Whey Standard

This is funny because, while I do live in suburbia specifically because I have a child, that's as opposed to my preference of living rural AF.

Also, there are well over 900,000 k-12 students in NYC public schools, so presumably it's not all single gay men living in cities.

I argued at the time that all this law really did was make it even more unpalatable to not provide backpay, since a future Congress would have to explicitly exclude payments under that law from general agency appropriations.

But also, it was Trump that signed that law, and he praised it.

Nobody will convince me they got over 75 career federal prosecutors in a room and presented them with facts that meet all the elements and not a single one said "well, technically he did violate the law, I'll take it."

This for me*

I've known a fair number of prosecutors, both federal and local, and if you give them facts that can plausibly meet the elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, most of them are going to be fine with it.

Most federal prosecutors have no problem pursuing a morally blameless person.

This for more is as much confirmation as you can get that there isn't some secret evidence they have. There is (or was, as of 2/3/25) over 150 lawyers in USAO EDVA, the vast majority of which are federal prosecutors, and not ONE would assist on this? That's a "facts don't support the law" problem.

I'm sure he spent the distributions on a highly liquid, non-depreciating asset and can just sell a portion of it, easy peasy.

Anyway, thoughts and prayers!

Well, it was a joke because lowering taxes isn't why she sees people who would criminalize her marriage if they could as allies. The real reason, of course, is that they see her as a pliant cover, and she sees them as easy marks that she'll always be able to outwit.

Truly, there is so much in that speech to criticize, even just in that three paragraph excerpt.

This is what makes NYT so bad, it's not that they're biased (they are, but not really consistently), it's that they do dishonest crap like this, and give everyone a legitimate reason to dismiss them.

I get Dems wanting to get this concession, but the more important thing for them is to enshrine into law a private right of action, including injunctions, for federal violations of civil rights and for unlawful impoundment. They should’ve focused on that.

The staged video thing is problematic, but if they’re only using videos with affirmative consent, and compensating users for them, I think that’s actually an improvement over existing models.

*starts chant*

“Corn facts! Corn facts! Corn facts!”

Not sure he ever knew in the first place, since he claimed his order said it at the time.

I actually don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that Trump putting himself on a coin is emblematic of the United States after 250 years.

Assuming you mean 5112, the authority they discuss is under subsection (y), I’ve not seen any discussion of it being part of the presidential coin series under (n). And there are other authorities it could fall under.

This only applies to the presidential dollar coin series under subsection (n), it doesn’t apply to other coins authorized under 5112

This is deeply fucked up.

Basically nobody in the Congress learned anything during the first Trump administration.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, I do think the law may prohibit the image on the reverse, as I said. I don’t think it prohibits the obverse, I think it would be within the letter of the law to say “we picked Trump because he is emblematic of the US at this point in time”.

Coins and currency are treated as separate things throughout title 31. If 31 USC 5114 applied to coins, I’m not even sure how we’d make them since they aren’t made from intaglio plates on plate printing presses.

(n) is about a specific coin series that’s not at issue here.

Where do you see a general prohibition for coins?

Maybe? Idk, I think it’s certainly plausible that Trump is emblematic of the US at this point in time. The reverse may not be, depends on what “portrait” means.

There is no general prohibition when it comes to coins, only currency and securities. With coins, it depends on the type of coin.

The theme being “emblematic of the U.S. semiquincentennial”, which I’m not really sure a court would say Trump isn’t emblematic of the US at 250 years.

Might prohibit the design on the back (maybe, if it counts as a portrait), but the portrait prohibition doesn’t appear to apply to the front.

But they could produce it! I think they could also produce it under the semiquincentennial provision (31 USC 5112(y)), which only prohibits portraits of living persons on the reverse of the coin (through subsection (aa)), not on the obverse.

If they made it as a platinum coin with some small amount of platinum content under 31 USC 5112(k), I don’t see how a portrait of a living person would be prohibited.

I really don’t think that applies to coins, which are under 31 USC 5112, and are more specific about which coins have that prohibition.

Does the law actually prohibit this though? I see a few options for coin types they could choose that don’t have a “portrait of a living person” prohibition in 31 USC 5112.