I heard a law professor on NPR a few nights back saying how, at the executive level, the rule of law is dead and has been for some time. They cited Jan 6 but recognised how politically divisive that example was, so also gave the failure to enforce the TikTok ban as a less partisan example.

If you take your hands off the wheel you can go a surprisingly long time before you crash. This hands-free period will have to come to an end at some point.

Selectively ... Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

If we are to learn from the brutal Soviet sanctioned forced deportations of the Baltic nations following world war 2, then justice will come but it will take time.

Once the Baltic nations gained independence they tried everyone involved in the administration of those orders, which took place without trial or oversight and often resulted in the replacement families being deported if the actual tagets could not be found.

Ofc Stalin or any of the power brokers at the time were long dead, so instead it was a parade of lower level admin workers, all who were elderly in their 80s or 90s and who at that time were young, simply doing the bidding of their employers.

The lesson: don't be a bag holder for people who will die before you leaving you to hold the responsibility for their crimes.

it's been quite clear for about 50 years now

It's pretty clear for decades. When exactly did some higher up in the US gov end up in jail for ordering eg. mass killings abroad, or colluding with others that engaged in mass crimes like initiating wars and conflicts.

US will not lock up a single asshole who helps kill thousands of people abroad (not even inconvenience them with a simple court appearance to have to justify themselves), but it sure can lock up thousands on flimsiest justifications like FTA in court because of whatever, or technical parole violations, or driving on suspended license, basically for failures to navigate bureaucracy while poor.

I'll believe in rule of law when at least shits who materially support mass killings of children will start getting locked up. But alas, no. No such thing.

Until then it's all just bullshit that normal people have to submit to, and ruling class gets to excuse itself from with endless lawyering, exceptions, and nonsense, while it's clear they're still just scum psychos doing scum psycho things.

> Power of the executive is bestowed upon... one person

This is the unitary executive theory. It’s a novel Constitutional theory that even this SCOTUS seems reluctant to honestly embrace.

Key part of what you wrote: "as to the identity and location of aliens" - so whatever claim they have to access health information applies to aliens. The big question is: are they harvesting citizens' health records illegally as part of this effort, and if so, when do those responsible see jail time?

It's right there in the article, there are specific federal laws authorizing them to make specific information available - for example, they can make any record kept about the identity or location of aliens available. Right, that's a specific limitation on what they can share, even the HHS spokesperson made clear they don't share information on US citizens and permanent lawful residents. But then the article goes on to reveal that ICE has all the personal data of every person receiving Medicaid.

If the law says you can share aliens information, but not Americans information, and then you do share Americans information I think you're probably breaking the law, and at the very least there should be a process to find out what the basis is for you doing it. Normally these things would be decided by a court.

HHS is broader than CMMS. Someone who was formerly legal could now be illegal. But more prominently, Miller and Noem have focused on illegally deporting pending asylum cases to juice their numbers. Those folks may show up in HHS (and IRS) data.

If you go to an emergency room at a hospital which accepts Medicare (so, essentially all of them), you will be screened, and if in danger, medically stabilized (modulo difficult pregnancies in some states with anti-abortion laws, unfortunately).

I assume if you then fill paperwork out, they’d have your data - though I’m not sure why you’d agree to fill it out if you know you can’t pay, and that you’re just going to be discharged.

Great question. I thought that only citizens could access public healthcare benefits.

Which doesn’t quite say those data weren’t shared.

> Please stop using the word alien to refer to humans

It’s the legally-correct term.

For what it’s worth, I’m a naturalized American. When I was doing my citizenship paperwork, I found the term fun. The word doesn’t dehumanize. Murdering people does.