The Case for Drinking


Illustration of a man drinking alcohol

“We’ve been looking at alcohol consumption through this very distorted lens,” says Edward Slingerland, author of Drunk: How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization. “We’ve only been looking at it as a kind of addictive pleasure substance. We haven’t been seeing any of the positive social benefits.”

While not minimizing the dangers of overuse, Slingerland lays out a case that alcohol is a cultural technology that motivated humans to create and maintain civilization. 

“[Alcohol] helps us to be more creative. It helps us to be more communal. It helps us to cooperate on a large scale. It helps to make it easier for us to kind of rub shoulders with each other in large-scale societies that we live in. So it solved a bunch of adaptive problems that we uniquely face as a species because of this weird lifestyle we have.”

Alcohol’s effect on the brain’s prefrontal cortex (PFC), Slingerland argues, allows us to be more receptive and creative. 

“One of the functions of alcohol is to reach in and basically turn down our prefrontal cortex a few notches, temporarily taking us back to being like a four-year-old in terms of our cognitive flexibility but with all the knowledge and the goals and the affordances of being an adult. And it’s temporary,” says Slingerland. 

“A few hours later, we’re back to being adults again. So depressing the PFC increases…allows parts of our brain to talk in ways that normally they don’t.” 

Suppressing the prefrontal cortex also makes it more difficult to lie.

In every culture I know, whenever you get potentially hostile strangers or people with potentially competing interests who have to come to an agreement and figure something out, alcohol’s involved. And in places that don’t have alcohol, they use some other substance that has exactly the same function. The same way we shake hands when we need to show we’re not carrying a weapon, if I sit down and drink a few beers with you, I’m basically taking my PFC out and putting it on the table and saying, ‘you know, I’m cognitively disarmed.'” 

“We have to learn to trust, even though it’s not rational to trust,” he says. “And alcohol’s a tool for helping us to do that, not only by disarming our ability to lie and deceive other people, but it’s also boosting serotonin and endorphins. It’s making us feel good about each other. It’s bonding us.”

Produced and edited by Meredith Bragg. Motion graphics by Bragg and Lex Villena.

The post The Case for Drinking appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/SEvwqDN
via IFTTT

The Case for Drinking


Illustration of a man drinking alcohol

“We’ve been looking at alcohol consumption through this very distorted lens,” says Edward Slingerland, author of Drunk: How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization. “We’ve only been looking at it as a kind of addictive pleasure substance. We haven’t been seeing any of the positive social benefits.”

While not minimizing the dangers of overuse, Slingerland lays out a case that alcohol is a cultural technology that motivated humans to create and maintain civilization. 

“[Alcohol] helps us to be more creative. It helps us to be more communal. It helps us to cooperate on a large scale. It helps to make it easier for us to kind of rub shoulders with each other in large-scale societies that we live in. So it solved a bunch of adaptive problems that we uniquely face as a species because of this weird lifestyle we have.”

Alcohol’s effect on the brain’s prefrontal cortex (PFC), Slingerland argues, allows us to be more receptive and creative. 

“One of the functions of alcohol is to reach in and basically turn down our prefrontal cortex a few notches, temporarily taking us back to being like a four-year-old in terms of our cognitive flexibility but with all the knowledge and the goals and the affordances of being an adult. And it’s temporary,” says Slingerland. 

“A few hours later, we’re back to being adults again. So depressing the PFC increases…allows parts of our brain to talk in ways that normally they don’t.” 

Suppressing the prefrontal cortex also makes it more difficult to lie.

In every culture I know, whenever you get potentially hostile strangers or people with potentially competing interests who have to come to an agreement and figure something out, alcohol’s involved. And in places that don’t have alcohol, they use some other substance that has exactly the same function. The same way we shake hands when we need to show we’re not carrying a weapon, if I sit down and drink a few beers with you, I’m basically taking my PFC out and putting it on the table and saying, ‘you know, I’m cognitively disarmed.'” 

“We have to learn to trust, even though it’s not rational to trust,” he says. “And alcohol’s a tool for helping us to do that, not only by disarming our ability to lie and deceive other people, but it’s also boosting serotonin and endorphins. It’s making us feel good about each other. It’s bonding us.”

Produced and edited by Meredith Bragg. Motion graphics by Bragg and Lex Villena.

