You are the most egregiously obvious example of directed thinking that I have ever seen.
Elsewhere you have argued that peaceful protesors are not similar to violent riots.
That is correct
But then you go one to claim that it is therefore appriopriate to treat violent rioters LESS seriously than peaceful protesters.
While under SIMILAR circumstances it is NOT selective prosecution to go after those cases easiest to prove.
When the circumstances are NOT similar – which YOU correctly note, it is the LESS serious violations that are prosecutors may choose not to prosecute. Not the MORE serious.
That is a requirement of the rule of law – it is more important to prosecute violent murders – even when that is harder than peaceful protestors.
Where law enforcment argues limited resources as a justification for selective prosecution – they MUST direct resources to the more severe offenses not the less severe ones.
The rule of law requires that where discretion if given that the benefits are to those who are less violent.
Those of you on the left rant because Trump pardoned or commuted the cases of violent offenders.
But Biden and Garland created the complex situation where non-violent people were prosecuted in very large numbers and where trials were conducted in ludicrously biased ways. Prosecutors lied to courts about the involvment of the FBI – which is orders of magnitude greater than the prosecutors told the courts. That is a brady violation.
Trump had the choice of throwing everything out, or trying to figure out if after addressing the constitutional violations of all J6ers violent nd non-violent there was anything left to prosecute. Many of the prosecutorial violations made required dismissal, and in most cases with predjudice because jeophardy had attached. This is one of the reasons prosecutors MUST not game prosecutions – because in many cases they will only get one bite at the apple
Regardless, the point is had Garland/Biden followed the law, tried the cases properly – it is possible they would have gotten convictions of some violent J6ers that would have help up. But they did not.
Rather than waste resources trying to sort out which cases could be dismisssed – because pretty much all the J6 prosecutions were unconstitutionally conducted, and still were possible ot retry, Trump dismissed them all.
While he used the pardon power because it was simplest, in reality that is just a simple case of prosecutorial discretion.
Throw out all cases – because they were constitutionally corrupt
and do not waste massive effort trying to figure if a few could be retried.
I would note that Boasberg was Part of the J6 idiocy – he presided over prosecutions where defendants were clearly deprived BY THE COURTS of their constitutional rights.
Most if not all the judges involved in those cases should be removed for cause
If is the judges duty to protect constitutional rights and to assure that defendants are given due process
Regardless NO ONE would argue that the PROPER prosecution of the violent J6ers was REQUIRED by the rule of law.
Even YOU have argued as much.
An that is why your arguents are OBVIOUSLY biased and directed by ideology.
YOU claim to want the most egregious offenses prosecuted when it is republicans
But you are litterally arguing that because it is harder to prosecuted more egregious offenses committed by those on the left it is OK to go after tiny non-violent offenses, rather than serious violent crimes because it is easier.
Neither of the two defacing small groups was violent. They were both peaceful and compliant according to police testimony. The videos showed the same thing. Neither was a threat to the police or public safety under the circumstances.
Daniel I am responding to X’s argument. HE claimed that the groups were dissimilar because one was violent.
If you are correct he is wrong about that.
I am making the point that you have have selective prosecution,
When you favor a violent group over a nonviolent one.
If I incorrectly relied on X’s factual claims – I apologize.
But my argument is valid in response to X’s.
Here X is a different case – it is not perfectly on point – but it is far closer than Armstrong
The government can not infringe on free expression ESPECIALLY religious expression.
Regardless, Boasberg is with certainty going to get bit$h slapped again – the only question is whether the apellate courts will do so or this will have to go to SCOTUS. Contra your claim – this is not a close call.
Oops
“These are the facts:”
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Svelaz wouldn’t know a fact if it slapped him in the face.
I leave for a few weeks and then come back its always the same. Here is X/George/Svelaz claiming knowledge and insight, while copy/pasting his AI generated drivel.
He has twice changed his name when the shame became so great that even he, with his high tolerance for much justified ridicule, becomes self aware.
Did the article appear after the title?
I had to pause my popup blocker and the article appeared for me.
Thank you.
I have had no need to pause anything for the past ~15 years.
Apparently, the ingenious WordPress has made some beneficial modifications.
The Constitution says that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”. In what way has Boasberg’s behavior, as outlined by the Professor, been good? Repeated instances of outright bias from the bench and willfully exceeding his judicial authority should not be considered good behavior, so shouldn’t Boasberg be impeached and removed from office? I think so.
Boasburg is only the leading example of DC courts pretending to be both legislators and presidents, and, sometimes, little Supreme Courts.
Unlikely to happen, but I would like to see DC as seat of the Supreme Court only. Congress can close all of the lower courts or limit their jurisdiction to purely trivial matters.
It needs to be done.
And someone needs to investigate the legitimacy of Autopen’s judicial appointments, hopefully to begin to take out some of the trash. Even Roberts and 7 other justices might like that in one case.
Well, well, well.
Jimmy Kimmel’s latest ratings are the best the show has had in 23 years.
