Someone Is Making A Massive Bet That Powell Ends The Party Ends At Jackson Hole In August

Someone Is Making A Massive Bet That Powell Ends The Party Ends At Jackson Hole In August

One day after an commendable bubble-blowing performance by the uber-dovish Jerome Powell who warned of “froth” in stocks as a result of his own policies – and to think it was just 9 years ago when Powell admitted the Fed was blowing a fixed income bubble “that will result in big losses when rates come up” …

…  we are seeing a burst the “reflation” trade with Brent surging…

… which is lifting 10Y breakevens to fresh multi-year highs, printing at 2.45% this morning…

… and pushing 10Y yields to a level where traders are starting to sweat the impact of rising yields on stocks.

What is bizarre is that yields are spiking even as the Nasdaq is back to all time highs, largely on the back of blowout earnings from Google, Facebook and Apple. As a reminder, it was the spike in yields in late February that hammered high-duration (i.e., growth, tech) names although it now appears that the market has forgotten all about the negative correlation between higher yields and tech stocks.

In any case, yields may just be starting their next big move higher: as Nomura’s Charlie McElligott reminds us this morning, from a sequencing / timing perspective, “it is worth noting that in Eurodollar options, there has been a very large trade building the past few days which is anticipating a Fed hawkish shift in outlook built around the Jackson Hole event held in late August (Risk Reversal via Sep21 3-year midcurve options).”

Charlie picked up on an observation from Bloomberg’s Edward Bolingbroke, who over the past few days has been describing a massive ED trade by an unknown entity, who appears to be betting that the Fed’s dovish stance will end with a bang not in June, as many analysts predict, but in August with Powell making the inevitable taper announcement at Jackson Hole, which will lead to a bloodbath across the curve and especially the short-end.

Why Jackson Hole? Because last year, Powell unveiled a new policy framework for inflation, while in 2012 Ben Bernanke signaled more bond purchases were on the table.

Sure enough, over the past week, there has been a burst in eurodollar options activity involving a position that will benefit from a ramp-up in taper rhetoric in August. As Bolinkgbroke explained, the position is a risk reversal via Sep21 3-year mid-curve options. The Sep21 mid-curve options expire Sept. 10, before the Sept. 22 Fed policy meeting with the subsequent meeting on Nov. 3, expiration date appears to specifically target Jackson Hole for a taper-talk repricing in eurodollar futures.

Some more details:

Ahead of this year’s meeting, a large wager has been placed on a faster-than-expected pace of rate hikes before Sept. 2024, though with an expiry of this coming September.

As it stands, Eurodollar futures imply around five rate hikes, or 125 basis points of tightening by Sept. 2024. The new bet has been entered via risk reversals — where investors buy options which pay off if rates rise but offset the cost by selling those which benefit from a fall.

The investor bought put options which target three-month Libor over 2%, which would equate to around seven Fed hikes, and sold those targeting rates below 1%, which implies slightly less than three increases. The rate rose 0.84 basis point on Wednesday to 0.1855%.

While the identity of the trader is unknown, this is rapidly becoming an “extremely high conviction” trade with exposure in the tens of millions: on Wednesday, 20,000 3EU1 98.00/99.00 risk reversal traded at 1.5, buying 98.00 puts, selling 99.00 calls, a continuation of a similar trade from Tuesday where 25,000 were put on for new risk, position has now grown to around 120,000 contracts since the start of last week.

The P&L profile is evolving, but as of Thursday morning, the strategy could generate around a $60 million payoff if markets price in eight hikes or an $90 million loss if expectations fall to two hikes. Needless to say, the trader is betting on the former.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/29/2021 – 11:34

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Sf3eof Tyler Durden

Remy: Dogecoin Rap


image_yt_v5

There are various indicators showing that the U.S. could be headed for a currency crisis. One of them has paws.

