THE FURTHER CORRESPONDENCES OF MARC SUSSELMAN PART 35
********
7 October 2025
MS said:
Can Trump really win a Nobel Peace Prize? Yes. Here’s how
"CNN..."
My world is collapsing.
********
MS said:
Trump debates using the Insurrection Act if courts keep blocking troop deployments
This is very serious. Upon first reading the headline, I scoffed at the idea that a President could invoke the Insurrection Act in order to avoid decisions by federal courts.
I was wrong.
Purpose and content
The Act empowers the U.S. president to call into service the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard:
when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state (§ 251),
to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253).
It would appear to be obvious that the above conditions are not satisfied by residents of Portland or Chicago protesting against actions by ICE, and that the President cannot override a federal court’s decision that the conditions have not been satisfied. However, there is only one Supreme Court decision on the issue, Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 19 (1827), and the Supreme Court ruled in that case that the President is the final arbiter of whether the conditions under the Insurrection Act had been satisfied.
********
8 October 2025
MS said:
The Free Press
"FPcom..."
Greta Thunberg and Sweden’s Lost Children
My response:
This article is right-wing propagandist rubbish. I, too, am Jewish, but to state that the diminishing of religious faith in Europe is the cause of its alleged decline is nonsense. Was Europe so great when the Spanish Inquisition was torturing and burning Jews at the stake? Was it great when Catholics and Protestants fought a 30 Years War to determine which religion was the more legitimate?
The author decries the efforts to keep religion and state separate and contends that that Greta Thunberg, and her followers, without faith, fail “to stand for anything, and therefore fall[] for everything, time and time again.” Advocating for addressing the destructive effects of climate change caused by human conduct is a failure to stand for anything? It absolutely does stand for something, it is just not something that the author believes is worth standing for. The author is given to facile quips without any substance, stating, “Where there once was faith and purpose, there is now only posturing and projection.” Really? What purpose did faith instill, as Pope Pius XII bent a knee to Nazi aggression and turned a blind eye to the slaughter of millions of Jews?
Then the author turns her attention to Israel, and accuses Thunberg of being anti-Semitic by virtue of her opposition to Isarael’s aggression in Gaza. I have been a life-long supporter of Israel, but to disregard Israel’s crimes against humanity in recent months in Gaza, a desecration of Torah and of sacred Jewish values, and to accuse those who voice such views, as anti-Semitic is itself right-wing demagogy.
This is a result of Beri Weiss taking over the helm at CBS and the Free Press. It marks a decline in legitimate, honest journalism, and replacing it with right-wing conservative propaganda.
Marc Susselman, JD, MPH
********
9 October 2025
MS said:
Letitia James, the New York attorney general who defeated Trump in court, indicted by Justice Department
Trump’s Reign of Terror has intensified.
********
10 October 2025
MS said:
I was watching an interview of Secretaries Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice regarding the 20-point plan which the Trump administration is pursuing in Gaza, and was impressed by their knowledge and clear-headedness. At one point, Clinton quoted Max Weber about the difficulty in diplomacy of “boring hard boards.” I was not familiar with the quote, so I looked it up. Here it is:
“Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth - that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible. But to do that a man must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well, in a very sober sense of the word. And even those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes. This is necessary right now, or else men will not be able to attain even that which is possible today.”
―Max Weber
********
11 October 2025
MS said:
I know virtually nothing about computer programming, or how my computer works. But I do know this. The invention of the atomic and hydrogen bombs could not result in an atomic or hydrogen bomb building another atomic or hydrogen bomb and launching it on the United States or Russia.
But it seems to me to be inevitable that creating a computer language to think like a human being, but exponentially faster than any human being, is eventually going to result in the AI technology teaching AI technology to other AI entities, and then asserting mastery over their human creators. It is inevitable.
********
15 October 2025
MS said:
A Lesson in Defiance From Nazi Germany
"NYTimes..."
********
MS said:
The sanctimonious voters who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, because they preferred what they regarded as the perfect over the good in their candidate, Bernie Sanders, do not appreciate what a disaster they have wrought, in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, the destruction of our democracy, and setting the groundwork for the ascendancy of the police state and the empire of Donald J. Trump.
********
16 October 2025
MS said:
Today’s NYT has an interesting interview by Ross Douthat of S. Ct. Justice Barrett. It can be found at the link below, and I recommend it. It covers some very interesting topics regarding Constitutional interpretation and stare decisis.