His viewership in the highly coveted 18 to 49 age group has more than doubled.
He attributes this to the cancellation of Colbert’s show at CBS, and he has sent CBS a message of profuse thanks.
That sounds reasonable. The ratings of Gutfeld are higher than most left wing night time talk shows combined.
While some of use would like ALL left wing nuts to go, the correct free market answer is for the supply to shrink to match demand.
Someone had to go – possibly more than one.
But it is reason abl to expect that ven if demand was not sufficient for all, it was sufficient for some.
Fake news
As a wise man once said….in the absence of water, people will drink the sand.
Jeff Foxworthy used to say, if you did X, you might be a redneck. Here’s mine. If you instinctively find yourself defending the state over a citizen’s First Amendment right, you might be a citizen formed for an administrative oligarchy rather than a constitutional republic.
If you instinctively invoke citizen “formation” as an explanation for everything, then you are a non-thinking zealot with a one-track mind, and a ridiculous axe to grind, and not to be taken seriously by any rational thinking individual.
In other words a cult member.
This “citizen formation” fetish that you have gets very old, very quickly.
Montesquieu, Madison, Tocqueville. Formation isn’t my fetish, it’s a load bearing argument these three built centuries before I showed up. If that makes me a cult member, not knowing it puts you in a different cult. The one that mistakes not having read something for having refuted it.
Ahhhhh !!!
So not only are you a cult member, but you also suffer from delusions of grandeur by placing yourself in the company of such great thinkers as Montesquieu, Madison, Tocqueville.
This delusional belief confirms a mental incapacity that also explains your membership in the MAGA cult.
I believe that Montesquieu, Madison, Tocqueville had thoughts about many, many things beyond “citizen formation”, but your worthless comments invoke this as an explanation for EVERYTHING.
Like I said, a non-thinking, one-track mind, trapped in a fetish like state of thought, not to be taken seriously by any thinking individual.
dude, you sound like a crazy person. slap youself back to reality. this is what I’m talking about when I say unhinged.
I agree.
Olly is a crazy person.
Definitely unhinged.
Also a low IQ that leads you to improperly discern simple messages, ANONYMOUS
He is pointing out that what YOU keep calling a fetish was echoed by great thinkers.
Absolutely great thinker thought about many things,
That does not change what they said and thought about specifics at issue here.
There are many valid arguments to prove Boasbergs obvious bias
You are correct Olly has presented only one.
It is not my prefered argument but
It is a valid argument.
And that is all that matters.
You do not get to control the arguments others make.
John, appreciate the fair read on the formation point. Worth setting the record straight on the other though. That wasn’t my only argument today. I made the case that a fundamental right should always default to a jury, the Declaration grievance that Hancock never got a jury trial either, the tantrum-at-dinner point about which behavior actually gets rewarded, and the form versus function distinction on what actually counts as restoring the Constitution versus rewriting it. Formation’s just the thread tying them together. Doesn’t mean it’s the only argument on the table.
John Say,
Well said.
It appears the annony only wants comments to his liking. Just like he will demand the good professor to write about what he wants PT to write about.
Meanwhile, I have read several very good comments by OLLY, GEB, Daniel, Clarke Penley, a few others and yourself.
How do you figure all that? your biased opinion. ‘axe to grind’ so to speak. what is wrong with you? Is it TDS? I bet it’s TDS.
If you consistently rule in favor of one side ideologically – ruling differently on similar cases you do not have the temperament to be a judge
OLLY,
That right there.
That is one of the defects of a leftist mind.
Upstate, defects is a kind way of saying it.
Turley, stop defending him.
“While chastising President Trump for exceeding his authority, Boasberg has been reversed for exceeding his own.” ~ Story
….
Wait to they see the rest of his authority. He’s just getting started making America great again
They won’t have to wait long imo. .. no doubt he is just getting started.
In my opinion, there is a strong strain of immorality in Judge Boasberg’s actions. In his misapplication of judicial standards and down right obtuse reasoning, he has effectively robbed the plaintiffs of vast sums of money and time that could have and should have been spent on much more productive activities. To be sure, Judge Boasberg did not directly benefit from this theft but it is hard to come away from this story without the notion that Judge Boasberg is intentionally erecting specious legal barriers for the purpose of causing financial stress on particular plaintiffs.
Boasberg has been at this nonsense for a long time. It is NOT one case. Of the most egregious cases in the nation over more than a decade he is the judge on possibly half.
That is a record that should not be possible
Hoberg is the judge who screwed over Carter Page a DECADE ago. He has aparently been the go to judge for the FBI/DOJ to get subpeonas and warrants that have no foundation. He signed off on illegal subpeonas of the records of members of congress – multiple times.
Guttmacher’s law points out blacks obtain 29% of recorded abortions but are 14% of the general population? Does that prove blacks are pregnant more often than other groups? What does that mean? Data from 2010.
Have a good and generous day.
It means alot of black women are too ignorant or too lazy to use contraceptive birth control. Instead they opt to use abortion as a form of after the fact birth control.
