Liberal Forum

A federal appeals court late Tuesday rejected President Trump’s attempts to use an 18th-century wartime law to deport immigrants he has accused of belonging to a violent Venezuelan street gang. 

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, was the first time that federal appellate judges had weighed in on the substantive question of whether Mr. Trump had properly invoked the law, the Alien Enemies Act, as part of his aggressive deportation agenda. While the ruling by a divided three-judge panel of one of the most conservative courts in the country was a defeat for the administration, the issue was still likely to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The third judge on the panel, Andrew S. Oldham, a Trump appointee, wrote a 131-page dissent in which he assailed his colleagues for questioning the president’s authority. 

“Today the majority holds that President Trump is just an ordinary civil litigant,” Oldham wrote. “His declaration of a predatory incursion is not conclusive. Far from it. Rather, President Trump must plead sufficient facts — as if he were some run-of-the-mill plaintiff in a breach-of-contract case — to convince a federal judge that he is entitled to relief.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/03/us/trump-news

 
I understand why these reactionary whores in robes want to facilitate Grifty's excesses, but I don't understand the rationale of Deference. 

A judicial proceeding is an "adversarial" event. The contestants are not people, but the arguments they present. As such, the idea that one side proceeds from a position of Divine Favor should be readily rejected.

 

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2025, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 9:12 am

A federal appeals court late Tuesday rejected President Trump’s attempts to use an 18th-century wartime law to deport immigrants he has accused of belonging to a violent Venezuelan street gang. 

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, was the first time that federal appellate judges had weighed in on the substantive question of whether Mr. Trump had properly invoked the law, the Alien Enemies Act, as part of his aggressive deportation agenda. While the ruling by a divided three-judge panel of one of the most conservative courts in the country was a defeat for the administration, the issue was still likely to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The third judge on the panel, Andrew S. Oldham, a Trump appointee, wrote a 131-page dissent in which he assailed his colleagues for questioning the president’s authority. 

“Today the majority holds that President Trump is just an ordinary civil litigant,” Oldham wrote. “His declaration of a predatory incursion is not conclusive. Far from it. Rather, President Trump must plead sufficient facts — as if he were some run-of-the-mill plaintiff in a breach-of-contract case — to convince a federal judge that he is entitled to relief.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/03/us/trump-news

I understand why these reactionary whores in robes want to facilitate Grifty's excesses, but I don't understand the rationale of Deference. 

A judicial proceeding is an "adversarial" event. The contestants are not people, but the arguments they present. As such, the idea that one side proceeds from a position of Divine Favor should be readily rejected.

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

Vegas » 03 Sep 2025, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 9:23 am

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

@Deezer Shoove  


You mIght want to resend that "2nd email".

This is big news, MAGAts...

This isn't  the dope smoking 9th, this is the Reactionary Safe Space.

This sets up a potentially interesting conflict should SCOTUS consider it.

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2025, 9:34 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 9:34 am

You mIght want to resend that "2nd email".

His first email was meant for you. I am not the one tagging him you *******. 

Vegas » 03 Sep 2025, 9:53 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 9:53 am

His first email was meant for you. I am not the one tagging him you *******.

That makes one of you a liar...

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2025, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 10:05 am

That makes one of you a liar...

Are you the one tagging him or me? 

Vegas » 03 Sep 2025, 10:07 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 10:07 am

Are you the one tagging him or me?

Hiding again. This mother **** can't stop hiding. You don't answer my questions, so I won't answer yours.

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2025, 10:45 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 10:45 am

Hiding again. This mother **** can't stop hiding. You don't answer my questions, so I won't answer yours.

Copies me again. Once again, proving he has no thoughts of his own. 

The evidence just piles up.

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2025, 10:45 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 10:45 am

Hiding again. This mother **** can't stop hiding. You don't answer my questions, so I won't answer yours.

Speaking of hiding, do you have that definition of "assault weapon" you were using a few weeks ago? 

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2025, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 9:12 am

A federal appeals court late Tuesday rejected President Trump’s attempts to use an 18th-century wartime law to deport immigrants he has accused of belonging to a violent Venezuelan street gang. 