The post The Case for Drinking appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/SEvwqDN
via IFTTT

Bitcoin Breaks Below $19k, SEC Rejects Spot ETF (Again), JPM Says ‘Deleveraging Well Advanced’

Bitcoin Breaks Below $19k, SEC Rejects Spot ETF (Again), JPM Says ‘Deleveraging Well Advanced’

Bitcoin broke back below $19,000 this morning to end its worst first-half of a year ever (and worst quarter since Q3 2011…

The (mostly negative) headlines keep mounting as JPMorgan’s Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou warns that deleveraging continues to reverberate throughout the crypto ecosystem.

Multiple failures among crypto companies should not be a surprise in the current backdrop of deleveraging, given the crypto market lost 70% of its capitalization cumulatively since last November. The entities that employed higher leverage in the past are now the most vulnerable. Whether it is miners having borrowed to expand operations using their bitcoins as collateral, or corporates such as MicroStrategy having borrowed in the past to invest even more heavily into bitcoin, or hedge funds using futures to lever their positions, or retail investors borrowing via margin accounts to invest into various cryptocurrencies. Three Arrows Capital’s failure is a manifestation of this deleveraging process, a process that appears well advanced, making the bottom formation process in crypto markets more volatile.

In the current phase of deleveraging, the weakest crypto entities, i.e. those with high leverage and low capital appear to be most challenged, while the ones with the strongest balance sheets seem most likely to survive and emerge stronger once the current deleveraging phase is over. How much more deleveraging needs to still happen is hard to assess.

But indicators like our Net Leverage metric suggest that deleveraging is already well advanced.

And we find two additional reasons to believe that the current deleveraging cycle may not be very protracted:

1) The fact that crypto entities with the stronger balance sheets are currently stepping in to help contain contagion and;

2) VC funding, an important source of capital for the crypto ecosystem, continued at a healthy pace in May and June.

Still, the crypto ecosystem took another modest blow last night as The SEC rejected Grayscale’s application to convert its Grayscale Bitcoin Trust to an exchange-traded fund late Wednesday, citing concerns about market manipulation, the role of Tether in the broader bitcoin ecosystem and the lack of a surveillance-sharing agreement between a “regulated market of significant size” and a regulated exchange, echoing concerns the regulator has expressed for years in rejecting other spot bitcoin ETF applications.

GBTC responded by suing the SEC, as CEO Michael Sonnenshein said the company was “deeply disappointed” and “vehemently disagree” with the SEC’s decision to deny their application.

“Over 11,400 investors, academics, business leaders, trade associations, and other key stakeholders submitted comments to the SEC in support of Grayscale’s ETF proposal,” wrote Sonnenshein.

As of June 9th, over 99.9% of those comment letters were supportive of the cause.

As CoinTelegraph reports, Grayscale announced that its senior legal strategist, former U.S. solicitor general Donald B. Verrilli Jr., had filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Verrelli stated that the latest decision shows that the SEC is acting “arbitrarily and capriciously” by “failing to apply consistent treatment to similar investment vehicles” and will be pursuing a legal challenge based on the SEC’s alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Securities Exchange Act (SEA).

Grayscale Investments, which has $12.92 billion of assets under management in its GBTC, announced its intentions to transition the fund into an ETF in April 2021. A formal request to do so was then submitted later that year, in October. Since then, Grayscale has mounted many efforts to properly inform the public of its intentions and to meet all regulatory requirements.

Essentially, the company will argue that the SEC has to allow products that are like other products already trading, in this case bitcoin futures ETFs.

By changing the trust into a spot Bitcoin ETF, Grayscale hopes to correct Grayscale Bitcoin Trust’s “discount” and allow the investment firm to charge lower fees, making it easier to move money in and out of the fund.

The SEC’s ongoing negative response to a spot Bictoin ETF prompted many reactions across social media with some accusing the SEC of “holding GBTC hostage.”

According to Twitter user Ann, since the SEC approved an ETF that shorts Bitcoin, the SEC may be working to “suppress the price of Bitcoin.”

The Twitter user argued that this is not the role of the SEC.

Ironically, on the same day that the SEC rejects GBTC, CoinTelegraph reports that major Dutch stock exchange Euronext Amsterdam, a part of the pan-European marketplace Euronext, is debuting its first Spot Bitcoin ETF.

The Jacobi Bitcoin ETF is positioned as the first spot Bitcoin ETF launched in Europe, Jacobi founder and CEO Jamie Khurshid told Cointelegraph.

“Our product is the first spot or physical-backed Bitcoin fund, and the fund is not allowed to lend, stake or leverage any of the assets it owns. For the first time in Europe, investors buying an exchange-traded Bitcoin product will own the units that own the Bitcoin,” Khurshid said.

“There are other exchange-traded products in Europe but no other spot BTC ETF,” he added.