Interesting Times with Ross Douthat
Amy Coney Barrett Is Looking Beyond the Trump Era
There was a very interesting passage in which Justice Barrett answered a question about the meaning of the word “liberty” in the 14th Amendment, which was at the center of the debate over a constitutional right to an abortion, and the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Justice Barrett said the following:
“[T]he Dobbs decision was interpreting the 14th Amendment’s due process clause – which says that no person ‘shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law’ – because, to the extent one might argue that there is a right to an abortion in the Constitution, it’s located in that clause. That’s where Roe found it. ‘No person shall be deprived of liberty’ would be the relevant one there.
“And so the courts – the line of cases I known as substantive due process – and what those cases say is: Yes, this phrase, ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,’ it sounds like: Well, if I’m going to take away your car, I have to give you fair procedures before doing so. But the court has long recognized that it also has a substantive component that inheres in the word 'liberty.’ So there are some things that a legislature cant’ take away, be it Congress or the 14th Amendment, which applies specifically to the states. …
“So yes, that word, ‘liberty,’ does protect some content above and beyond things that are expressly stated in the Constitution. But you see the problem. I might think a lot of things are in ‘liberty’ that you may not think are in ‘liberty’ that one would disagree with. And there’s a lot of risk – this has been a very contested area of constitutional law for a long time – in making judges the final arbiters of exactly what the content of that word, ‘liberty,’ is. …
“[A]s I said, these are rights that are so widely understood to be fundamental that they go without saying – the test is that, before the court will recognize such a right as an unenumerated constitutional guarantee, it has to be stated at a specific level. Because if you state something at a broad enough level, like ‘right to control one’s body,’ that could include a whole lot of things. Everything from assisted suicide to abortion … . So you have to state it at a specific level of generality, because it’s also only if something is identified precisely that you can really measure what the degree of buy-in among the American public is. And then it has to be deeply rooted in this country’s history and tradition. It can’t be a Johnny-come-lately. … For purposes of this test, it’s not an originalism thing. It’s not just frozen at the moment of the ratification of the 14th Amendment. This is actually looking more deeply at the history and traditions of the American people. And abortion failed that test. The right to an abortion failed that test because it’s been a deeply contested issue. It certainly was in 1973, when Roe was decided, and continued to be contested.” (Emphasis added.)
Dose this explanation of what rights are included within the scope of the word “liberty” make logical sense? One of the recognized main purposes of the 14th Amendment is to protect the rights of minorities segments the American public from infringement by the majority. This includes legislation passed by state legislatures, which, by definition, represent the preference of the majority. According to Justice Barrett’s explanation, the test of whether something qualifies as a right within the scope of the word “liberty,” it must be within the “history and traditions of the American people,” and if it is not, then it is not a liberty. What about the right not to be discriminated against based on race? Was this a right, given the history of slavery in the United States, within the “history and traditions of the American people”?
The test fails to address our notions of basic fairness regarding conduct not mentioned or specified in the Constitution. Consider for example the following hypothetical (hypotheticals are used by the S. Ct. all the time, particularly during oral arguments, and whether the hypothetical is a realistic possibility is irrelevant). Suppose a state enacted a law which stated that everyone has to have blue colored hair in order to vote. There is no provision in the Constitution which states that citizens have a constitutional right to decide what the color of their hair is. Is that a right protected by the concept of “liberty”? It has never come up as an issue in politics, so, is this a right within “the history and tradition of the American people’? One can think of a multitude of such hypotheticals: Suppose a state passes a law which requires that all individuals who drive a car in the state must be wearing red colored attire while driving; a law which states that in order to open a business in the state, the business owner must be at least 5 feet, 9 inches tall.
It should be obvious that the right to have whatever color hair one wants; the right to wear whatever colored attire in public one wants; the right to open a business in a state regardless how tall one is – should all be within our concept of “liberty” and be protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment. Yet, according to Justice Barrett’s test they would all fail, and there would be nothing the Supreme Court could do to prohibit a state from enacting such restrictive laws, like laws restricting the right to an abortion.
********
19 October 2025
MS said:
"CNN..."
The President of the United States thinks it is humorous to depict himself dropping feces and sewerage on American citizens exercising their First Amendment freedom of speech. Never in our history has the Executive displayed such a degree of contempt for the American people. How do his supporters continue to justify their support of this despot?
********
21 October 2025
MS said:
This President’s chutzpah knows no bounds. He has filed a notice of claim against the Justice Department for its investigation of his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection. As Michael Cohen points out in the link below, he has a legal right to do so, but as the sitting President, he controls the department he is suing. Totally unprecedented.