Guttmachers records also prove that more strict abortion laws merely result in women making decisions earlier.
Based on Gutmachers records – banning abortions entirely would merely result in better us of birth control and more use of morning after pills
It would not appreciably change the number of children born
There is a factor that some of us are not willing to voice. It is that police are afraid of MOBS.
Some on this site have mentioned “Mobocracy” (sp.?) and I agree.
When police silently watch a violation, for fear of mob reaction, THEY become enablers.
Resource allocation becomes an issue, and police often just back off to ostensibly “keep the peace.” Once things get out of control, there is little way to backtrack events OR mete out effective arrest, control, and accountability for the offenders.
Get yourself a beverage and sit down and watch this slow-moving ESCALATION clearly showing how MOBS gain control.
It is lengthy. It shows what happens when police lose control.
public.org/local-news/2026-07-15/ice-raid-south-burlington-vermont-bodycam-video?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2026-07-15/ice-raid-south-burlington-vermont-bodycam-video?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
The mob is fickle. According to Turley, the streets of D.C. were awash with “Black Lives Matter” graffiti. Obviously, the MPD did not arrest them all. .. maybe the MPD could not arrest them all.
To weigh the ‘specific’ allegations of MPD selective enforcement , one must know how many “Black pre-lives Matter” graffiti the MPD did not arrest.
*I suspect there were very few Black pre-lives Matter graffiti for the MPD to contend with. .. or ignore.
Lin,
I also question whom gave the police orders to ignore the BLM types and arrest all others.
Just as with Judge Boasberg, we have seen DAs who will selectively prosecute some and drop charges for others.
Lin, as a lawyer I’m sure you KNOW how prosecutorial discretion works, right? You’re aware it’s a lawful option, right?
within limits
Thank you.
In a perfect world there would be no such thing.
All alleged crimes would be prosecuted.
Prosecutoria discretion exists to deal with the impossibiity of prosecuting everything in a non-utopian orld.
NOT as the means to allow those with prosecutor favored views to evade rosecution.
X, as a non-lawyer you don’t understand how prosecutorial discretion works…and this ain’t it.
The city itself painted BLM items on public streets, police watched individuals, not scary mobs, paint BLM graffiti all while pro-life BLM graffiti was prosecuted. This isn’t discretion, it’s content driven abuse of First Amendment protections.
Agreed, hullbobby. Discretion means choosing how to enforce a law. This is choosing which message gets to exist. The city didn’t just look away from BLM graffiti, it commissioned its own version in the street. That’s not a close call about crowd safety. That’s picking a side and calling it discretion.
Olly,
Under the Government Speech Doctrine (solidified by the Supreme Court in cases like Pleasant Grove City v. Summum), when a city, state, or federal government speaks for itself, it is exempt from the First Amendment’s requirement of viewpoint neutrality.
The law changes completely when it comes to private citizens defacing property. The pro-life students and the private BLM protesters were both private citizens breaking D.C.’s property defacement law.The legal question is not whether the city liked one message more than the other. The question is whether the police department enforced the law differently against two groups operating under the same conditions.
The BLM Graffiti: Occurred during massive, unpredictable, and volatile city-wide demonstrations that stretched police resources to their absolute limit. Choosing not to arrest individuals in that environment is a recognized, legally protected tactical decision to maintain public safety and avoid inciting wider unrest.
The Pro-Life Chalking: Occurred during a small, peaceful, and entirely orderly gathering. The police had the immediate capacity to enforce the law safely and efficiently.
Because the operational context of the two events was entirely different, the two groups were not “similarly situated in all material respects.” Under the strict standards governing federal civil procedure, a judge cannot send a case to a jury if the plaintiffs fail to provide a legally valid baseline for comparison. The different enforcement was an exercise of tactical discretion based on the safety of the environment, not a content-driven abuse of power.
Sigh…the govt speech doctrine allows the govt to engage in speech w/o PROVIDING contrary opinion. The doctrine does NOT allow govt to bar speech from other private parties.
This is government action favoring/disfavoring speech by viewpoint.
Law enforcement is not government speech it is government action.
“The law changes completely when it comes to private citizens defacing property.”
Nope, the government can not use laws to discriminate based on viewpoint.
If the law discriminates based on viewpoint – the laws is facially unconstitutional
If the application of the law – as in this case discriminates based on viewpoint,
then the application of the law is unconstitutional – as in this case.
“The pro-life students and the private BLM protesters were both private citizens breaking D.C.’s property defacement law.”
“The legal question is not whether the city liked one message more than the other. ”
That is one of many legal questions.
Government MAY NOT act differently based on the expression of a viewpoint.
That is an as applied constitutional violation.
You keep trying to game the constitution to pretend you are not engaged in viewpoint discrimination.
In this case there is CLEAR viewpoint discrimination.
“The question is whether the police department enforced the law differently against two groups operating under the same conditions.”
Not relevant if there is viewpoint discrimination.