In other news, The Block reports that FTX looked at a deal with Celsius but in the end walked away, citing two people with knowledge of the matter.

FTX held talks with Celsius about providing financial support or making an acquisition but did not proceed to looking at Celsius’s finances. Celsius had a $2 billion hole in its balance sheet and FTX found the company difficult to deal with, one of the sources said.

Finally, we note that, as Anita Posch writes at BitcoinMagazine.com, crypto lending scheme implosions make bitcoin stronger.

As you can see in the graph above, the recent bitcoin price drawdown is not the first of its kind in the history of Bitcoin. It’s not unusual that the price reaches a low in between two halving events, when the amount of newly-minted bitcoin is split in half, which occurs every four years.

Reckless lending practices brought the whole crypto-lending system down. These centralized services take customers’ bitcoin and promise monthly returns. They lend it out to other DeFi projects, which is risky in the first place, and, on top of that, they lend out more money than they hold in assets. This is essentially a practice that led to the global financial crisis of 2008, which was a reason that Satoshi Nakamoto released the Bitcoin software in the first place.

Now, the cryptocurrency industry is building the same over-leveraged financial products and one has to ask: Did they not learn? Did they think they found a solution to magically make profits, where there is no underlying economic activity?

The failure of these yield-searching companies brought the whole market and bitcoin down in the last weeks. It’s a great reminder that one should have all assets in self custody and that there is no magical solution to money making by over-leveraging. Hopefully, investors and businesses learn from these busts.

Bitcoin is a decentralized technology which is unstoppable. No government nor any bank can change or control it. No one can take it away from you. This is especially important if you live in a country with authoritarian leaders or a broken banking system. Bitcoin has been declared dead several times, but it has been producing new blocks every 10 minutes anyway. It’s unstoppable, like a clock.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/30/2022 – 13:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/uSb3ehV Tyler Durden

How Well Do You Know America’s Racial Classification System? (Second of a Series)

As discussed in my forthcoming book Classified (out in less than 3 weeks!), contrary to popular belief, racial and ethnic classification in the US is not solely a matter of personal choice. The federal Office of Management and Budget created a classification scheme in 1978 to be used by all federal agencies, and barely amended since. The classifications you see on employment forms, applications for mortgages, applications for university admission, and so on, are taken from the official federal classifications. Importantly, while these forms rarely include instructions, the OMB classifications have official, legally binding definitions.

With that background, let’s go to our second quiz, involving the Asian American classificaiton.

(1) Here are some countries in Asia: Pakistan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Afghanistan, and Armenia. Americans with ancestors in which of these countries are classified as Asian American?

(2) Johnnie grew up in California, but his mom and dad grew up on one of the smaller islands of the Phillipines. Is Johnnie an Asian American or a Pacific Islander, or both?

(3) The Lopez family from Argentina moved to Japan in 1920. In 1980, the whole family, still composed solely of individuals with origins in Argentina, moved to the US. Is the family classified as Hispanic/Latino, Asian American, or both?

 

 

Answers:

Asian American is defined as person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent.

(1) There is some ambiguity here, but in practice it seems that only Pakistan qualifies. Iran and Afghanistan are classified as being in the Middle East, which makes their residents white, not Asian. Armenia is not in the Far East or the Indian subcontinent. For Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, these classifications traditionally were interpreted by country of origin, and given that the latter were Soviet Republics, and the USSR was considered a white/European country, their residents were classified as white.

Note that I will occasionally get a question about whether an Ashkenazi Jew from somewhere like Tajikistan is “Asian American.” The answer to that seems to definitely be no. Even if one posited that Tajiks generally should be classified as Asian American, note that the official definition requires descent from one of the “original peoples” of the area, which Ashkenazi Jews do not have.

(2) Asians and Pacific Islanders were classified together in one category until 1997, until Native Hawaiians successfully lobbied for a new classification of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. They did so because they found that as part of the same category as Asians, they not only weren’t eligible for affirmative action at “mainland” schools, they actively faced discrimination. But while  the Philipines is literally a group of Pacific Islands, Filipino Americans remained classified as Asian Americans, not Pacific Islanders. The latter is limited to Americans origins in places like Samoa and Tonga.

(3) If members of the Lopez family considers  themselves to be Hispanic, then they meet the official definition of being of Spanish origin or culture. No matter how many generations a Latin American family lives in Asia, however, they never become “Asian” under federal standards, because they are not descended from the original peoples of Asia. By contrast, if a Filipino family moves to Argentina as soon as they adopt Hispanic culture they become both Asian and Hispanic (assuming they at some point move to the US).