"CNN..."
********
22 October 2025
MS said:
Senator delivers marathon overnight speech
"CNN..."
Bravo!
********
23 October 2025
MS said:
After practicing law for now 46 years, I have come to the following realization: The judicial appointment process favors individuals who are willing to make decisive, but superficial, decisions, over individuals who make contemplative thoughtful decisions. That’s why so many legal decisions are ####.
********
25 October 2025
MS said:
$130M donation from anonymous Trump 'friend' to fund military
He’s privatizing the U.S. military.
The majority of the American electorate have no one to blame but themselves. They voted for this person.
********
2 November 2025
MS said:
I’m an Israeli who lives in New York. Here’s why I’m voting for Mamdani
He’s shown up for my Jewish community in profoundly meaningful ways
"ZohraMamdani..."
“[D]espite what the right-wing Israeli government and media want us to believe, we — Jews, Israelis, people who still believe in equality — are not in danger from Zohran Mamdani because he is critical of Israel. We’re endangered, instead by the machinery of fear that tries to convince us that justice is a threat, that empathy is betrayal, that solidarity is naïve. …
“For me, as an Israeli-American who is committed enough to Israel to fight endlessly for it to be just and equal, that’s not frightening — it’s hopeful. Having mayors and public leaders who refuse to give Kahanists or corrupt war criminals a free pass is good for us. That’s our struggle too. …
“Mamdani isn’t anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish. He’s pro-justice. He’s a New Yorker who believes, as I do, that no one’s safety should come at the expense of someone else’s. His campaign has pledged a large increase in anti-hate crime programming — the opposite of neglecting our safety.”
********
3 November 2025
MS said:
"CNN..."
Your thoughts regarding Fetterman’s criticism of the Democrats’ shutdown strategy.
Regarding Mamdani, is he confusing Communism with Socialism? If he is, isn’t that surprising, given that he has a post-graduate degree (public policy) from Harvard?
********
4 November 2025
MS said:
"CNN2..."
When they go low, we can also go low.
********
5 November 2025
MS said:
"CNN..."
Great speech.
********
9 November 2025
MS said:
Below is a story that was on the CBS Sunday morning show, about a very impressive little girl.
An inspirational story about an amazingly precocious little girl.
"CBS..."
********
MS said:
I am starting to wonder, judging from the quality of the writing and analysis – and lack thereof - whether some judges and attorneys are using AI to write their decisions and legal briefs.
********
11 November 2025
MS said:
"YouTube..."
These are not the words of an anti-Semite, as some Jews claim.
********
12 November 2025
MS said:
There is a new movie titled “Hamnet” which purports to be about the death of a son of Shakespeare and his wife, Anne Hathaway, named Hamnet. It has gotten excellent reviews.
I thought that the story and the name must be apocryphal, and just cinematic conceit. But it turns out to be largely true:
Shakespeare’s Children
Here are some key facts about Shakespeare’s children:
William Shakespeare had three children with his wife, Anne (Hathaway).
The couple’s first child was Susanna, born in May 1583, just six months after William and Anne got married. Susanna was christened on 26 May 1583.
William and Anne then had twins – named Hamnet and Judith in January 1585. The twins were baptized on 2 February 1585 named after two very close friends of William: the Stratford baker, Hamnet Sadler, and his wife, Judith Sadler.
Tragically, William’s only son, Hamnet Shakespeare, died of an unknown cause in August 1596, when he was just eleven years old.
********
13 November 2025
MS said:
Yesterday, the British Booker Prize was awarded to David Szalay for his novel “Flesh.” On PBS Newshour, they had an interview with the author and discussed the book. He described the book, which I have not read, as a series of vignettes in the life of a Hungarian who lives in various places in Europe. The interviewer quoted from a literary critic who stated that the book was impressive for the manner in which the author uses the white spaces on the page. This was explained as meaning that the book encourages the reader to contribute to the narrative and the characters by using the reader’s own imagination. The author agreed that this was his intent.
I, personally, found this explanation rather specious. When I read a novel, I take the narrative and the characters as the author portrays them. I do not supplement what I am reading by imagining things that are not already on the page. Is my approach typical, and do any of you find the critic’s praise inauthentic?
********
14 November 2025
MS said:
This morning I sent the message below to Jonathan Tobin, the Editor in Chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, regarding his review of the movie “Nuremberg,”
"JNS..."