Written and performed by Remy; music tracks and mastering by Ben Karlstrom; video produced by Meredith and Austin Bragg

Photos: Stefani Reynolds—Pool via CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom; Greg Nash—Pool via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom; Andrew Harnik—Pool via CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom

LYRICS:
Coming up: Bad news for savers as even those with high-interest savings accounts
are seeing their money disappear thanks to inflation
But first, we’ll detail every possible thing you could die from

He’s a rational investor, dividend digester
Saves some of his paycheck just like all his ancestors
Him looking for high yields? That’s never the case
He’s seeking six percent returns, slow and steady wins the race!

But when he checks his accounts just to see what they’re fielding
It’s like driving in Maryland—ain’t nobody yielding
What is he to do? He shouldn’t be in a drought
So he visits his adviser just to sort it all out

Inflation’s higher than your bond rates
That’s what I was fearing
And so your savings account is slowly disappearing
And your CDs are pointless
That’s not very funny
What would you like me to do?
Put it all in dog money

Dog money, dog money, dog money, dog money
I’m trading it in for dog money
Dog money, dog money, dog money, dog money
I’m putting it all in dog money

My 401(k) is now a 401(K9)
The sum of my net worth ain’t no longer in a straight line
I’m making smart moves, I ain’t gonna be a pun
I sold my IRA and bought an NFT of one

All in on doge, I dish ’em out like a Tommy gun
You’d think I was statehood the way I’m passing on Washingtons
I feel like Matt Gaetz, you know what I mean?
Assuring everybody it’s above 18

It’s a modern-day gold rush, the prices’ll boom
Like Reggie White vs. the Oilers, I’m heading straight to the moon
My broker’s calling? You KNOW that it’s on
Buy dog money, don’t stop till it’s dawn

One more air base, two more museums
Three more walls, four more Supremes
Five more stadiums—we’re all out of fiat?
Can you take trillions of these and go and make a xerox?

We pay our debts in our currency, that might be unfurled
If it’s no longer the reserve currency of the world
Confidence in the dollar is permanent, just ask any scholar!
People are exchanging their dollars for dog money
Dog money?
Dog money
Dog money…

We’re trading it in for dog money!
Dog money, dog money, dog money, dog money
I’m putting it all in dog money

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nvOYCW
via IFTTT

Connecticut Repeals Religious Exemption from Immunization Rules

Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) reports:

Yesterday Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed HB 6423 (full text) which eliminates the previously available religious exemption from the state’s immunization requirements for school children. However, the new law allows children who have previously been granted a religious exemption to maintain the exemption, with certain exceptions for grade-school children.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ez2zFq
via IFTTT

“Tenured Professor Abruptly Fired After Raising Allegations of anti-Semitic Speech by Linfield University’s President”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports (or you can read FIRE’s letter to the university president):

A university embroiled in sexual abuse scandals has abruptly fired a tenured professor who criticized the handling of those controversies and alleged that the university’s president and chair of its Board of Trustees made anti-Semitic comments…. On Tuesday, Linfield ousted professor Daniel Pollack-Pelzner after he lambasted the college’s handling of sexual abuse allegations and accused college president Miles K. Davis of making anti-Semitic remarks, which Davis denies. Two other faculty members have subsequently come forward with allegations that Davis made similar remarks….

Pollack-Pelzner, a tenured English literature professor and Shakespeare scholar, is one of many Linfield faculty members and students who have pushed back against the allegedly poor handling of sexual abuse and [harassment] claims by the administration. In one such case, a longtime trustee resigned in 2019 (for “health reasons,” the university said) after being accused of sexually abusing a student. (He has since been indicted.)

On March 29, Pollack-Pelzner posted a Twitter thread claiming that the school failed to protect the college community from the sexual abuse of multiple trustees. He also said he was threatened with “public humiliation” by the board if he continued to report incidents of sexual misconduct. The thread goes on to detail several incidents of anti-Semitism on the part of college employees, including Davis, who allegedly remarked on the size of Jewish people’s noses. In April, the Oregon Board of Rabbis called on Davis to resign, and Linfield’s arts and sciences faculty gave Davis a 59-11 vote of no confidence.

On Monday, the Linfield administration shut down faculty email lists. The following day, Pollack-Pelzner was fired and the university issued a public statement within an hour afterward. In an email to college faculty, aptly titled “Extraordinary step,” Linfield provost Susan Agre-Kippenhan announced the termination for “false public accusations that have, sadly, harmed the university.” Two university spokespeople also sent an email stating Pollack-Pelzner was fired because he “propagated false and defamatory statements.”