 

The post How Well Do You Know America's Racial Classification System? (Second of a Series) appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/6HQwKuD
via IFTTT

How Well Do You Know America’s Racial Classification System? (Second of a Series)

As discussed in my forthcoming book Classified (out in less than 3 weeks!), contrary to popular belief, racial and ethnic classification in the US is not solely a matter of personal choice. The federal Office of Management and Budget created a classification scheme in 1978 to be used by all federal agencies, and barely amended since. The classifications you see on employment forms, applications for mortgages, applications for university admission, and so on, are taken from the official federal classifications. Importantly, while these forms rarely include instructions, the OMB classifications have official, legally binding definitions.

With that background, let’s go to our second quiz, involving the Asian American classificaiton.

(1) Here are some countries in Asia: Pakistan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Afghanistan, and Armenia. Americans with ancestors in which of these countries are classified as Asian American?

(2) Johnnie grew up in California, but his mom and dad grew up on one of the smaller islands of the Phillipines. Is Johnnie an Asian American or a Pacific Islander, or both?

(3) The Lopez family from Argentina moved to Japan in 1920. In 1980, the whole family, still composed solely of individuals with origins in Argentina, moved to the US. Is the family classified as Hispanic/Latino, Asian American, or both?

 

 

Answers:

Asian American is defined as person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent.

(1) There is some ambiguity here, but in practice it seems that only Pakistan qualifies. Iran and Afghanistan are classified as being in the Middle East, which makes their residents white, not Asian. Armenia is not in the Far East or the Indian subcontinent. For Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, these classifications traditionally were interpreted by country of origin, and given that the latter were Soviet Republics, and the USSR was considered a white/European country, their residents were classified as white.

Note that I will occasionally get a question about whether an Ashkenazi Jew from somewhere like Tajikistan is “Asian American.” The answer to that seems to definitely be no. Even if one posited that Tajiks generally should be classified as Asian American, note that the official definition requires descent from one of the “original peoples” of the area, which Ashkenazi Jews do not have.

(2) Asians and Pacific Islanders were classified together in one category until 1997, until Native Hawaiians successfully lobbied for a new classification of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. They did so because they found that as part of the same category as Asians, they not only weren’t eligible for affirmative action at “mainland” schools, they actively faced discrimination. But while  the Philipines is literally a group of Pacific Islands, Filipino Americans remained classified as Asian Americans, not Pacific Islanders. The latter is limited to Americans origins in places like Samoa and Tonga.

(3) If members of the Lopez family considers  themselves to be Hispanic, then they meet the official definition of being of Spanish origin or culture. No matter how many generations a Latin American family lives in Asia, however, they never become “Asian” under federal standards, because they are not descended from the original peoples of Asia. By contrast, if a Filipino family moves to Argentina as soon as they adopt Hispanic culture they become both Asian and Hispanic (assuming they at some point move to the US).

 

The post How Well Do You Know America's Racial Classification System? (Second of a Series) appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/6HQwKuD
via IFTTT

As G7 Quietly Shelves Russian Oil Price Cap Idea, Biden Will Beg Mideast Allies To Pump More

As G7 Quietly Shelves Russian Oil Price Cap Idea, Biden Will Beg Mideast Allies To Pump More

To be honest we haven’t spent much time discussing the timesink idiocy of the Biden/G7 “Russian oil price cap” idea because well, it is idiotic as Rabobank explained…

The ‘oil cap’ is simple in theory: the G7 will refuse to provide insurance to any vessel that carries Russian oil unless the cargo is sold with an agreed price cap. Yet it won’t work and will just push oil prices higher. Russia will never agree. China and India will never agree either. Russia and China may offer their own underwriting services, which would force the West into physically blocking cargoes and confronting China – as a Russian-oil carrying ship is stopped in the US, says the Wall Street Journal. Plus, the G7 are already not taking Russian oil: they are taking Russian oil from India and China that is being on-sold.

… and it appears that finally even the dumbest people on earth, i.e. career politicians and economics, have figured it out.

Reuters reports that according to EU officials, the biggest price cap proponents – the governments of Germany and other European Union countries – voiced “caution” in a closed-door meeting about price caps on Russian oil, a day after the Group of Seven economic powers agreed to urgently start work on the matter,

Here is the truncated timeline for those who missed it: on Tuesday G7 leaders agreed to explore “the feasibility of introducing temporary import price caps” on Russian fossil fuel, including oil, and tasked ministers to evaluate the proposal urgently.

But just one day later, Germany’s envoy to the EU told his counterparts in a restricted meeting that the world should be “realistic” about the proposal, which he said was added to the G7 statement after “intense pressure” from Washington, according to one official who attended the meeting.