Shabbat Shalom
Jonathan Tobin
Editor in Chief
Jewish News Syndicate
November 14, 2025
Mr. Tobin:
I am writing in response to your recent article titled, “ ‘Nuremberg’ and the failure of international law,” in which you offer a critique of the recently released movie “Nuremberg,” depicting the prosecution of Hermann Goering and his examination by the army psychiatrist, Lt. Col., Dougals Kelley.
At the outset, I acknowledge that I have not yet seen the movie (but intend to do so tomorrow). I also wish to preface my following remarks by stating that I have vigorously supported Israel my entire life, going on now over 77 years. Further, I fully supported Israel’s right to invade Gaza in response to the Hamas massacre of October 7, which you accurately describe as an “orgy of murder, rape, torture, kidnapping and wanton destruction ….” Further, as an attorney, I have litigated, and continue to litigate, issues relating to the expression of anti-Semitism by judges, including a lawsuit currently pending in federal court in Detroit, Michigan, regarding efforts by the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission to discipline two Jewish attorneys on claims that they acted unethically in asserting in legal briefs that two judges expressed anti-Semitic views in their rulings in two separate lawsuits.
The following comments take issue with your critique of the movie and your assertion that the movie is a veiled attempt to accuse Israel, without justification, of engaging in war crimes, comparable to that of the Nazis, during its military actions in Gaza, and accusing the International Criminal Court of engaging in an anti-Semitic prosecution for those actions. I note, based on my limited research, that you are not an attorney, and do not possess a law degrees, but, rather, have a Bachelor’s degree from Columbia University, where you were a history major. As a consequence, you do not appreciate the significance of such legal doctrines as judicial jurisdiction, and treat such matters as mere legalistic irrelevant formalities. As an attorney, I find your blither disregard of these matters as journalistic irresponsibility.
You assert in your article that while the ICC has vigorously, and in your opinion unfairly, pursued its prosecution of Israel and the Israeli government for their actions in Gaza, “the international legal establishment has not shown much interest in prosecuting the perpetrators” of the October 7 massacre, thereby accusing the ICC of exhibiting an anti-Semitic double standard. You apparently have not researched the scope of the ICC’s jurisdiction, or, if you have, you do not understand it. The ICC was created by the Rome Statute of July 17, 1998, under which its jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against humanity and war crimes is limited to charges brought by a member state against the government of another member state. Israel is a member state. By contrast, since even Israel disputes that the Palestinian people have a state, Hamas is not the government of a member state. This may strike you as a mere red herring, but I assure you in law such a distinction is significant and determinative. Further, Israel, by appearing before the ICC to dispute the charges submitted itself to the Court’s jurisdiction. No leader of Hamas has appeared before the Court, limiting its jurisdiction. You will abjure that this failure is of course to be expected, and just one more legalistic red herring. But it is not unprecedented. For example, Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, the President of the Republic of Sudan, who has been committing unspeakable war crimes against the residents of Darfur, is not being prosecuted by the ICC, because the ICC does not have physical custody of him. Not all that you would regard as red herrings are signs of anti-Semitism.
As I have said, immediately after October 7 I fully and vigorously supported Israel’s right to invade Gaza in order to seek justice against Hamas and make an effort to destroy it, to prevent it from every again committing the kind of atrocities which it committed on October 7. I also accepted Israel’s defense that during the invasion, deaths of civilians and the destruction of buildings, including mosques, schools, and hospitals, constituted unavoidable collateral damage caused by Hamas’s policy as using Palestinian civilians as human shields. However, in my opinion, this explanation could only go so far. After the assassination of Hamas leader, and the October 7 mastermind, Yahya Sinwar on October 17, 2024, Israel crossed a moral red line. Hamas had, for all practical purposes, been demolished. But, at this point, Israel began using the restrictions on the distribution of food to the Palestinian civilians, including children, as a military tactic, justified, according to Netanyahu, as a means to bring Hamas to its knees. Then, it proceeded to bomb food distribution points and Palestinian buildings from the air, killing thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians. Israel continued to justify these actions as necessary because Hamas was still using Palestinians as human shields. I have seen videos of the bombings; of the emaciated Palestinian children; of Palestinian children with their limbs blown off. And Israel’s justification is bogus and immoral, by any standard, and particularly by the standards of Judaism and Torah.