“The BLM Graffiti: Occurred during massive, unpredictable, and volatile city-wide demonstrations that stretched police resources to their absolute limit.”
That is an argument FOR prosecuting to preserve order.
” Choosing not to arrest individuals in that environment is a recognized, legally protected tactical decision to maintain public safety and avoid inciting wider unrest.”
Nope, and that is a STUPID argument – but a common one from the left.
You do not maintain order by capitulating to chaos – you encourage anarchy when you do so.
There is massive evidence of this.
“Because the operational context of the two events was entirely different, the two groups were not “similarly situated in all material respects.” ”
Not relevant – you an not game the first amendment.
If you apply the law in a fashion that discriminates by viewpoint – you are acting unconstitutionally and you have violated the first amendment rights of the protesters.
There is a reason that the apellate court threw this back in Boasbergs lap.
This is not even a close call.
YOU MAY NO USE PROPRIETORIAL DISCRETION TO VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
When speech is involved strict scrutiny must be met.
If the right to free speech is infringed on the GOVERNMENT has the burden of proving the infringement meets ALL the requirements of strict scrutiny.
ONE of those is the effect can not be to favor or disfavor specific views. Govenrment may not do that intentionally. It may not even do it unintentionally.
And that is only ONE of the criteria that MUST Be met.
The Capital Police faced a massive, unpredictable, and volatile demonstrations that stretched police resources to their absolute limit.
Are you saying that the Capital police were REQUIRED to stand down ?
X – you ALWAYS run affoul of your own arguments.
While you get th rules of civil procedure wrong – as does Boasberg,
The rules of civil procedure do NOT trump the constitution.
The law does not trump the constitution.
When government laws of actions infringe on First amendment constitutional rights,
Strict scrutiny applies.
To satisfy the strict scrutiny standard, the government must demonstrate the following:
“Compelling Government Interest: The law must serve a compelling state interest, which is essential and not merely preferred.
Narrowly Tailored: The law must be specifically designed to achieve that compelling interest without being overly broad.
Least Restrictive Means: The government must use the least restrictive means available to achieve its goal.
An as-applied challenge argues that a law is unconstitutional in a specific situation—meaning it’s being enforced or applied in a way that violates someone’s rights. If the plaintiff wins, the result is usually narrower than facial relief because it focuses on the law’s effect in that particular context rather than invalidating the entire statute.”
The standard for as applied challenges is STILL strict scrutiny.
Govenrment can not apply an otherwise neutral law in a viewpoint discriminating way.
There is not a rule of procedure to get arround that.
The constitution trumps law and civil procedure.
While you and Boasberg are misreading civil procedure – even if you got it right you would still be in error.
“The BLM Graffiti: Occurred during massive, unpredictable, and volatile city-wide demonstrations that stretched police resources to their absolute limit. Choosing not to arrest individuals in that environment is a recognized, legally protected tactical decision to maintain public safety and avoid inciting wider unrest.”
This type of thinking is EXACTLY what Strict scrutiny is designed to preclude.
Government can not use its subjective determination of FEAR to violate peoples rights
Further it is a stupid and self contradictory claim – you do not preserve public safety by backing down from enforcing the law.
All you are doing is PROVING bias – both yours ad Boasbergs.
You are making a stupid argument that allows those in power to essentially make up the law as they go along.
To favor one group over another by claiming fear as a justification.
There are no extenuating circumstances that allow viewpoint discrimination.
The government can not even attempt to game the first amendment.
Under the Government Speech Doctrine (solidified by the Supreme Court in cases like Pleasant Grove City v. Summum), when a city, state, or federal government speaks for itself, it is exempt from the First Amendment’s requirement of viewpoint neutrality.The law changes completely when it comes to private citizens defacing property. The pro-life students and the private BLM protesters were both private citizens breaking D.C.’s property defacement law.The legal question is not whether the city liked one message more than the other. The question is whether the police department enforced the law differently against two groups operating under the same conditions.
The BLM Graffiti: Occurred during massive, unpredictable, and volatile city-wide demonstrations that stretched police resources to their absolute limit. Choosing not to arrest individuals in that environment is a recognized, legally protected tactical decision to maintain public safety and avoid inciting wider unrest.
The Pro-Life Chalking: Occurred during a small, peaceful, and entirely orderly gathering. The police had the immediate capacity to enforce the law safely and efficiently.
Because the operational context of the two events was entirely different, the two groups were not “similarly situated in all material respects.” Under the strict standards governing federal civil procedure, a judge cannot send a case to a jury if the plaintiffs fail to provide a legally valid baseline for comparison. The different enforcement was an exercise of tactical discretion based on the safety of the environment, not a content-driven abuse of power.
Every single word AI generated.
“operational context”…good one, bot.
X is a stooge and a slave to his chatgpt app.
Crowd safety as an argument goes the OTHER way.
to the extent discretion is legitimate it must favor the non-violent over the violent.
Unlike the left constantly argues, those who react with violence to the speach of others are the proprietorial priority – not the speakers.