And then, the envoy also said an agreement on whether to apply caps was not expected to come anytime soon… or any time for that matter as it is impossible.

Then there are the holdouts: Hungary and Belgium also raised concerns at the meeting about the G7 statement on sanctions, the official said, with Hungary explicitly backing Berlin’s caution on oil price caps. A second EU official familiar with the talks confirmed that Germany and others had expressed wariness about oil price caps.

A German government official said on Thursday that “success of this plan depends on international cooperation”, which is precisely what we said. Of course, neither China nor India will ever agree to cooperate with the G7 if it means losing out on access to extremely cheap oil (the alternative is Russia just halting exports and sending the price of oil to $200+).

Stefano Sannino, secretary general of the EU’s diplomatic service said on Thursday that a price cap would only be effective if universally applied, and so agreement would be needed across the G20 countries, not just the G7.

“You need to be sure you do not have distortion of trade and then the only thing that is happening is that essentially oil goes to other places with other carriers and insured by other companies – and so the price remains the same,” Sannino told an EU-UK Forum conference.

Hilariously, the world’s most powerful – and stupid – people are still trying to come up with a price cap idea even as they are all facing an even worse fate in just 6 months: under already passed EU sanctions that will become effective in December, insurance and other financial services crucial for Russian oil shipments will be banned worldwide. Critics of this fear it could lead to higher global oil prices because of the key role EU companies play in shipping insurance, bringing a benefit to Moscow.

A cap, if agreed, would effectively make it possible for companies to trade Russian oil, instead of facing a total ban. However, the EU sanctions on Russian oil, which took weeks to agree, would have to be tweaked and reopening the debate on this measure could be controversial, officials said.

Indeed, as Rabobank cynically concluded, instead of buying Russian oil directly, European nations will instead buy Russian oil from India and China paying a much higher price in the process.

Meanwhile, realizing that his latest attempt to finally outsmart Putin has just gone up in a puff of crack cocaine smoke and his brilliant energy plan – perhaps concocted by Ukraine energy expert Hunter Biden – this morning Joe Biden turned his attention away from the economically impossible and toward diplomacy instead, and has set his sights on a promise of higher production from Gulf allies.

As discussed previously, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are the only countries with significant spare capacity to pump crude, although as Reuters’ John Kemp wrote, “it is unlikely to be much more than around 1 million barrels per day (bpd) based on historic production rates.” Bloomberg added the following:

Aramco’s maximum capacity is a mystery because it hasn’t ever been tested for an extended period. In April 2020, Riyadh reported its highest ever monthly average, at 11.55 million barrels a day. Back then, Aramco briefly — for a few days, I hear — pumped 12 million barrels a day. Aramco executives, including Chief Executive Officer Amin Nasser, took selfies in front of a giant screen wall showing production hitting the record level. At one point, it surged to 12.3 million barrels. Smiles all round.

Behind closed doors, however, things were more complicated. In private, Saudi oil industry executives describe that effort as a real challenge and express concern about having to sustain that output. It’s one thing to briefly hit the target, quite another to keep pumping and pumping at that level for a year, the internal thinking goes. 

In any casem without a pledge from the two OPEC members to boost production, the president would lose what may be his last tool for alleviating the economic and political pain caused by high fuel prices. That is, of course, unless Biden does the obvious thing and encourages more domestic production. But since the 79-year-old is being handled by a bunch of “green” puppetmasters, this has zero chance of passing.

As such, the coming trip to Saudi Arabia puts Biden in an awkward position, especially after he vowed during his campaign to make the kingdom a “pariah” over its human rights record. The president said he wouldn’t specifically ask Saudi King Salman or Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman to raise oil production when he sees them on July 16. The broader Gulf Cooperation Council, a forum of largely oil-rich countries along the Persian Gulf, is a more appropriate setting for such a request, he said.

“All the Gulf states are meeting. I have indicated to them that I thought they should be increasing production,” Biden said Thursday at a news conference in Madrid following a NATO summit. “I hope we see them, in their own interest, concluding that makes sense to do.”

And as noted above, even if Saudi Arabia and the UAE are willing to assist the US – which they aren’t since the coming recession will likely send oil prices sharply lower –  just how much extra oil the two countries could provide has been questioned by this week by Shell Plc Chief Executive Ben van Beurden and French President Emmanuel Macron. While official data indicates the duo have almost 3 million barrels a day of spare production capacity, deploying this would require them to pump at levels rarely sustained before, if ever.