You make an effort to justify Israel’s actions by comparing them to the actions of the Allies in Europe to defeat Nazism and its threatened imposition of fascist totalitarianism on the world. The comparison is totally specious. As despicable as Hamas’s massacre on October 7 was, it could not compare to the world war launched by the Nazis in 1939, which continued for 6 years. Even assuming that the bombing of Dresden was justified, which many historians take issue with, it was not a deliberate bombing of German civilians out in the open; it was collateral damage. The starving of Palestinian children, and the intentional bombing of Palestinians civilians out in the open, has no comparison to what the Allies did in Dresden, or elsewhere, and the fact that you would use such an obviously inapposite comparison to advance your position detracts measurably form your credibility.
You write as if nothing that Israel has done deserves to be questioned. That Israel can do no wrong, and that to suggest otherwise constitutes per se anti-Semitism – that the centuries long persecution of the Jewish people in countries throughout Europe; that the depravity of the Holocaust; and that the rejection by the Arab states of the proposed partition in 1948, immunizes Israel from any criticism whatsoever, and from any prosecution for its commission of war crimes in Gaza. They do not, and your advancement of this argument is itself a betrayal of Judaism, and everything which the Jewish religion is supposed to stand for. You have shown yourself to be nothing more than a conservative propagandist for Israel’s propaganda – and, what is worse, you are poisoning the minds of American Jews who do not know better, with your sophistical rubbish, which you seek to pass off as the scholarly analysis of a Jewish academic.
Marc Susselman, JD, MPH
********
16 November 2025
American Daughter of a Rabbi said:
“Judaism has been the lens through which I experience the world, and as Jewish values inform my understanding of self, they also inform my understanding of Israel. As I have tried to find my place in an imperfect and deeply unjust state, I have turned again and again to the Jewish concepts of tikkun olam (repairing the world) and b’tselem elohim (a belief that every human being is created in the image of God). …
“I was not wearing a keffiyeh, I was wearing rings etched with the words of the Shema prayer. It did not seem to matter what I had said in my many interviews that day nor did it matter that I kept Shabbat, could speak nearly fluent Hebrew, and knew where to find the best falafel in Jerusalem. All that seemed to matter is that by showing up as a Jew to aid Palestinians, I was the wrong kind of Jew. …
“My deportation felt like a betrayal. Israel was supposed to be for me, for every Jew. But the settler movement and the current government would like to redefine what it means to be Jewish along political lines.
“In Hebrew, I was taught to love our neighbors and to commit to repairing a broken world. To me, that means that while I may be angry at Israel and critical of its actions and policies, I cannot serve justice by severing my relationship with this land entirely.
“I am not done with Israel, not done with Judaism. I am not giving up, and neither should any leftist American Jew. I believe that if there is hope for Israelis and Palestinians, it’s in the place of struggle. It does not serve us, as those who want a future of shared society, security, and justice in this land, to give up on this land.”
********
19 November 2025
MS said:
Last night I watched episode 3 in Ken Burns’ documentary about the American Revolution. He deserves a lot of credit for making it, because he is revealing a lot of facts about the conflict that I, and I assume many others, only knew about rather vaguely, things which are, in fact, quite disturbing.
For example, the patriots who supported breaking from England used the conflict as an opportunity to seize more land from the Native Americans, in particular from the Cherokees. Britain passed legislation making it illegal for the patriots to trespass on, or seize, the property of the Cherokees. The patriots, including George Washington, ignored the restriction. So, it was the British who were protecting the Native Americans from the depredations of the patriots.
As the patriots were complaining about the infringement on their liberties by the British, it was not lost on the enslaved Africans that the patriots were concerned with their own liberty, as they enslaved the Africans. The American Revolution inspired slave revolts in other colonies, particularly in the British colony of Jamaica. Slaves in Jamaica launched a slave revolt, which was brutally suppressed by the British slave owners, with the execution of the revolt’s leaders.
The documentary is leaving a sour taste in my mouth. Kudos to Burns.
********
4 December 2025
MS said:
"Boat Strike..."
Finally, a conscientious Republican Senator with moral character.
********
5 December 2025
MS said:
"Drug Boat..."
Everything he said are lies. The cocaine that the Venezuelan alleged drug traffickers were allegedly transporting is not responsible for killing “millions” of Americans. The drug which is causing the deaths of millions of Americans is fentanyl, which is not being imported int the U.S. from Venezuela. It is coming from China. This guy, who asserts that the U.S. had the right to kill the two survivors as they struggled to right their vessel, has no moral compass whatsoever.
********
8 December 2025
MS said:
Trump’s first year back in office contradicts his ‘free speech’ commitments
Trump has fully embraced Emerson’s criticism that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Consistent inconsistency is instead the name of the game.