Linfield’s faculty handbook states that before being terminated, tenured professors are entitled to a statement of charges and to a faculty hearing, during which the administration bears the burden of producing “clear and convincing” evidence of misconduct. The handbook also declares that “[d]ismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens.”

Pollack-Pelzner was afforded neither due process nor protection from the university for his speech.

“Instead of adhering to the bright lines in the handbook, Linfield’s administration has drawn its own,” said [FIRE attorney Adam] Steinbaugh. “By skipping out on the part where it would have to actually prove its accusations, Linfield’s administration signals that the accusations can’t be proven. Giving yourself the authority to decide your critic is wrong — and then firing him without a hearing — is an obvious conflict of interest.”

Though Linfield is a private institution not bound by the First Amendment, it is required to live up to its promises of free expression and due process.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gNCzZL
via IFTTT

This School Punished a Cheerleader for an Off-Campus Snapchat. Does That Violate the First Amendment?


s-l300

Can a public school punish a student for an off-campus social media post? Or does the First Amendment protect student speech that occurs outside of school grounds and school-sponsored functions?

The U.S. Supreme Court tackled those questions this week during oral arguments in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. The case arose in 2017 when a high school freshman and junior varsity cheerleader who had failed to make the varsity squad vented her frustration on the social media site Snapchat. The student—known by the initials B.L.—posted a picture of herself and one of her friends with their middle fingers raised. The post went up on a Saturday and was accompanied by the message “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” B.L. was kicked off the team for a year after a coach saw the post and took offense.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court said that school officials may not interfere with students’ First Amendment rights on school grounds unless the speech “would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline and in the operation of the school.”

Lisa Blatt, the attorney for the Mahanoy Area School District, urged the Supreme Court to apply the Tinker standard to student speech that occurs off-campus if the speech may cause an “on-campus disruption.” According to Blatt, “the internet’s ubiquity, instantaneous and mass dissemination, and potential permanence make the speaker’s location irrelevant.”

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer David Cole, the attorney for B.L. and her parents, told the Court that the school’s approach “would require students to effectively carry the schoolhouse on their backs in terms of speech rights everywhere they go.” For example, Cole said, “a father shouldn’t have to worry that if he brings his daughter to a Black Lives Matter protest about mistreatment of a black student at school, and she posts a photo on Facebook, she might be suspended based on potential disruption at the school.”

Several justices seemed to be concerned about that very thing, asking whether the school’s approach would result in students getting punished for talking about politically controversial topics. Justice Samuel Alito offered this hypothetical:

A student believes that someone who is biologically male is a male, and there is a student who is biologically male but identifies as a woman, has adopted a female name, but the student who has the objection refers to this person by the person’s prior male name and uses male pronouns. Can the school do something about that?

Justice Elena Kagan made a similar point while questioning Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, who appeared as an amicus in support of the Mahanoy Area School District. Say a student emails her classmates “that they should refuse to do any work for English class until the teacher changes the syllabus to include more authors of color.”

That’s “school speech,” Stewart answered. “So that can be punishable,” Kagan replied, sounding surprised. It can be punished “if it causes substantial disruption” at school, the government attorney answered.

ACLU lawyer Cole came in for his share of grilling too. In particular, several of the justices seemed concerned that his preferred approach would leave school officials with no tools to stop online bullying and similarly abusive behavior among students.

Cole responded by stressing the need for “clear definitions of off-campus bullying and harassment consistent with First Amendment principles.” He concluded by reminding the Court that the school punished this particular student “for a momentary expression of frustration on a weekend out of school.” To let that be the rule, he said, “would teach students they can never speak candidly with their friends without worrying that a school official will deem their views potentially disruptive and suspend them or punish them. That is exactly the wrong lesson to teach.”

A decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. is expected by late June.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gLLlr9
via IFTTT

US Investigating ‘Havana Syndrome’ Directed Energy Attack Near White House

US Investigating ‘Havana Syndrome’ Directed Energy Attack Near White House

Since 2017 controversy and speculation has abounded over the legitimacy of the so-called “Havana syndrome” story, which involved some 50 diplomatic officials working at the US Embassy in Cuba coming down with strange illnesses and symptoms – from headaches to vomiting to ‘brain trauma’ – which was blamed on high tech covert ‘sonic attacks’ by nefarious actors. Officials were quick to blame either Russian intelligence or Cuban operatives in what sounded like a wild James Bond style bit of futuristic espionage. 

Last week the allegations returned to national media spotlight after defense officials said they believe Russia is likely behind “directed energy” attacks on US troops in northeast Syria. Apparently some US troops occupying the country began reporting “flu-like symptoms” which caused the DoD to investigate possible linkage to microwave or directed energy weapons on the battlefield of Syria. Politico reported that “officials identified Russia as a likely culprit, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter.”

And now CNN is reporting what is perhaps the most bizarre and outlandish instance of this yet – a ‘sonic attack’ which sickened a top administration official while standing just outside White House grounds.

Via NBC

That incident, which occurred near the Ellipse, the large oval lawn on the south side of the White House, sickened one National Security Council official, according to multiple current and former US officials and sources familiar with the matter,” CNN writes. 

The report says the symptoms experienced by the unidentified official were consistent to those reported in Havana at the embassy years ago. The original Havana Syndrome incident involved personnel saying they experienced everything from vomiting to concussions to extreme nausea to chronic headaches and even minor brain injuries. However, analysts and scientists have remained deeply divided on the issue, with speculation ranging from high pitched sounds from crickets or even mass hysteria causing the illness.

At the same time the US-funded National Academy of Sciences concluded that “microwave radiation” was most likely the source of the strange illnesses in Havana. Should this be the case, what makes it hugely alarming for US national security is that it’s invisible, soundless, and thus undetectable

So theoretically it could be used even against the White House without the Secret Service or US intelligence and law enforcement knowing in real-time. But despite years of this being investigated, including top generals most recently briefing Congressional leaders wherein they pointed the finger at Russia, there’s yet to be any hard evidence presented to the public.

Below is an image of the Ellipse, officially known as President’s Park South, located directly to the South of the White House…

Apparently this latest White House incident was not the first suspected ‘sonic attack’ in the area, as CNN details:

Multiple sources familiar with the matter tell CNN that while the Pentagon and other agencies probing the matter have reached no clear conclusions on what happened, the fact that such an attack might have taken place so close to the White House is particularly alarming.

    …In a separate 2019 episode, a White House official reported a similar attack while walking her dog in a Virginia suburb just outside WashingtonGQ reported last year.

    The October 2020 GQ report was somewhat comically titled, “The Mystery of the Immaculate Concussion”

    It detailed that “According to three sources familiar with the incident, a White House staffer was hit while walking her dog in Arlington, Virginia. Her dog started seizing up. Then she felt it too: a high-pitched ringing in her ears, an intense headache, and a tingling on the side of her face.”

    Example of a US Air Force experimental directed energy weapon: 

    Again, despite the wealth of what is perhaps anecdotal evidence and testimony, and with at this point the original Havana episode serving as the clearest evidence yet of a large group of people saying they  experienced bizarre unexplainable symptoms all at once, it remains that US intelligence and defense officials have failed to produce known evidence that Russia or a US enemy zapped Americans with an advanced microwave weapon. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 04/29/2021 – 11:15

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3vudXcJ Tyler Durden

    Immigrant Seeking to Challenge Removal Prevails with Unusual Supreme Court Line-up

    The Supreme Court issued a single opinion today in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, in which the Court considered the adequacy of a “notice to appear” to a deportation proceeding was legally adequate if the notice did not contain all of the statutorily specified information. This matters because a nonpermanent resident aliens otherwise subject to removal may be eligible to remain in the country if they can establish they have been in the country continuously for at least ten years. A notice to appear, however, effectively cuts off the running of this time period. So, in this case, whether the government’s notice to appear to Niz-Chavez was adequate would determine whether he is potentially eligible for discretionary relief from deportation.

