“It is absolutely true that the right to self-defense is vital. And to argue that Perry—who, prior to killing Foster at a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest, wrote that he wanted to “shoot the [protesters] in the front and push the pedal to the metal”—acted in self-defense is to make a total mockery of that right and those who’ve had to exercise it.”
…
“In July 2020, Perry ran a red light and drove into a crowd of protesters. That in and of itself, of course, is not enough to deduce that he was looking for a fight. His own statements prior to doing so, however, add a great deal of helpful context and show his frame of mind at the time. “I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex,” he wrote on social media on May 31, 2020. Also in May, he threatened to a friend that he “might go to Dallas to shoot looters.” And then in mid-June, he sent that message about going to a protest, “shoot[ing] the ones in the front,” and then careening his car through the hubbub.
This was part of a pattern. Austin police detective William Bursley testified, for instance, that Perry searched on Safari for “protesters in Seattle gets shot,” “riot shootouts,” and “protests in Dallas live.” It is not hard to connect the dots between his searches and messages.
So what about that stand-your-ground defense Abbott alleges the jury nullified? Core to Perry’s case and trial was whether he reasonably feared for his life that July evening. Foster indeed had a rifle on him—because open carry is legal in Texas. The Second Amendment does not solely exist for people with conservative views. The big question then: Was Foster pointing the gun at Perry when he approached his vehicle? For the answer, we can go to Perry himself, who told law enforcement that he was not. “I believe he was going to aim at me,” he said. “I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me.” But that is not a self-defense justification, as Perry cannot claim clairvoyance.
That the jury reached the conclusion they did is not a mystery, nor is it an outrage. What is outrageous, however, is that a governor who claims to care about law and order has made clear that his support for crime victims is at least in part conditional on having the “right” politics.”
“the idea of eliminating the root causes of Islamic terrorism by causing Muslim-majority countries to become prosperous liberal democracies incorporated into the U.S.-led alliance and trading system was totally sound. But how do you actually do that? In a truly wild fit of utopianism, the Bush administration spent $2 trillion on an invasion of Iraq that not only failed to achieve any of those goals but resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. On domestic policy, maybe if Bush had had a spare $2 trillion he could have made the ownership society work. Or maybe he could have successfully boosted marriage rates. Or transformed K-12 public education. But in reality none of the stuff he did actually worked, either because the ideas were bad or because the math didn’t work or because the financial resources weren’t there. Not because he governed at a time of austerity, but because his biggest spending-side commitment was to a war that didn’t work, and he saddled the country with huge regressive tax cuts.
This is an issue for all kinds of political entrepreneurs. You can’t just come up with a nice-sounding, high-level message. You need the capacity to design ideas that make sense and work in detail. I’ve fretted before that the policy analysis capacity on the left has withered somewhat, but it’s borderline non-existent on the right.”
“The proposed rule, which will be subject to 60 days of public comment before it is finalized, would move marijuana to Schedule III, which includes prescription drugs such as ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids. But that does not mean marijuana will be legally available as a medicine, which would require regulatory approval of specific cannabis-based products.
With marijuana in Schedule III, state-licensed cannabis suppliers will remain criminal enterprises under federal law, albeit subject to less severe penalties. Although an annually renewed congressional spending rider bars the DOJ from interfering with state medical marijuana programs, prosecutorial discretion is the only protection for businesses that serve recreational consumers.
The federally illegal status of state-approved marijuana businesses discourages financial institutions from serving them, since doing so could invite potentially devastating criminal, civil, and regulatory consequences. Moving marijuana to Schedule III will not solve that problem either.”
…
“The president, citing old-timey “gateway drug” concerns, has steadfastly resisted attempts to resolve this conflict by repealing the federal ban on marijuana. Even while condemning the injustice inflicted by a “failed approach to marijuana,” he is sticking with it.”
“”If reelected, Donald Trump has said he’s willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military to deport the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country,” Kristen Welker asked of Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) on NBC News’s Meet the Press. “It would be the largest deportation operation in American history. Do you support that plan?”
“Yes, we are going to have to do something,” responded Rubio after arguing that the number of undocumented migrants is much higher. “Unfortunately, we’re going to have to do something dramatic to remove people from this country that are here illegally, especially people we know nothing about.”
