Danny Blinderman

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled Trump’s tariffs are illegal, he should give back the money he stole from the American people.

Instead, he's hard at work trying to find legal loopholes to keep taking your money.

Article One of the US Constitution:

"Good evening. This is chairwoman Spanberger of the American provisional authority. Please remain calm."

Yoon and Prince Andrew wishing they had a friend like John Roberts.

Tactically I get why he did it, but I worry that Mamdani erred in associating himself with the prospect of a property tax increase. He was clear he doesn't want to do it, and its not going to happen (DOA in city council) but you never want to gratuitously associate yourself with unpopular policies.

The public sector saw a 0.7 percentage-point increase in union density in 2025, rising from 35.7% to 36.4%. This growth reflected an increase of 236,000 unionized workers. The most notable development in public-sector unionization in 2025 occurred among federal government workers. Despite—and likely because of—the Trump administration’s aggressive attacks on federal employees and their unions, federal workers increasingly turned to collective representation. Union density among federal workers rose from 29.9% to 31.1%, the largest single-year increase since 2011. This increase represented a gain of 40,000 unionized workers—notable given that federal government employment fell as the Trump administration slashed federal jobs. Unionization among state and local government workers also rose—from 37.1% to 37.6%, reflecting an increase of 196,000 unionized workers. Private-sector union coverage increased by 227,000 in 2025, pushing the unionization rate up from 6.7% to 6.8%. Within the private sector, there were particularly large gains in health care and social assistance, retail trade, and educational services. In contrast, the traditionally blue-collar industries of mining, manufacturing, and transportation and utilities saw declines. Construction was one heavily blue-collar sector to buck this trend, posting substantial gains in union coverage.

Here's some good news - the number of workers represented by a union rose by almost half a million last year. www.epi.org/publication/...

There's a restaurant in New Orleans called Napoleon House that, when it was a private residence, was supposedly supposed to be used as a residence for Napoleon after he escaped from/was granted parole from St. Helena.

You should automatically acquire citizenship if you have a kid who’s a citizen at birth

5 Revenue-Raising Ideas for NYC | Center for an Urban Future (CUF) Center for an Urban Future report with five ideas to generate new recurring revenue for New York City

Some good ideas in here, *particularly* on finally implementing metered (paid) parking in more parts of the city.

nycfuture.org/research/5-r...

She can simultaneously inspire (a la Obama) and be a tribune of anger and frustration (Bernie). Which is to say, she could be the vessel the party, and the country, is looking for. She could win in the early states, go into Super Tuesday with momentum and then...well who knows.

And finally, I will say this: if you've ever seen AOC campaign in person you know she will be formidable. She'll walk into high school auditoriums in NV and NH and blow everyone away. Sound smarter, more honest and more *angry* at the state of the world than any dem politician they've seen recently.

The invective she will face will be enormous. She will have to overcome it by finding ways to connect with voters directly, without relying on legacy media as an intermediary. That means taking national what Zohran did in NYC: tons of compelling short form video content and gazillions of canvasers.

One of Bernie's weaknesses in '16 and '20 was a tendency to hire cranks and loyalists out of both a suspicion of mainstream Dem party operatives and lack of a left-wing talent bench. The talent pools is far deeper now, and AOC will benefit from that. She will have a campaign staffed by elite talent.

To win, I do think AOC will need to demonstrate some heterodoxy--which is to say adopt positions that are "against the grain" for her (or the Dem party's) brand. Zohran's embrace of YIMBYism and Bernie's opposition to NAFTA and TPP are good examples.

The bear case for AOC is Warren redux--a campaign that delights loyal, progressive, high engagement voters but fails to persuade moderate Dems or mobilize new voters. The bull case is Zohran's coalition taken national--a true multiracial coalition anchored by young people that pulls new voters in.

Bernie's independant brand made him a stronger general election candidate but weakened him in the primary. AOC is the opposite--she has a better shot to consolidate support in a primary but faces greater challenges in the general because she is perceived both as very left and a very loyal Democrat.

A few thoughts on the prospect of #AOC2028:

Pat Ryan might want to run. He and AOC are friendly, I've wondered of he'd defer if she ran for senate but run if she goes for prez.

This is the second account - the first being in Chicago - of DHS agents mass detaining people and then *sorting them by race*.

@wertwhile.bsky.social's analysis pairs nicely with this post about "normal goods" and the value of the human element even in the face of automation: agglomerations.substack.com/p/economics-...

My most recent pitch for @racheljsa.bsky.social to watch the LoR movies is "you'll actually learn what the palantir is".

Condemning people to illness and impeding medical research in service of conspiratorial nonsense.

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 (1837)

One of every thousand American residents has been taken into custody by ICE in the last year.

Neither laws nor the constitution are self-executing, and so demanding actually effective legal restrains that make real theoretical constitutional prohibitions can be good.

Dear Ms. Wolfe, Petitioner-Appellee Rümeysa Öztürk submits this Rule 28(j) letter to advise the Court that on January 29, 2026, the immigration court held that the Department of Homeland Security had not met its burden of proving removability, and the immigration court thereby terminated removal proceedings against Ms. Öztürk.' This development underscores the dangers of the government's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the government's view, it could punitively detain any noncitizen in retaliation for her speech for many months, so long as it simultaneously institutes removal proceedings—no matter how unmeritorious—all without any federal court review of the lawfulness of detention at any time. To be clear, the termination of Ms. Öztürk's removal proceedings does not moot her habeas case. (By contrast, as Ms. Öztürk has argued, this appeal is moot. Br. 18-20.) Without habeas jurisdiction and the bail order that is currently in place, any government appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals would again subject Ms. Öztürk to re-detention. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6(a). For that reason, she continues to suffer the threat of continuing "now-or-never" First and Fifth Amendment harms. Br. in Opp. 55-57.

NEW: An immigration court has terminated removal proceedings against Tufts doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk, finding that DHS did not meet its burden of establishing that she was removable, her lawyers tell the Second Circuit. live-awp-vermont.pantheonsite.io/app/uploads/...

More and more people are saying the life of the law is not logic, but experience!

There is power in a union.

Brandonification proceeding apace.