    In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the government had not provided Niz-Chavez with a statutorily adequate notice to appear because no single document sent to Niz-Chavez contained all of the required information. Justice Gorsuch, wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Alito.

    We may think of this as a 6-3 Court, but this is not the 6-3 split many would expect. That said, there is something intuitive about this split, in that it resembles the formalist-pragmatist splits we’ve sometimes seen on the Court before, in which more formalist conservatives (e.g. Thomas, Scalia) would join with the Court’s liberals to side with criminal defendants. In this case, the Court’s more formalist/textualist conservatives (Gorsuch, Thomas, Barrett) joined with the Court’s liberals to hold that if the statute requires “the notice” to contain certain information, the failure of a single notice to contain that information renders it deficient, while the Court’s more pragmatic conservatives (Kavanaugh, Alito, and the Chief) dissented on the grounds that this imposes an unreasonable burden and ignores that, as a practical matter, notice of all the relevant info was provided, even if not in a single document. So, while we have not seen this precise lineup before, I would not be at all surprised were we to see it again, particularly in areas such as immigration.

    Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion begins in fairly typical Gorsuch style.

    Anyone who has applied for a passport, filed for Social Security benefits, or sought a license understands the government’s affinity for forms. Make a mistake or skip a page? Go back and try again, sometimes with a penalty for the trouble. But it turns out the federal government finds some of its forms frustrating too. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009–546, requires the government to serve “a notice to appear” on individuals it wishes to remove from  his country. At first blush, a notice to appear might seem to be just that—a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing. But, the government says, supplying so much information in a single form is too taxing. It needs more flexibility, allowing its officials to provide information in separate mailings (as many as they wish) over time (as long as they find convenient). The question for us is whether the law Congress adopted tolerates the government’s preferred practice.

    As noted above, the majority concludes the answer is “no” The plain text of the statute indicates as much and, as the Court had noted previously in Pereira v. Sessions, the statutory requirements for notices to appear at deportation proceedings mean what they say.

    Gorsuch reaffirms the need to interpret statutes in accord with their “ordinary meaning”:

    When called on to resolve a dispute over a statute’s meaning, this Court normally seeks to afford the law’s terms their ordinary meaning at the time Congress adopted them. See, e.g., Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018). The people who come before us are entitled, as well, to have independent judges exhaust “all the textual and structural clues” bearing on that meaning. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 8). When exhausting those clues enables us to resolve the interpretive question put to us, our “sole function” is to apply the law as we find it, Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 534 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted), not defer to some  conflicting reading the government might advance. . . .

    And this, Gorsuch notes, presents a problem for the government:

    To trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve “a” notice containing all the  information Congress has specified. To an ordinary reader—both in 1996 and today—”a” notice would seem to suggest just that: “a” single document containing the required information, not a mishmash of pieces with some assembly required.

    The majority opinion concludes:

    At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms  ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.

    Writing in dissent, Justice Kavanaugh argues that the majority’s interpretation is “perplexing as a matter of statutory interpretation and common sense.” He argues that the majority’s interpretation is unreasonable, and fails to accord proper deference to the political branches. His opinion concludes:

    As a matter of policy, one may reasonably debate the circumstances under which a noncitizen who is unlawfully in the country should be removed and should be eligible for cancellation of removal. But those policy choices are for the political branches. Our job is to follow the law passed by Congress and signed by the President. The statute here requires the Government to serve the noncitizen with written notice of the charges and other required information, including the time and place of the hearing. In this case, Niz-Chavez received written notice of the charges and all the required information, including the time and place of his hearing. Niz-Chavez appeared with counsel at his hearing in Detroit on June 25, 2013. Because he received written notice to appear before he had accumulated 10 years of continuous physical presence, he is  not eligible for cancellation of removal

    from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3xBoUev
    via IFTTT

    Immigrant Seeking to Challenge Removal Prevails with Unusual Supreme Court Line-up

    The Supreme Court issued a single opinion today in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, in which the Court considered the adequacy of a “notice to appear” to a deportation proceeding was legally adequate if the notice did not contain all of the statutorily specified information. This matters because a nonpermanent resident aliens otherwise subject to removal may be eligible to remain in the country if they can establish they have been in the country continuously for at least ten years. A notice to appear, however, effectively cuts off the running of this time period. So, in this case, whether the government’s notice to appear to Niz-Chavez was adequate would determine whether he is potentially eligible for discretionary relief from deportation.