To avoid humiliation, Biden has repeatedly said that his Mideast trip is about more than energy – he cited concerns over the war in Yemen, among other issues. But everyone knows what’s the primary goal: the surge in gasoline prices in the US has added pressure on the president and Democrats heading into the November mid-term elections. In Madrid, Biden reiterated his view that the price increase is entirely due to “Russia, Russia, Russia” as a result of the war in Ukraine.

Biden said he sees a number of ways to alleviate some of those increases, including through a temporary repeal of the federal gas tax, a measure that would need congressional approval. But he also said that Americans may have to continue enduring higher-than-usual fuel prices for a time.

Separately, as reported earlier, on Thursday OPEC+ ratified their plan to boost oil production by a further 648,000 barrels a day in August, completing the return of supplies halted during the pandemic. The group, which is led by Saudi Arabia, deferred discussions about its next move for another day, with the next meeting scheduled for Aug. 3.

True to form, the US sees the OPEC+ supply hikes, which were expanded by 50% at the group’s previous meeting on June 2, as a first step that will be followed by a further production increase, Amos Hochstein, the State Department’s senior adviser for energy security, said in a Bloomberg Television interview on Wednesday. “Announcing additional supplies a few weeks ago was step one,” Hochstein said. “I’m very hopeful that you and I can have this conversation about step two sometime in the near future.”

The problem, however, as the chart below shows is that OPEC+ is simply incapable of pumping as much as it used to in the recent past due to lack of capital spending.

Oil fell after Biden’s comments, with West Texas Intermediate futures sinking 3.9% to $105.50 a barrel around 11am. We expect oil to resume its surge in the coming days.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/30/2022 – 12:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/9uRVQ2g Tyler Durden

Supreme Court Gives Biden Administration a (Temporary?) Win on Immigration with Final Decision of Term

This morning Chief Justice Roberts delivered a gift to the BIden Administration with the final opinion in an argued case this Supreme Court term in Biden v. Texas. In a 5-4 decision, the Court concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the case and rejected a statutory challenge to the Biden Administration’s rescission of the Trump Administration’s Migrant Protection Protocol, aka the “Remain in Mexico” policy. The case is now remanded back to the lower courts for additional proceedings, including other challenges to the policy change.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a 5-4 Court, joined by the Court’s liberals and Justice Kavanaugh, who also wrote a concurrence. Justice Alito wrote a dissent joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Justice Barrett also wrote a dissent joined by the Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, save for the first sentence of her opinion (“I agree with the Court’s analysis of the merits—but not with its decision to reach them.”).

Here is how Roberts explains his decision:

In January 2019, the Department of Homeland Security—under the administration of President Trump—established the Migrant Protection Protocols. That program provided for the return to Mexico of non-Mexican aliens who had been detained attempting to enter the United States illegally from Mexico. On Inauguration Day 2021, the new administration of President Biden announced that the program would be suspended the next day, and later that year sought to terminate it. The District Court and the Court of Appeals, however, held that doing so would violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, concluding that the return policy was mandatory so long as illegal entrants were being released into the United States. The District Court also held that the attempted rescission of the program was inadequately explained in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. While its appeal was pending, the Government took new action to terminate the policy with a more detailed explanation. But the Court of Appeals held that this new action was not separately reviewable final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The questions presented are whether the Government’s rescission of the Migrant Protection Protocols violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and whether the Government’s second termination of the policy was a valid final agency action.

On the jurisdictional question, the Chief Justice concluded the Court could here the challenge.

we see no basis for the conclusion that section 1252(f )(1) concerns subject matter jurisdiction. It is true that section 1252(f )(1) uses the phrase “jurisdiction or authority,” rather than simply the word “authority.” But “[j]urisdiction . . . is a word of many, too many meanings.” Steel Co., 523 U. S., at 90. And the question whether a court has jurisdiction to grant a particular remedy is different from the question whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a particular class of claims. See Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154, 163–164 (2010) (concluding that “[t]he word ‘jurisdiction’ . . . says nothing about whether a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate claims”). Section 1252(f )(1) no doubt deprives the lower courts of “jurisdiction” to grant classwide injunctive relief. See Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11). But that limitation poses no obstacle to jurisdiction in this
Court.

And here’s the majority’s summary on the merits:

Section 1225(b)(2)(C) provides: “In the case of an alien . . . who is arriving on land . . . from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the [Secretary] may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a.” Section 1225(b)(2)(C) plainly confers a discretionary authority to return aliens to Mexico during the pendency of their immigration proceedings. This Court has “repeatedly observed” that “the word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion.” Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 10) (emphasis in original); see also, e.g., Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 14); Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U. S. 335, 346 (2005). The use of the word “may” in section 1225(b)(2)(C) thus makes clear that contiguous-territory return is a tool that the Secretary “has the authority, but not the duty,” to use. Lopez v. Davis, 531 U. S. 230, 241 (2001).