********
MS said:
Justices Seem Ready to Give Trump More Power to Fire Independent Government Officials
"Supreme Court..."
If the Court rules in Trump’s favor, it will be overturning a precedent which was issued during FDR’s administration, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), which had held that FDR did not have the authority to remove a Commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, where the Congressional statute creating the Commission required that a Commissioner could only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” This precluded removal by the President based on policy disagreements. Reversal of Humphrey will disrupt the separation of powers integral to the Constitution and will award greater power to the Executive over Congress. Terrible.
********
10 December 2025
MS said:
Just how monogamous are humans? Scientists break down how we compare with other animals
"Monogamy..."
Am I nuts, or is this "scientific" study just stupid?
Wouldn’t the fact that humans practice an institution known as “marriage,” in which the partners declare a vow of being monogamous be a confounding variable which would bias such comparisons in favor of humans?
********
11 December 2025
MS said:
We can all agree that President Maduro seized power in Venezuela illegally, declaring himself the winner of the election, which it appears he actually lost, and that Venezuela would be better without him in power.
We all agree that Trump is authoritarian and a threat to our democracy here in the U.S.
The U.S. has seized a Venezuelan oil tanker in international waters, in violation of international law, as part of Trump’s efforts to unseat Maduro. He is doing this for his own capitalistic reasons, with an eye on Venezuela’s oil.
Which objective is more important? Removing Maduro from power, or opposing Trump?
********
12 December 2025
MS said:
Ex-Michigan head football coach Sherrone Moore charged with home invasion, stalking and breaking and entering
"CNN..."
This is terrible!
I feel sorry for his wife and daughters, and for the U of M football players, who are scheduled to play in the Citrus Bowl on New Year’s Eve.
We never know the mental challenges of others.
This gives Go Blue! a whole new meaning.
********
14 December 2025
MS said:
Terrible news – Rob Reiner, the director and writer of The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally, and Stand By Me, and his wife found stabbed to death in their home.
Rob Reiner and his wife have died, a family statement says. Police are investigating an apparent homicide
"Reiner..."
********
15 December 2025
MS said:
Rob Reiner and his wife are dead, and their son Nick is booked on suspicion of murder
Tragic beyond words.
********
17 December 2025
MS said:
Television is being inundated with ads promoting ICE. They state that the 9/11 terrorists were all illegal immigrants.
So, I checked how accurate this statement is, and like most of what comes out of the Trump administration, found that the statement is false.
9/11 Hijackers and Student Visas
"Fact Check..."
“Lawmakers on both sides of the immigration debate have falsely claimed that ‘some’ or ‘all’ of the 9/11 hijackers were in the U.S. on student visas. Only one of the 19 hijackers came to the U.S. on a student visa. The rest arrived here on tourist or business visas.”
So, whether a 9/11 terrorist was here on a student visa, or a tourist/business visa, they were all in the U.S. legally. They did not sneak into the U.S. by crossing the Texas/Mexico border. And ICE, and the Trump administration, are more than heavily bending the truth.
********
21 December 2025
MS said:
I play rudimentary clarinet, and not very well.
Among the great clarinetists whom I have admired is Artie Shaw (born Arthur Jacob Arshawsky), the second husband of Ava Gardner, a superb clarinetist, band leader, composer and performer of Begin the Beguine, and something of a polymath. (He divorced the beautiful Ava Gardner – who then married Frank Sinatra - because he found her intellectually inferior.) Some say that he was a better clarinetist than Benny Goodman. I am not in a position to judge.
I admired Shaw, until I read the below article in today’s Forward.
Decades after her ancestor was blacklisted from Hollywood, this teenager is bringing her family’s history to light
Simone Elias’ book teaches the history of Golden Age cinema — including its antisemitism — to Gen Z.
"Golden Age..."
The ancestor referred to is H.S. Kraft, Hollywood screenwriter during the 1940s. He was blacklisted in the 1950s when he was accused of being a Communist.
And who outed him? According to the article, none other than Artie Shaw.
Another Jew turning on a fellow Jew.
I am seeing a lot of that myself lately, in the defense of the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission’s accusation that I acted unethically by claiming that the judge presiding over the lawsuit against the protesters in front of Beth Israel synagogue appeared to be anti-Semitic. And who is defending the Commission in its accusation? A fellow Jewish attorney – and not just any Jewish attorney, but the President of the Ann Arbor Jewish Federation.