John, that’s right, and the safety argument runs the other way no matter how you come at it. If crowd safety justifies discretion at all, it should point enforcement at whoever’s actually creating the risk, not at whoever’s standing there peacefully. Treat the peaceful speaker as the problem because someone else might react badly to what he’s saying, and you’ve just handed a veto to whoever’s willing to get loud. Backwards on its face.
One more thing worth saying plainly. We already know government will infringe rights sometimes. Not shocking, not new. What’s worse is watching people defend it once it happens, especially when the enforcement plainly favors one team over the other. That’s not discretion anymore. That’s just picking sides and calling it procedure.
Olly – X has a tiny point – but only under circumstances NOT present here.
WHEN circumstances have ACTUALLY gotten out of control – law enforcement can back off – retreat.
The police are not required to commit suicide to enforce the law.
But X and Boasberg are not arguing a REAL situation where the police have lost control and must triage enforcement,
They are arguing the FEAR of such a situation.
They are literally arguing a very stupid claim akin to a reverse hecklers veto
They are arguing they can not enforce laws that infringe on rights – if they are too afraid.
That inherently means that any group or individual can litterally get away with murder if they can create sufficient fear
X is literally arguing that BLM is a terrorist organization and that instead of prosecuting, law enforcement must kowtow.
Terrorism is not limited to actual violence – the Threat of violence to acheive political goals is terrorism
If X’s argument is correct – then BLM is guilty of terrorism.
I am NOT – in this instance arguing that is the case. Just that is how absurd X’s argument is.
Must the US disengage from the mideast – because Al Qeda MIGHT in the future stage another 9/11 ?
Hullbobby, you’re confusing two different things. If the city commissions street art it’s entirely their right.
Under the Government Speech Doctrine (reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum), the government has an absolute right to express its own views or promote a message on its own property without being forced to provide equal space to opposing views. When D.C. painted the street, it was legally “speaking” as a government entity, which is fundamentally different from a private citizen defacing a sidewalk with chalk or paint.
Even if a specific officer was filmed watching a single individual spray-paint a wall, that officer was operating within a city-wide, mass-protest environment that strained police resources and threatened public safety. Courts routinely rule that police are exercising legitimate tactical discretion when they choose not to arrest individual low-level offenders during active, fluid civil unrest to avoid escalating a crowd or pulling officers away from more critical duties.
For a court to find a “content-driven abuse of First Amendment protections,” the plaintiffs must prove that the only reason they were arrested—and the others were not—was the content of their speech.Because the pro-life groups were operating during a calm, orderly, and small gathering, the police had the immediate capacity to enforce the defacement law without operational risk. Because the environmental circumstances were vastly different, Judge Boasberg ruled as a matter of law that the plaintiffs could not provide a legally valid “comparator.” The difference in enforcement was legally justified by the context of the events, not the content of the speech.
X: You responded to my comment with, “Lin, as a lawyer I’m sure you KNOW how prosecutorial discretion works, right? You’re aware it’s a lawful option, right?
I respond with, “X, if you were a lawyer, you would know that ‘prosecutorial discretion’ has NOTHING to do with the matter in either Boasberg’s BLM matter, OR the Vermont police in my linked video.
It is a matter of law enforcement discretion, or officer discretion, or police discretion, -NOT prosecutorial discretion. (It is named differently in different jurisdictions. )
You’re aware of that, right?
thanks anyway.
p.s. here’s an example for you. https://public.powerdms.com/MANSPD/documents/975809
X doesn’t get it that prosecutors’ discretion attaches to whether or not to PROSECUTE charges that were cited by police, only prosecute some of them (including upgrading some of them, depending on evidence), or decline to prosecute. X is clearly a know-it-all-but-doesn’t-understand-it clown.
If the city produces street art expressing a viewpoint, it can NOT discriminate against other viewpoints.
You keep trying to game the first amendment and the constitution
“the government has an absolute right to express its own views”
No it does NOT – and the case you cite says that
In the Case you cite SCOTUS found that government was NOT endorsing a viewpoint by allowing the 10 commandments to be displayed in a public park. SCOTUS would have ruled against the city had the monument been commissioned by the city.
There is no absolute right of government to express its own views.
Glassroth v. Moore
in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum it was critical that the monuments that were allowed were NOT Government speech.
Had they been the case would have gone the other way.
“officer was operating within a city-wide, mass-protest environment that strained police resources and threatened public safety.”
LMAO you don’t even listen to yourself. Threats to public safety should be dealt with…harshly.
Amen.
Prosecutorial discretion is NOT a loophole in the first amendment.
Prosecutorial discretion is over used – but it is still real and legitimate – we do not live in utopia.
The NORMAL standard for proving selective prosecution is HIGH.
But that INVERTS where rights subject to strict scrutiny are being exercised.
The claim here is an “AS APPLIED” violation of the first amendment – there is no prosecutorial discretion exception to the first amendment requirement that Government may not treat speakers different based on their views. PERIOD
X thinks that means a prosecutor has discretion to ignore the law or apply it any way they choose. LMAO what a douche AND a dunce.