    In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the government had not provided Niz-Chavez with a statutorily adequate notice to appear because no single document sent to Niz-Chavez contained all of the required information. Justice Gorsuch, wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Alito.

    We may think of this as a 6-3 Court, but this is not the 6-3 split many would expect. That said, there is something intuitive about this split, in that it resembles the formalist-pragmatist splits we’ve sometimes seen on the Court before, in which more formalist conservatives (e.g. Thomas, Scalia) would join with the Court’s liberals to side with criminal defendants. In this case, the Court’s more formalist/textualist conservatives (Gorsuch, Thomas, Barrett) joined with the Court’s liberals to hold that if the statute requires “the notice” to contain certain information, the failure of a single notice to contain that information renders it deficient, while the Court’s more pragmatic conservatives (Kavanaugh, Alito, and the Chief) dissented on the grounds that this imposes an unreasonable burden and ignores that, as a practical matter, notice of all the relevant info was provided, even if not in a single document. So, while we have not seen this precise lineup before, I would not be at all surprised were we to see it again, particularly in areas such as immigration.

    Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion begins in fairly typical Gorsuch style.

    Anyone who has applied for a passport, filed for Social Security benefits, or sought a license understands the government’s affinity for forms. Make a mistake or skip a page? Go back and try again, sometimes with a penalty for the trouble. But it turns out the federal government finds some of its forms frustrating too. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009–546, requires the government to serve “a notice to appear” on individuals it wishes to remove from  his country. At first blush, a notice to appear might seem to be just that—a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing. But, the government says, supplying so much information in a single form is too taxing. It needs more flexibility, allowing its officials to provide information in separate mailings (as many as they wish) over time (as long as they find convenient). The question for us is whether the law Congress adopted tolerates the government’s preferred practice.

    As noted above, the majority concludes the answer is “no” The plain text of the statute indicates as much and, as the Court had noted previously in Pereira v. Sessions, the statutory requirements for notices to appear at deportation proceedings mean what they say.

    Gorsuch reaffirms the need to interpret statutes in accord with their “ordinary meaning”:

    When called on to resolve a dispute over a statute’s meaning, this Court normally seeks to afford the law’s terms their ordinary meaning at the time Congress adopted them. See, e.g., Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018). The people who come before us are entitled, as well, to have independent judges exhaust “all the textual and structural clues” bearing on that meaning. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 8). When exhausting those clues enables us to resolve the interpretive question put to us, our “sole function” is to apply the law as we find it, Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 534 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted), not defer to some  conflicting reading the government might advance. . . .

    And this, Gorsuch notes, presents a problem for the government:

    To trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve “a” notice containing all the  information Congress has specified. To an ordinary reader—both in 1996 and today—”a” notice would seem to suggest just that: “a” single document containing the required information, not a mishmash of pieces with some assembly required.

    The majority opinion concludes:

    At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms  ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.

    Writing in dissent, Justice Kavanaugh argues that the majority’s interpretation is “perplexing as a matter of statutory interpretation and common sense.” He argues that the majority’s interpretation is unreasonable, and fails to accord proper deference to the political branches. His opinion concludes:

    As a matter of policy, one may reasonably debate the circumstances under which a noncitizen who is unlawfully in the country should be removed and should be eligible for cancellation of removal. But those policy choices are for the political branches. Our job is to follow the law passed by Congress and signed by the President. The statute here requires the Government to serve the noncitizen with written notice of the charges and other required information, including the time and place of the hearing. In this case, Niz-Chavez received written notice of the charges and all the required information, including the time and place of his hearing. Niz-Chavez appeared with counsel at his hearing in Detroit on June 25, 2013. Because he received written notice to appear before he had accumulated 10 years of continuous physical presence, he is  not eligible for cancellation of removal

    from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3xBoUev
    via IFTTT

    Rabobank: Powell Is Feddling While Rome Burns

    Rabobank: Powell Is Feddling While Rome Burns

    By Michael Every of Rabobank

    Feddling While Rome Burns?