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, was the first time that federal appellate judges had weighed in on the substantive question of whether Mr. Trump had properly invoked the law, the Alien Enemies Act, as part of his aggressive deportation agenda. While the ruling by a divided three-judge panel of one of the most conservative courts in the country was a defeat for the administration, the issue was still likely to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The third judge on the panel, Andrew S. Oldham, a Trump appointee, wrote a 131-page dissent in which he assailed his colleagues for questioning the president’s authority. 

“Today the majority holds that President Trump is just an ordinary civil litigant,” Oldham wrote. “His declaration of a predatory incursion is not conclusive. Far from it. Rather, President Trump must plead sufficient facts — as if he were some run-of-the-mill plaintiff in a breach-of-contract case — to convince a federal judge that he is entitled to relief.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/03/us/trump-news

I understand why these reactionary whores in robes want to facilitate Grifty's excesses, but I don't understand the rationale of Deference. 

A judicial proceeding is an "adversarial" event. The contestants are not people, but the arguments they present. As such, the idea that one side proceeds from a position of Divine Favor should be readily rejected.

No surprise you support traitors and alien  invaders. Your rope is waiting hopefully. Traitor bastard.
 

murdock » 03 Sep 2025, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 10:55 am

No surprise you support traitors and alien  invaders. Your rope is waiting hopefully. Traitor bastard.

You got out from under your brother for THAT?

Vegas » 03 Sep 2025, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 10:47 am

Copies me again. Once again, proving he has no thoughts of his own. 

The evidence just piles up.

Natch..

So where's the definition of survivorship bias, in your words?
 

Whack-a-Mole      

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QhzCL5x010w

 
 

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2025, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 10:57 am

Natch..

So where's the definition of survivorship bias, in your words?

There is the usual deflection. The broken record. The normal tactic. 

Prediction fulfilled. 100% accuracy

1. Your next move is to accuse me of evading while you continue to leave my question unanswered. 
So **** easy. So **** stupid. So **** predictable. 

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2025, 9:34 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 9:34 am

@Deezer Shoove  

You mIght want to resend that "2nd email".

Last chance...

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2025, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 9:12 am

A federal appeals court late Tuesday rejected President Trump’s attempts to use an 18th-century wartime law to deport immigrants he has accused of belonging to a violent Venezuelan street gang. 

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, was the first time that federal appellate judges had weighed in on the substantive question of whether Mr. Trump had properly invoked the law, the Alien Enemies Act, as part of his aggressive deportation agenda. While the ruling by a divided three-judge panel of one of the most conservative courts in the country was a defeat for the administration, the issue was still likely to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The third judge on the panel, Andrew S. Oldham, a Trump appointee, wrote a 131-page dissent in which he assailed his colleagues for questioning the president’s authority. 

“Today the majority holds that President Trump is just an ordinary civil litigant,” Oldham wrote. “His declaration of a predatory incursion is not conclusive. Far from it. Rather, President Trump must plead sufficient facts — as if he were some run-of-the-mill plaintiff in a breach-of-contract case — to convince a federal judge that he is entitled to relief.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/03/us/trump-news

I understand why these reactionary whores in robes want to facilitate Grifty's excesses, but I don't understand the rationale of Deference. 

A judicial proceeding is an "adversarial" event. The contestants are not people, but the arguments they present. As such, the idea that one side proceeds from a position of Divine Favor should be readily rejected.

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

Vegas » 03 Sep 2025, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 12:05 pm

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

@Deezer Shoove  


Would you take this?

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2025, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 12:34 pm

Would you take this?

      He isn't going to help you. I am not going to help you. Nobody is coming to rescue you. 

Blame yourself. It won't stop until you answer. Deal with it.

Vegas » 03 Sep 2025, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2025, 12:36 pm

      He isn't going to help you. I am not going to help you. Nobody is coming to rescue you. 

Blame yourself. It won't stop until you answer. Deal with it.

Coozie wheezed something about "last chance"...