If the power of the mob is to bring terror and fear for life or property then the ‘mob’ are called terrorists.
They’re not afraid of the mob, they’re afraid of the lawyers. See Derek Chauvin and the other officers as a stellar example of punishment for doing the job.
Imagine that. A U.S. District Court judge who believes in the rule of self over the rule of law.
“While chastising President Trump for exceeding his authority, Boasberg has been reversed for exceeding his own.” ~ Story
In the past few days X the know it all has posted that the federal government at the request of Donald Trump wants to have a percentage of the computer chips industry. However two things were left out. The first is that the proposal is not in effect yet but is under review. The second critical peace of information is the amount of government funds that the Biden administration provided to the chip industry. CHIPS and Science Act is a U.S. federal law enacted on August 9, 2022, providing roughly $280 billion to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing, research, and workforce training.
A lie by omission is the most nefarious kind of lie. X understands this tactic very well.
Of course you fail to understand that there is absolutely no comparison between CHIPS and what Trump is proposing.
CHIPS provided funding in the form of a combination of grants, loans and tax credits to help companies with the huge capital costs of building new manufacturing plants. The government did not get any equity interest in the companies.
Trump is proposing that the government take an equity stake in chip companies. In other words an ownership interest, which of course would be absolutely no different from how things are done in communist China, where the government has it dirty little fingers in the all the major industries.
Apparently you are a socialist at best, and a communist at worst.
If our tax dollars are being used to fund those companies without return payment with interest, then the government should have a commensurate share in that company. When the company can return the tax dollar investments they can buy their way out of the agreement. That way the taxpayers aren’t stuck with an Obama Solyndra at liquidation time.
CHIPS consisted of loans, grants and tax credits. The payoff for the government is interest on the loans, and/or increased tax revenue from helping companies to establish themselves to produce chips in the US, instead of relying on China.
If you demand a government equity stake in private companies, then you are a socialist or communist, plain and simple.
If the government had an equity interest in Solyndra, then it would still have lost that interest when Solyndra failed.
When the government tries to help private companies, it always takes a risk. Sometimes it loses, sometimes it wins.
But if you demand that the government has an equity stake, then you are a socialist.
I’m demanding a personal guarantee by the CEO and/or Corporate Officers that provides for a legal source of remedy for default. Should that be a performance bond or other legal means such as establishing an equity partnership then so be it, call me Comrade. It’s OUR fking money and if you’re not looking, they have delivered us at a $40T dollar debt.
🎱, this is an interesting problem. I have a lot of thoughts on this ideological issue, but if the company shares are non-voting shares, it has a different effect. As you say, it is similar to a performance bond.
ATS – government subsidizing anything is a MISTAKE.
It is still a mistake if govenrment gets something in return.
But it is not socialism until the exhange is involuntary.
So long as you can say no to subsidies – they are a mistake not socialism.
Let’s no forget that Obama provided over 500 million dollars to a solar panel corporation that went out of business during his 2nd administration
How much did taxpayers lose on that investment? 100% seems close enough for government purposes.
Investing in well-established entities might make better sense
If an entity is well established, then it likely doesn’t need any help in the form of investments or government assistance.
If you want to limit government actions to “investments in well-established businesses”, then that is simply the government taking an ownership in a successful private business. The very definition of socialism.
The role of government in helping private businesses should be limited to loans, grants or tax credits, with the long term goal of helping the company to establish itself. The payoff is increased tax revenue, both from the company and the people it employs, as well as improving GPD, lowering the deficit, and reducing reliance on imports.
There is always inherent risk in the government doing this. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
But if you believe that the government should “invest” only in “well-established businesses”, then that is simply government ownership of existing private businesses, and you are a socialist, plain and simple.
You say: “The role of government in helping private businesses should be limited to loans, grants or tax credits, with the long term goal of helping the company to establish itself. The payoff is increased tax revenue, both from the company and the people it employs, as well as improving GPD, lowering the deficit, and reducing reliance on imports.”
Can you identify some examples where this has worked? The government is not qualified or even interested in creating a successful business. Politics always control their decisions.
edwardmahl
There are literally thousands of examples where this has worked.
Have ever heard of the Small Business Administration that was formed for the explicit purpose of providing seed money in the form of loans to private businesses.
Or the Small Business Innovation Research grants.
Here are specific examples.
Tesla: in 2010 received a low interest loan from the Dept. of Energy to build its Fremont plant.
Apple: started with an SBA loan to Steve Jobs.
NIKE : started with SBA loan
FEDEX: received SBA loans in its early years when it was struggling
Qualcomm: started with SBIR grant
Symantec: received SBIR grants from the National Science Foundation to develop computer security systems
Honeybee Robotics: builds tools used on Mars rovers, and started with SBIR grants from NASA.
FLIR Systems: builds thermal imaging equipment for the military. Started with DoD grants.
Amgen: massive multinational biopharmaceutical company, started with SBIR grants.