As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
********
23 December 2025
MS said:
I happened upon a description of Reinhold Niebuhr’s book, Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics, published in 1932. Reinhold is credited as the author of the “serenity prayer.” The thesis of the book is that individuals are more likely to behave immorally as members of a group, than as individuals. Does this entail that all groups are inherently immoral? If true, this presents a paradox for those committed to combating evil in society, since this can only be accomplished effectively by acting in a group.
Your thoughts?
********
31 December 2025
MS said:
Trump stands in a long line of autocratic, authoritarian rulers, who inflicted destruction, and misery on the people over whom they ruled: Caligula, Nero, Henry VIII, Louis XIV, Leopold II, Hitler, Stalin, Duvalier, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Putin. His legacy will not be wonderful, but disgrace and resounding condemnation by historians.
Happy New Year.
********
Michael said:
Happy New Year, Marc! And please forgive me if I do redact some points throughout your commentary which is less than 0.5% of the time. If history looks back on Marc Susselman & Michael Llenos Pasteur, I wish even young children to not be confused at the good nature of both of our non-posturing. I hope next year is better for both of us. Bless you and your family and friends and have a great 2026!
********
3 January 2026
MS said:
So, we have an interesting development this morning. President Maduro and his wife have been arrested and deported to the U.S. to stand trial in a New York federal court for violating U.S. drug laws. Does the N.Y. court have subject matter jurisdiction to try President Maduro and his wife for allegedly violating U.S. law, while living in Venezuela? Which country’s criminal laws apply – Venezuela’s or the United State’s?
Hooray! We are back to good old gun boat diplomacy!
Under the theory used by our esteemed President Trump to arrest President Maduro and his wife, forcibly bringing them to New York, charging them with violating U.S. law, and trying them in a New York federal court, would President Putin have the corollary right to seize President Zelensky and put him on trial in Russia for violating Russian law? Conversely, would President Zelensky have the right, if he could, to arrest Putin, bring him to Kiev, and put him on trial for violating Ukrainian law?
Who’s next? Should we arrest Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, drag him to either New York or Washington, D.C., to be tried in federal court for inciting terrorism and violating U.S. law?
********
MS said:
Given that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was willing to follow Trump’s orders to invade Venezuela and kidnap its leader and his wife, can there be any doubt that if Trump orders him under the Insurrection Act to invade and occupy Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, etc., he would salute and follow orders?
********
4 January 2026
MS said:
MAGA’s Venezuela Abduction Gotcha Doesn’t Add Up
"DailyNews..."
********
5 January 2026
MS said:
Next, Trump is going to threaten to invade Aruba, off the coast of Venezuela, which is owned by the Netherlands. And then its on to the Falkland Islands!
********
7 January 2026
MS said:
“You killed my ******/ neighbor!”
"Video..."
This raises the question regarding under what circumstances is a police officer allowed to use deadly force. If a police officer is seeking to apprehend an individual whom s/he has evidence has committed a crime, and in the process of apprehension, the individual threatens the police officer’s life, the officer is allowed to use deadly force in self-defense. The predicate is whether the individual has already committed a crime. Here, there is no evidence that the individual had committed a crime. She was blocking traffic, but blocking traffic is a misdemeanor, not a “crime.” The police officer who shot her, put himself in the way of her vehicle, to apprehend her for committing a misdemeanor, and then shot and killed her. In my professional opinion, this officer used excessive force and should be prosecuted for, at least, manslaughter (i.e., it was not premeditated).
********
8 January 2026
MS said:
Videos Contradict Trump Administration Account of ICE Shooting in Minneapolis
An analysis of footage from three camera angles show that the vehicle appears to be turning away from a federal officer as he opened fire.
"NYTimes..."
