🧵If US companies have off shored manufacturing due to US laws and regulations, why is it acceptable for those same companies to import the goods back to the US with impunity? The companies are point blank avoiding US laws in doing so. That's what's at issue.
When you drill down, all the way down, into the matters that people flatly refuse to address directly, that's what is going on. It's too expensive to make whatever in the US due to the US laws so we'll go somewhere those laws don't exist and then just bring the stuff back.
This brings up a corollary issue. If those US laws and and regulations are so important, if those laws and regulations exist as a matter of basic worker and environmental safety, why shouldn't there be tariffs or other financial penalties on trying to avoid those laws?
Are we off shoring manufacturing? Or are we offshoring environmental issues and exploitative worker treatment? If the reason is that it's so much cheaper overseas, the why is it so much cheaper is an extremely important factor to know.
Now that everyone's furious and yelping about how I'm a Commie, it's extremely important to know so that we can have an adult conversation about trade offs and what the American public is willing to accept. And that conversation should be public and honest.
What level of environmental protections are actually necessary? Has OSHA changed from an organization making sure that companies aren't turning off necessary safety features to one nit picking in order hit a competitor I mean non regulatory captured of course with fines?
Why did that industry (say lumber milling about which I know nothing) move to another country? What was the burden on it that made it cheaper? And is that a burden which absolutely should exist for basic environmental and worker protections?
If a company chooses to move manufacturing and production to another country to avoid those costs, why should that company be allowed to sell its products in the US without some costs to make up for not having to comply with the US laws on manufacturing and production?
What trade off between price and environmental and worker protection is the US consumer willing to make? These are the fundamental questions that I don't even see addressed, let alone asked. And these are the ones that the most important.
It is impossible to have adult discussions about adult matters without adults being willing to face harsh realities and without being willing to accept that there is always, always, always trade offs. Always. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch after all.
Yet heaven forfend that anyone even ask these questions. The gods forbid that they be answered. After all, can't click bait and fund raise off that. Anyway, have a red panda. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Yesterday there was another round of oh look the Girls on SCOTUS ruled together, what did you expect. I couldn't help but notice the minor bit about Justice Barrett who joined in portions of the dissent. Thus I went to see what Barrett actually did.
Here's the link to the decision. There's no need for PACER, it's nicely publicly available, anyone can go and look at the original source to see what, exactly, Barrett did. Here you go.
I will now add screenshots. The very first thing to notice on page 7, which is where the dissent starts, is that Barrett only joins as to Parts II and III-B. What does that mean? That means that while she is voting with the dissent, she is doing so only for those reasons.
🧵 In the Era of the Golden Scalp Weasel came the Great Unmasking.
What do I mean by this? Well, get yourself a snack and beverage of choice and I shall explain.
All set?
Let's get it.
The Golden Scalp Weasel is Trump's hair. I thought this was obvious, however, I've had questions. So. That.
What, however, is the Great Unmasking?
The Great Unmasking is that people are being forced to state their actual positions, not simply make mouth noises about issues.
The Great Unmasking is that now politicians and pundits are revealing what they truly think about voters and about the base and about having to actually do all those things that they promised for all those years.
🧵 Since oh noes Trump and Elon are going to cut and destroy Social Security and Medicare is going around, no matter how many times both of them deny planning or wanting to do any such thing, I am reminded of one of the many reasons I call the Psychopaths, the Psychopaths.
The Managing Partner, hereinafter B, got it in her head that I did a certain thing that not only did I not do, it was not possible for me to have done this, as I was not in the office when this occurred. Despite this, she was adamant I did this thing.
I discovered this when I heard her complaining to other co-workers about me doing the thing. I went to the office manager and asked that the office manager tell B I did not do this and could not have done it as I was on vacation when this happened. Office manager said she would.
🧵I do not know how to type this gently so I'm just going to type this. American judicial legitimacy is already gone. It does not matter how SCOTUS rules on the various and sundry cases addressing Article II powers. Whatever side loses will consider the rulings illegitimate.
I will also say this, I have no idea how those rulings are going to turn out and neither does anyone else. I know how at least 4 justices are likely to rule due to Alito's dissent in the USAID TRO issue. I can WAG about what Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett will do.
I do not, however, know. Anyone who claims, with certainty, to know is either lying to you or is full of utter hubris and we all know what comes after hubris, as sure as the tides. I will state, with utter certainty, that whichever side loses will not find the ruling legitimate.
🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School where I discuss how the legal profession very much needs to take seriously concerns of the Normies (here used in a non pejorative sense to mean those without a legal background) as to the speed of appeals. Get caffeine and let's go
Since Roberts decided to make let the appellate process play out the official commentary by SCOTUS on *gestures wildly* what the District Courts are doing, it is rather incumbent on those in the legal profession to understand why that sounds like kicking the can down the road.
I picked one of the USAID cases to look at the time line involved (docket number 1:25-cv-00400-AHA). The initial complaint asking for injunctive relief was filed on 2/10/25. The order granting the preliminary injunction in part was filed on 3/10/25.
🧵I haven't fully worked this through yet though I do think there is something here.
The battle over Federal employees having to return to the office and being asked to provide a brief report on prior week's work is a proxy battle for accountability on the Federal level at all
There has been building for decades an immense frustration by the general public over how those who work for the Feds only ever seem to fail upwards. I look at matters from the perspective of the Right, due to my personal political beliefs. It is not only from the Right.
I'll start with my bête noire: the utter failure to hold those in the DOJ and FBI accountable for point blank lying in court. The FBI labs scandal. The Ted Stevens prosecution. The Bundy ranchers trial where the alphabets lied to the Court's face.