    “Friends, Romans,…”

    “Countrymen!”

    “I know!”

    As expected, the Fed didn’t do anything yesterday. Our Fed-watcher Philip Marey underlines here that the FOMC said: amid progress on vaccinations and strong policy support, indicators of economic activity and employment have strengthened; that the sectors most adversely affected by the pandemic remain weak, but have shown improvement; and inflation has risen, largely reflecting transitory factors. And that was it. During his press conference Powell repeated that the US is only going to see transitory inflation, and does not want to start talking about tapering – they are not close to the substantial further progress the FOMC wants to see before starting this discussion. Perhaps the most surprising thing was Powell daring to use the word “froth” to describe the stock market he himself is boiling.

    Bloomberg chimes in that “The Fed’s New Reaction Function is Winning”, and that the market now understands what the Fed is doing. Yes, many of us do. It couldn’t really be any more obvious. But is the Fed really in control via this process of actively doing nothing?

    If one believes yes, then all is well: assets will levitate; the USD to soften; rates and yields to stay low; and it’s boom-time.

    By contrast, if one believes no, and that the Fed is blind to how bad the current supply-chain snarl is, and how high prices are likely going to rise as a result, and to risks of a further USD4.1 trillion in stimulus spending (over a decade) being thrown in on top, then Powell is Feddling while Rome burns: markets are on fire; and soon prices will be too; and then what?

    For those who don’t know, the source of this phrase is the popular belief that Emperor Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned during the great fire of 64AD. It’s a useful idiom to describe doing something useless while important events are transpiring. The only problems with it are that: 1) fiddles didn’t exist when Nero was alive; and 2) we have no idea if Nero actually did such a thing, because historical records are written by the winners. One historian says Nero did; others disagree. Today we have The New York Times and Glenn Greenwald/Matt Taibbi. Plus ça change.

    Indeed, as I type, US President has just started his first annual message, traditionally in a Roman-style Capitol building to a Congress including a Roman-named Senate. Some traditions have deep roots, as both proponents and opponents point out at the moment.

    Media reports suggest there will be a further push for the USD2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan, which will be partially spent on physical infrastructure, and involve higher taxation; and on the USD1.8 trillion American Families Plan, which will be spent on more European-style social care, and again involve higher taxation. The appeal will be to the American people – and to one Democratic Senator in particular, Joe Manchin, who is again making press statements showing his unhappiness with what is being floated so far.

    There will no doubt be mention of foreign policy, with reports the White House is intent on removing all sanctions on Iran, including over terrorism and its ballistic missile program, in order to re-enter the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal. In effect, the US will accede to every Iranian demand. The ripple effects of this are already being seen in the region. Alongside tit-for-tat attacks on shipping and ports, there are rumours Riyadh is talking to Tehran, and that Saudi Aramco may sell a 1% stake to China, giving Beijing a foothold in what was always considered a critical US interest. It’s unclear if this US U-turn will mean lower energy prices due to new Iranian supply, or higher, due to greater geopolitical instability as the regional power-balance shifts. Markets will also be listening carefully to what President Biden has to say about India and vaccine help (as Prime Minister Modi calls President Putin “my friend” on Twitter and thanks him for his cooperation on multiple fronts); and about Russia; and about China, of course.

    Meanwhile, thinking of the classical architecture of Washington DC —and without making any partisan political statement— while brushing up on my Nero, I was surprised to see how much history can echo down to the present:  

    • Nero negotiated peace with the Parthian Empire (today’s Iran); crushed a major revolt in Britain, led by the Iceni Queen Boudica (what will the US say about Scottish independence prospects?); got deeply involved in the Bosporan Kingdom (today’s Crimea); and also ended up at war with a rebellious Kingdom of Israel that didn’t see eye-to-eye with the Empire;
    • Nero focused much of his attention on diplomacy and trade, as well as theatres and athletic games;
    • Nero also introduced what his critics dubbed as extravagant, empire-wide programs of public and private works, funded by a rise in taxes that was much resented by the Roman upper classes who paid them – yet this economic populism sold well among the Roman lower classes until his death, and even beyond. Which might explain why the story was then spread that he fiddled while Rome burned: perhaps it was all just “Fake News”?