On Wednesday in Minneapolis, a federal agent fatally shot a motorist, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good. Trump administration officials said these were “defensive shots” fired because the officer was being run over. But our analysis of bystander footage, filmed from different angles, appears to show the agent was not in the path of the victim’s SUV when he fired three shots at close range. Here’s how events unfolded. Moments before the shooting, the victim’s maroon SUV is stopped in the middle of the street. Multiple unmarked federal vehicles are idling nearby. Secretary Noem alleged the motorist “was blocking the officers in.” Bystanders are blowing whistles and yelling at federal agents. Then, federal vehicles start moving toward the maroon SUV with sirens and lights blaring. A federal agent films the scene on his phone. The driver rolls forward slightly, turning left, then stops and waves for others to go ahead. Two agents exit this silver pickup and walk toward the vehicle. Moments later, shots are fired. Let’s look at the scene again more closely. This is the agent who shoots the driver. He walks around the car filming and disappears from view. Other agents pull up and order the driver to exit her vehicle. One of them grabs at the door handle and reaches inside. The SUV reverses, then turns right, apparently attempting to leave. At the same time, the agent filming crosses toward the left of the vehicle and grabs his gun. He opens fire on the motorist and continues shooting as she drives past. The moment the agent fires, he is standing here to the left of the SUV and the wheels are pointing to the right away from the agent. This appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer. President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. And it’s true that at this moment, in this grainy, low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV. But when we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV. The SUV crashes into a white car parked down the road. A bystander runs toward the collision. The federal agents on scene do not appear to rush to provide emergency medical care. Eventually, the agent who shot the motorist approaches the vehicle. Seconds later, he turns back around and tells his colleagues to call 911. Agents blocked several bystanders who attempt to provide medical care, including one who identifies himself as a physician. At the same time, several agents, including the agent who opened fire, get in their vehicles and drive off, apparently altering the active crime scene.
********
11 January 2026
MS said:
The parents of a man who killed himself are suing OpenAI, claiming the company's chatbot encouraged him to end his life. CNN’s Ed Lavandera exclusively reports.
"CNN..."
********
12 January 2026
MS said:
DHS Secretary Noem defends her statements made hours after deadly ICE shooting
"CNN..."
She’s full of shit, and lies like everyone else in the Trump administration.
********
15 January 2026
MS said:
Why this legal expert says the Minnesota and Illinois immigration lawsuits ‘are close to completely meritless’
"AOL..."
The expert is Elie Honig, whom I generally find persuasive. But in this instance, I strongly disagree with his position. An excerpt from the article sums up his position:
“Honig: Fundamentally, both of these states are asking federal judges to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement from enforcing immigration law in their states and cities. There are variations between them, but that’s the core ask. As a backup, both states ask the courts for some sort of ruling or declaration that some of the tactics ICE is using are unconstitutional.
“CNN: What are the key differences between the lawsuits?
“Honig: The main difference is that Illinois asks to block all ICE activity in the state, whereas Minnesota phrases its ask as seeking to stop this “surge” of officers. But pointing to the surge is legally irrelevant, because whether you’re talking about a group of ICE agents who are already there, or who were added after some point, the fundamental ask is still the same. You’re still asking a judge to block ICE from doing its job as it sees fit in your state.
“CNN: What is the legal precedent for an ask like that?
“Honig: None. There is no example, nor does either state cite an example in their papers, of a judge prohibiting a federal law enforcement agent from enforcing federal law in a given state. The reaction that we’ve heard from various Minnesota officials, including Attorney General Keith Ellison, when confronted with this lack of precedent and lack of case law, is essentially, “Well, this is really bad, though. Well, this is an invasion.” There is plenty of dramatic language in the complaints, but that doesn’t change the legal calculus. You can’t just take a situation that has no legal precedent and no legal support and say, “Well, yes, but our situation is really, really bad, therefore we get to invent new law.”
I disagree with Mr. Honig’s assertion that there is no legal precedent for what the states are requesting. He is framing the question (the “ask” – since when does the verb “ask” become a noun?) incorrectly. In addition to requesting a ruling that ICE is barred from enforcing federal law in the state, they are also requesting a ruling, either explicitly or implicitly, that ICE is constitutionally barred from using excessive force in their tactics. There is absolutely legal precedent for this request – Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that a police officer’s use of excessive force violates the 4th Amendment. The ruling is not restricted to state or municipal police - it applies to all law enforcement officers, including federal officers, such as ICE.
In addition, there is the Supreme Court’s decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), in which the Court held that it is permissible for a court to establish an implied cause of action to prevent the violation of an individual’s 4th Amendment right against the use of excessive force by a federal agent. As Justice Brennan stated for the majority, “for every wrong, there is a remedy.” Justices Black and Blackmun dissented. (Interestingly, Justice Blackmun would proceed to write the majority decision two years later, in Roe v. Wade (1973), determining that a woman had a Constitutional right to obtain an abortion under the 14th Amendment. Justice Black had passed away shortly after the Bivens decision was issued.).
ICE officers are running amok in Minneapolis, using excessive force in violation of the 4th Amendment. Under the above precedents, a federal court has the absolute right to enter an injunction against ICE offices from using excessive force in their apprehension of alleged undocumented immigrants.
********
19 January 2026
MS said:
"CNNBruce..."
Bondi is going to prosecute The Boss for interfering with federal law enforcement officers.
********
The End.