And as for whether the Biden Administration made the same mistake the Trump Administration had in rescinding DACA, Roberts concluded that the Adminsitration’s second memorandum (the October 29 memo) was a separate, final agency action and the lower court erred in concluding otherwise.

Here is how the opinion concludes:

For the reasons explained, the Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the District Court should consider in the first instance whether the October 29 Memoranda comply with section 706 of the APA. See State Farm, 463 U. S., at 46–57.

Note this indicates the Biden Administration’s victory may be short-lived, as Texas and others may still pursue their APA challenges to the policy, including arguments that the Administration failed to provide an adequate explanation for the policy decision. Justice Kavanaugh stresses the point in his concurrence. So the Biden Administration is not out of the woods yet. Expect Texas, et al., to really hone their State Farm arguments on remand.

 

The post Supreme Court Gives Biden Administration a (Temporary?) Win on Immigration with Final Decision of Term appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/Fh7DIG0
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Gives Biden Administration a (Temporary?) Win on Immigration with Final Decision of Term

This morning Chief Justice Roberts delivered a gift to the BIden Administration with the final opinion in an argued case this Supreme Court term in Biden v. Texas. In a 5-4 decision, the Court concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the case and rejected a statutory challenge to the Biden Administration’s rescission of the Trump Administration’s Migrant Protection Protocol, aka the “Remain in Mexico” policy. The case is now remanded back to the lower courts for additional proceedings, including other challenges to the policy change.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a 5-4 Court, joined by the Court’s liberals and Justice Kavanaugh, who also wrote a concurrence. Justice Alito wrote a dissent joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Justice Barrett also wrote a dissent joined by the Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, save for the first sentence of her opinion (“I agree with the Court’s analysis of the merits—but not with its decision to reach them.”).

Here is how Roberts explains his decision:

In January 2019, the Department of Homeland Security—under the administration of President Trump—established the Migrant Protection Protocols. That program provided for the return to Mexico of non-Mexican aliens who had been detained attempting to enter the United States illegally from Mexico. On Inauguration Day 2021, the new administration of President Biden announced that the program would be suspended the next day, and later that year sought to terminate it. The District Court and the Court of Appeals, however, held that doing so would violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, concluding that the return policy was mandatory so long as illegal entrants were being released into the United States. The District Court also held that the attempted rescission of the program was inadequately explained in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. While its appeal was pending, the Government took new action to terminate the policy with a more detailed explanation. But the Court of Appeals held that this new action was not separately reviewable final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The questions presented are whether the Government’s rescission of the Migrant Protection Protocols violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and whether the Government’s second termination of the policy was a valid final agency action.

On the jurisdictional question, the Chief Justice concluded the Court could here the challenge.

we see no basis for the conclusion that section 1252(f )(1) concerns subject matter jurisdiction. It is true that section 1252(f )(1) uses the phrase “jurisdiction or authority,” rather than simply the word “authority.” But “[j]urisdiction . . . is a word of many, too many meanings.” Steel Co., 523 U. S., at 90. And the question whether a court has jurisdiction to grant a particular remedy is different from the question whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a particular class of claims. See Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154, 163–164 (2010) (concluding that “[t]he word ‘jurisdiction’ . . . says nothing about whether a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate claims”). Section 1252(f )(1) no doubt deprives the lower courts of “jurisdiction” to grant classwide injunctive relief. See Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11). But that limitation poses no obstacle to jurisdiction in this
Court.

And here’s the majority’s summary on the merits:

Section 1225(b)(2)(C) provides: “In the case of an alien . . . who is arriving on land . . . from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the [Secretary] may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a.” Section 1225(b)(2)(C) plainly confers a discretionary authority to return aliens to Mexico during the pendency of their immigration proceedings. This Court has “repeatedly observed” that “the word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion.” Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 10) (emphasis in original); see also, e.g., Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 14); Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U. S. 335, 346 (2005). The use of the word “may” in section 1225(b)(2)(C) thus makes clear that contiguous-territory return is a tool that the Secretary “has the authority, but not the duty,” to use. Lopez v. Davis, 531 U. S. 230, 241 (2001).

And as for whether the Biden Administration made the same mistake the Trump Administration had in rescinding DACA, Roberts concluded that the Adminsitration’s second memorandum (the October 29 memo) was a separate, final agency action and the lower court erred in concluding otherwise.