Biogen: pharmaceutical giant, started with SBIR grants.
Illumina: world leader in DNA sequencing, started with SBIR garnts from NIH
This is a very, very , very short list of the vast number of huge, successful American companies that have relied on government assistance in their early years.
“[T]he Small Business Administration that was formed for the explicit purpose of providing seed money in the form of loans to private businesses.”
To be precise, the SBA does not loan money. It guarantees private loans made to small businesses.
The SBA socializes risk, just as Fannie and Freddie do — at other people’s expense. And they should *not* exist.
The role of government in helping private businesses should be limited to doing absolutely nothing.
All of these distort the the free market. The result in poorer decisions being made
With respect to your claim THERE IS NO PAYOFF – if there was these businesses would not have th slightest difficulty securing private investment.
when Government does ANY of the things you claim they are incontrobertably funding MISTAKES –
Credit card companies in the US alone finance $2T in debt EVERYDAY – there is no shortage of private capital with loans priced based on risk. The US money supply is a FRACTION of the total available private capital. Government is limited to a fraction of the money supply – though it has some power to inflate the money supply – socializing costs.
Regardless, your argument is that requiring assets in retur for loans of subsidies is socialism
That is lunacy – is all rivate investment socialism ? Is all insurance socialism ?
Every economic mistake is not socialism.
Government exchanging value for value is usually a mistake, but it is not socialism.
As usual we have a profoundly absurd comment from the certifiably insane John Say.
He is rambling incoherently that government involvement with private business is ALWAYS a mistake, and NEVER pays off.
This is utter insanity.
SBA makes loans to small businesses, and the loans are paid back.
SBIR grants are to develop technology that the government wants for its own purposes, but does not have the capacity to develop. So the government makes grants to companies and the payoff is that the government gets the technology it needs, such as thermal imaging for the military, security systems for computer networks, tools needed for the Mars rovers.
If the government did not make these grants, then they would have to employ people to develop the technology, and then John Say would whine that the government is getting too big.
The bottom line is that some of the most successful and valuable companies in the world have relied on government assistance, NOT handouts. And the payoff has been astronomical in terms of contributions to the economy, and increased tax revenues for the government.
On rare occasions the grants and loans do not result in success and some companies fail, but they are a very small minority, and the payoff from the successes is huge.
John Say is a raving lunatic, living in a world of complete fantasy and completely disconnected from reality.
The only thing the government should do to help private businesses is assure a fair market free of monopoly and corruption. Corruption is the death knell for any form of government.
You should probably take this up with Elon Musk.
He got a loan of $465 at 2.6% interest to build out his Tesla assembly plant in Fremont.
Tesla profitability depends on government zero emission credits. In 2020 he collected $1.6 billion in cash directly from the government in zero emission credits. His net income from sales of Tesla was $721 million. In recent filings Tesla reported $3.8 billion in net profits, and $2 billion of that came from direct payments from the government in emissions credits.
Tesla Solar received $497.5 million from the Federal government in direct grants, and another $750 million in grants from the State of NY.
Musk is arguably one of the greatest recipients of government welfare in history.
* $465 MILLION loan at 2.6% interest
“Musk is arguably one of the greatest recipients of government welfare in history.”
He was the first to pay his loan off.
The left is panicked by Global Warming, so the left was enthused when federal money was made available to provide low-interest loans. Musk did exactly what the left wanted, and now the left is complaining. You guys are unstable.
we can no longer trust these companies to be loyal to the US and these are critical.
“would be absolutely no different from how things are done in communist China”
One can debate the ideological arguments on this point, but it is definitely not like China. You take similarities and make them into “the same”, purely for pugnacious ignorance.
Interesting comment.
You say, “One can debate the ideological arguments on this point, but it is definitely not like China”. And rather than enter into debate, which you say is reasonable, you simply follow that up with a categorical statement that they are definitely not the same, followed by a snotty insult.
So your idea of a debate on this matter is simply to categorically state that the other side is wrong, without any argument as to why that would be, and then compound that with insults.
Perhaps, if as you say this point is debatable, you should debate it with a counterargument. Categorical statements and insults is not debating.
” And rather than enter into debate, which you say is reasonable, you simply follow that up with a categorical statement that they are definitely not the same”
Sigmund the Fraud has reappeared. I’d love to answer straight in your face, but all I get is the back of your head; you always run away.
“One can debate the ideological arguments on this point,”
The point I made had nothing to do with China. If you understood the written language, you would easily realize that the reasonable debate was that “One can debate the ideological arguments on this point.” Conservatives, Libertarians, and Classical Liberals might have different viewpoints on this subject. The floor is open to you, but I can already see you running away in the distance.
Final Grade: Pseudo-Intellectual Pedant, Desperate Dodger, and Pugnacious Pretender
I don’t have the faintest idea of what this mess of a response is supposed to mean.
Who or what is Sigmund the Fraud? What is this nonsense about running away and grading?