A son of Cuban immigrants and, at one time, strongly critical of Trump’s proposal to end birthright citizenship and otherwise restrict immigration, Rubio’s turnaround matches the direction of his party, which takes a hard line on the issue. But if Trump plans “the largest deportation operation in American history”—his own words, adopted by Welker—we can assume that such a big-government scheme will come with matching costs. That’s exactly what number crunchers predict.”
…
“”The costs of the former president’s plan to deport the more than 14 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. today could easily reach more than $1 trillion over 10 years, before taking into account the labor costs necessary for such a project or the unforeseen consequences of reducing the labor supply by such drastic amounts over a short period of time,” MarketWatch’s Chris Matthews reported this week of the results of a Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) analysis.
Trump’s plan is still taking shape, though the former and perhaps future president has proposed using both the military and local law enforcement to eject migrants in this country illegally. If that policy was put into effect, “the removal of one million immigrants would cost the federal government between $40 billion and $50 billion over 10 years, and up to $100 billion if those immigrants were higher-paid workers,” Matthews wrote of PWBM’s finding.
Matthews notes that immigration hawks like Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), predict as many as one million deportations per year under tough enforcement. That’s quite a reach, considering that deportations peaked at an average of 383,307 per year under former President Barack Obama. A dramatically higher target means rapidly accumulating costs, with the trillion-dollar price potentially reached after a decade.”
…
“”Under current law, unauthorized workers…generally do not qualify for federal benefits,” PWBM economists point in a separate analysis. They add that “more deportations, though, leads to less economic growth.” As a result, according to PWBM, with the implementation of restrictive policies, “GDP in 2050 will be four percent lower relative to no additional deportations.”
AAF predicted that with deportations, “the labor force would shrink by 6.4 percent and, as a result, in 20 years the U.S. GDP would be almost 6 percent lower than it would be without fully enforcing current law.”
In 2017, the Center for Migrant Studies cautioned that with a mass deportation program, “gross domestic product (GDP) would be reduced by 1.4 percent in the first year, and cumulative GDP would be reduced by $4.7 trillion over 10 years.”
Obviously, there’s a range of costs projected for a policy shift to mass deportations of undocumented migrants. That’s because it has never been tried on the scale envisioned by Trump and his supporters. In fact, if Rubio is correct that the real number of people in the country in defiance of the law is “upwards of 20, 25, maybe 30 million,” deportations will have to be that much more aggressive, with an even higher price tag to match.”
“Top Democrats are calling for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from cases related to former President Donald Trump after reports surfaced that an inverted American flag, a symbol linked to the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” movement, was flown outside his home in the days following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
According to The New York Times, the flag was seen flying on Jan. 17, 2021, three days before President Joe Biden’s inauguration. Alito told the Times: “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” and said that his wife, Martha-Ann, had raised it in response to “objectionable and personally insulting” yard signs put out by their neighbors.
The report marks the latest blow to the Court as it faces heightened scrutiny over judicial ethics after a ProPublica investigation revealed that both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas had personal relationships and financial exchanges with billionaire GOP donors. Separate reports also showed Thomas’ wife, Virginia, to be a fierce supporter of the former president.
Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who has long called for a congressionally enforced code of conduct for the Court, released a statement Friday night calling on Alito to recuse himself from cases relating to Jan. 6 and the 2020 election, reiterating a previous admonishment that “the Court is in an ethical crisis of its own making.”
“Flying an upside-down American flag — a symbol of the so-called ‘Stop the Steal’ movement — clearly creates the appearance of bias,” Durbin wrote. “Justice Alito should recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection, including the question of the former President’s immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court is currently considering.”
“Less than 17 percent of the $1.1 trillion those laws provided for direct investments on climate, energy and infrastructure has been spent as of April, nearly two years after Biden signed the last of the statutes.”
…
“Trump has said he should have the power to refuse to spend congressionally appropriated money he considers wasteful, despite a 1974 law that says otherwise. This raises the prospect that he could attempt to pare Biden-era funding even if it’s at an advanced stage of distribution.”