    Of course, inflation isn’t fake news, and supply chains aren’t fake news, and geopolitics aren’t fake news. They are just uncomfortable truths that we can temporarily choose to ignore. Thinking of the Fed more than the White House, historians will also point out that well after Nero’s populism, Emperor Diocletian was forced to introduce his ‘Edict on Maximum Prices’ to try to order inflation caused by constant monetary debasement to disappear. That policy certainly went up in flames.

    Of related interest, yesterday saw China slash import tariffs on steel and impose export tariffs of up to 25%, effectively making it very expensive to sell steel abroad and even cheaper to bring it in. Is this about capping soaring local prices? Probably partly, yes. Is it about lowering carbon emissions? Maybe, if it is also about reducing local steel output, which has been often promised and never delivered. Is this about China trying to import more and export less to rebalance global trade? Hardly, if you have paid attention to their stated policy goals. Yet what could it mean for the rest of the world if China stopped exporting steel and started buying it the way it has been doing agri-commodities? How much global Building Back Better is going to be affordable then?

    Maybe it’s time for Bread and Circuses instead…

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 04/29/2021 – 10:55

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32Xcr6P Tyler Durden

    State Department Warns Americans To Leave India As Deaths Surge – “It’s Like A Mass Killing”

    State Department Warns Americans To Leave India As Deaths Surge – “It’s Like A Mass Killing”

    As India reports growing numbers of COVID-19 deaths every day, the US and other nations are sending critical supplies while cutting off travel links. But Washington has just taken its first steps toward an evacuation as it warns all Americans still in India that it’s time to get out of Dodge.

    Bloomberg reports that the US has – via the State Department and local consulates – warned any Americans in the country to start making arrangements to leave as soon as possible, while also advising anybody with travel plans “not to travel to India or to leave as soon as it is safe to do so.”

    There are still 14 direct daily flights between India and the US, and others that connect through Europe, according to the State Department

    It’s particularly urgent for Americans to leave since shortages of beds and oxygen at Indian hospitals have led to sick Americans being turned away, according to the State Department. “US citizens are reporting being denied admittance to hospitals in some cities due to a lack of space,” the website of the U.S. Embassy and Consulates in India warned in a health alert. “US citizens who wish to depart India should take advantage of available commercial transportation options now.” All routine US citizen services and visa services at the US Consulate General Chennai have been canceled.

    But before they can return to the US, anybody traveling from abroad – whether they’re citizens, or not – must have a COVID-19 test done between three and five days before travel. Those who ahven’t been vaccinated should also stay at home and self-quarantine for a week, the embassy urged. Which is why individuals should start working on plans to leave now.

    The latest numbers out of India continued to set new records for most cases reported in a single day anywhere in the world. Indian authorities confirmed 379,257 cases over the past 24 hours, while another 3,645 infected patients died, pushing India’s death toll further past 200K to 204,800.

    Source: Johns Hopkins

    As President Biden dithers about whether to support a WTO motion from India and South Africa asking for a waiver for vaccine IP so developing nations can start producing their own jabs instead of relying upon (and enriching) American pharma giants, corporations like Amazon have been chipping in with aid, with the Bezos-controlled tech giant airlifting 100 ICU ventilators. Private Equity giant Blackstone has reportedly committed $5 million to India relief.

    Meanwhile, the scenes at hospitals, crematoriums and neighbors around the country have been described as “like a mass killing” by one activist fighting India’s devastating second wave. According to NBC News, creamtoriums have had to forgo the rituals that Hindus believe release the soul from the body during the cycle of rebirth. And it’s not just crematoriums, Muslim burial yards in New Delhi are running out of space.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 04/29/2021 – 10:37

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3aORa3c Tyler Durden