Now you are saying that the point you made had nothing to do with China. The comment you made at 4:22pm was in response to my comment at 10:59am. You directly quoted part of my comment verbatim. My comment was about China. Your comment at 4:22 has the word China in it. And now you say that comment had “nothing to do with China” and yet you specifically mentioned China. What exactly is the ideological argument that you propose actually about if not China?
What is wrong with this picture?
You are obviously not playing with a full deck here. Are you having a stroke or a psychotic breakdown, or both?
“Now you are saying that the point you made had nothing to do with China.”
Sigmund the Fraud, when dealing with my point, China was not mentioned
“One can debate the ideological arguments on this point.” When dealing with your whiny complaint, “rather than enter into debate;” I am waiting for you to debate.
Final Grade: Pseudo-Intellectual Pedant, Pugnacious Pretender, and Baffled Baffoon
Meyer,
Just for the record, that is not me you are responding to.
Obviously your paranoid personality disorder is kicking up a few notches.
But at least you confirm that I am living rent free in your head, and that you see me everywhere now.
Maybe that was me at the gas station yesterday????
Or maybe that was me staring at you in the grocery store???
Perhaps that was me who left that strange voicemail on your phone ???
What a loser !!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sigmund the Fraud: When you chase me around, it is you who can’t help himself. All you have is ugly rhetoric. The question that you leave unanswered is how one balances ideological viewpoints when a national security issue arises and the government chooses to help that company survive.
You can continue to throw insults, or you can engage in useful discussion. The choice is yours.
Final Grade: Pseudo-Intellectual Pedant, Pugnacious Pretender, and Baffled Baffoon
Trump is free to compare any two things he choses.
Trump’s platform is that we should get value for value.
While subsidies are stupid turning those subsidies into assets or equity does SOME repair to the damage.
There is a difference from China. No one is obligated to accept Chips money
TiT,
That is why I dont even bother to read GSX crap. It is nothing but bad AI garbage.
Your criticism is correct.
But whether it is Trump, Biden, Obama, ….
Government should NOT subsidize the economy.
All government subsidies distort the economy.
Further they make things cost ore not less.
They are always a bad idea.
“Lurch” is getting a well-deserved comeuppance.
Curiously, Trump’s name is invariably invoked by those decrying criticism of the courts, when Boasberg (and many other judges) blatently act on their political instincts. His hipocrisy is stunning.
I am delighted to report that in morning trading SpaceX stock is trading at $112. It has been cut in half from its high of $225 and continues to collapse.
Tesla is also down 13% after a miserable Q2 earnings report.
This brings Elmo the Muskrat’s net worth to $671 billion, down 54% in a little over a month, and rapidly dropping as we speak.
The operation of capitalism and the free markets are wonderful to behold.
Winners win, and losers lose.
This creep is delighted that the Market, and therefore millions of Americans, lost a bunch of money today. This is the reason we all hate liberals. They’re all envious little losers.
Apparently you have no understanding of capitalism and how it works.
People who made the bad decision to buy SPCX stock are definitely losing money, but you seem to think that the Market is somehow losing money.
That cannot possibly be true.
The Market does not lose money. All the money is still there. It has just been redistributed from people who make foolish decisions, to those who are able to make much better of use of the money.
That is the beauty of capitalism.
Winners will win, and losers will lose.
ATS loved Musk…until he didn’t.
ATS While you are free to delight in whatever you want.
And you are correct we are seeing free markets at work.
Musk has not lost anything that was ever his.
He is more wealthy now than before, the only question is how much more wealthy.
Regardless he owns the same number of shares of spaceX
He owns the same assets, the only question is what they are worth
If Musk is losing – Please let me lose like Musk
Judge Boasberg, aka Lurch also plays a mean harpsicord
Enough of the pseudo-intellectual gamesmanship! The purpose of The Law is Justice. The lifeblood of The Law is fairness. The article criticizes but doesn’t condemn. It even compliments the judge’s career. Many of the comments are much worse. Defense of this radical, biased and judicially flawed judge is immersed in and shielded behind interpretation of The Law, ignoring completely the fact that Justice was never the judge’s consideration. The judge hid behind legalism. His OPINION took precedent over everything and used The Law selectively, all the while hiding behind black robes and a gavel. This is what has made The Law a joke to millions of us. A Game of Thrones where the thrones are judicial benches and their occupants are corrupted by personal biases. Just be aware that the next step is a total disregard for The Law, disrespect for its mechanisms and finally disobedience. Once that step is taken it all comes apart like a cheap watch.
Great comment Clarke! You sound like Bastiat. This from the opening of his book The Law: The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
It’s chilling to consider, but I can imagine a future leftist administration nominating this judge to a higher court.
It is not true, a heap of bs. You sound like a Scientologist.
YOU SOUND LIKE A COMMUNIST.
Clarke Penley,
Great comment!
Although I see PT recognizing the judges previous accomplishments, he points out how the judge has gone astray all because of who is in the WH and how even someone such as a judge can be corrupted by the woke mind virus.