Here is how the opinion concludes:

For the reasons explained, the Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action. We
therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the District Court should consider in the first instance whether the October 29 Memoranda comply with section 706 of the APA. See State Farm, 463 U. S., at 46–57.

Note this indicates the Biden Administration’s victory may be short-lived, as Texas and others may still pursue their APA challenges to the policy, including arguments that the Administration failed to provide an adequate explanation for the policy decision. Justice Kavanaugh stresses the point in his concurrence.

 

The post Supreme Court Gives Biden Administration a (Temporary?) Win on Immigration with Final Decision of Term appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/Fh7DIG0
via IFTTT

Biden Announces Support For Ending The Filibuster To Pass Pro-Abortion Legislation

Biden Announces Support For Ending The Filibuster To Pass Pro-Abortion Legislation

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

President Joe Biden announced Thursday he would support ending the 60-vote Senate filibuster to pass bills to allow abortions at the federal level.

During his campaign, Biden said that he wanted to keep the filibuster. When he entered office, Biden affirmed his support for the Senate rule.

Biden was asked during the NATO summit in Spain on Thursday about keeping the rule in the midst of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. He said that the only way to respond is by Congress passing a law.

“The foremost thing we should do is make it clear how outrageous this decision was,” Biden said. “I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure that Congress votes to do that.”

“And if the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights, we should require an exception to the filibuster for this action,” added Biden, who has threatened to use the filibuster on several occasions for bills when he was a senator.

In January of this year, Biden said he would support ending the filibuster to pass what Democrats have described as a voting-rights bill. Democrats currently have a razor-thin, 50–50 majority in the Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris serving as a tie-breaker.

And last week, Biden called on Congress to codify Roe v. Wade after the Supreme Court decision and called on Americans to turn up en masse at the polls to vote in favor of ostensibly Democrat candidates who favor allowing abortions.

The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 ruling, overturned the 1973 Roe decision, which argued that women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito last week said that it is only legislatures—not courts—that have the power to dictate laws around abortions and noted that the Constitution doesn’t make mention of the procedure.

The filibuster, which was first used in 1837, was established in the Senate to protect the interests of the minority party and takes advantage of a rule that 60 votes are needed to stop debate on a bill. Debate on a bill can last indefinitely.

In the current Congress, it appears unlikely that the filibuster will be removed. Several Democrat senators, including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), have signaled they don’t want the rule to be scrapped, and no Republicans have said they would vote to end it. Manchin, however, has said that he favors codifying Roe v. Wade but has not signaled whether he wants to abolish the filibuster to do so.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/30/2022 – 12:27

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/moCjFbR Tyler Durden

Biden Announces Permanent US Base In Poland, America’s First On NATO Eastern Flank

Biden Announces Permanent US Base In Poland, America’s First On NATO Eastern Flank

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

President Biden announced Wednesday during the NATO summit in Madrid steps that the US will take to increase its military presence in Europe, including the establishment of a permanent base in Poland.

The base in Poland will mark the first time the US will establish an official permanent military facility in the area known as NATO’s “eastern flank.” The US military presence elsewhere in Eastern Europe and in the Baltic states is technically on a rotational basis, although Washington has no plans to scale back its presence in the region.

Via AP

Under the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, NATO agreed not to establish a permanent military presence east of Germany. US officials insist the base in Poland does not violate the act since it is only a permanent facility, and the troops will be deployed rotationally, but it’s unlikely Moscow will see it that way.

Other measures Biden announced include sending a “rotational brigade” of 5,000 troops to Romania, stepping up rotational deployments to the Baltics, sending two additional F-35 squadrons to the UK, and stationing more air defenses in Germany in Italy. A day earlier, Biden announced the US was sending two more Navy Destroyers to Spain.

“I said Putin’s looking for the Finlandization of Europe,” Biden said on Wednesday. “He’s going to get the NATOization of Europe. And that is exactly what he didn’t want, but exactly what needs to be done to guarantee security for Europe. And I think it’s necessary.”

The deployments are a step towards keeping US troops levels in Europe at over 100,000. Before the US began reinforcing its military presence in Europe around the time Russia invaded Ukraine, about 80,000 US troops were assigned to the continent.

While building up military forces in Eastern Europe and pouring billions of dollars worth of weapons into Ukraine, Biden has abandoned diplomacy with Russia altogether. As a result, the risk of a direct conflict between the two powers, which could quickly spiral into nuclear war, is at its greatest height since the Cold War.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/30/2022 – 12:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/fNH3y9Z Tyler Durden