Thursday Open Thread

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Please feel free to write comments on this post on whatever topic you like! (As usual, please avoid personal insults of each other, vulgarities aimed at each other or at third parties, or other things that are likely to poison the discussion.)

NEXT: Statements about American Jews as a Group Can't Be Libelous

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. One positive note…Covid-19 cases are trending downward nationally, and hospitalizations are trending downward as well. So glad to see some positive developments on mitigating this cursed virus. VC followers…be safe, be well, try to stay sane. 🙂

    1. Yes, and now there are new cheaper, faster Covid-19 spit tests. Plus the stock market is back to an all time high!

      1. Did you read that article about quick and cheap tests being as good for reopening as a vaccine? Take one every day and it’ll tell you if you’re contagious. If not, you can go about your day.

        Dunno how well that would work with, say, 70% compliance, or if the test is a good proxy for being contagious, but it’s worth exploring.

        1. Yes, and the spit test sounds more fun than someone sticking a swab up my nose.

        2. Good, sure, but as good? How can it be as safe as being vaccinated for an at risk to rely on universal voluntary self-test compliance?

          1. Well, it’s unlikely that vaccination is going to be mandatory anytime soon, so the question is more whether you can get comparable levels of compliance.

            Since the spit tests are fast, you could also imagine requiring them before, e.g., letting people into an office building, so you don’t necessarily need to rely on them

            I agree that it’s unlikely to be holistically as good as an effective vaccine, but you could imagine allowing for a much lower-risk return to something resembling normalcy while we wait for one.

            1. “Well, it’s unlikely that vaccination is going to be mandatory anytime soon”

              I’m not as sure about that. If I were an employer, I might demand that people who want to come back to work better get vaccinated as soon as there’s a reliable one to go get.

              1. Sure, I can imagine specific contexts in which they’re mandatory, but the same applies to spit tests. In the US, at least, it’s hard to imagine a society-wide mandate, though.

                1. You flip-flopped from “there’s no way they’ll be mandatory” to “OK, yeah, maybe for some people they’ll be mandatory” and then tried to save yourself by moving the goalposts to “it doesn’t count as mandatory unless it’s mandatory for everybody”.

                  1. I clarified what I meant, but whatever. You win an Internet point. Huzzah!

                  2. Everyone else understood jb to be talking about compulsory vaccination by government. You’re the worst pedant.

                    1. Woohoo! I’m number one!

                      I can’t possibly be the only one who finds mandatory to be mandatory even if someone who isn’t the government makes it mandatory.

              2. Schools will absolutely require vaccination (they already do for other diseases).

    2. And there’s (signs of) peace in the middle east!

      1. Thanks to fracking! The oil producers there could no longer afford to be irrationally hostile to Israel.

        1. Believe it or not, the White House is stealthily planning sales of the F-35 stealth fighter to “hostile” UAE, marking a major expansion of the military industrial complex. Also according to the IMF, World Bank, and CIA, the UAE GDP (PPP) per capita in 2019 is still higher than the US.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/world/middleeast/trump-netanyahu-israel-uae.html

          1. That was the deal. Weapons for peace. We have been supplying Israel for decades. If they are going to oppose supplying the UAE as well, than they are not seriously committed to peace.

            Of course I doubt Nethanyahu is committed to anything other than remaining pm, but I don’t think it was a bad deal at all.

            And UAE per capita , all these oil nations, is so high because of oil money. Their government is wealthy. Their citizens are not.

            1. There was one country – I thought it was UAE – that had by far the highest median standard of living in the world. But the key is they imported all of their labor and treated them like dirt.

              As noncitizens, those people did not count for the statistic.

              1. So it’s not a median at all.

                1. The point is the government is loaded:
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Dhabi_Investment_Authority

                  “So blindingly rich it’s almost sickening”

                2. All depends on how you define standard of living.

                  But yeah, I agree Bernard – any morally defensible definition has to include those noncitizen laborers.

                  I’d wager the average standard of living would still be pretty impressive even so. The mean…not so much.

            2. The more weapons, the more danger. Why does humanity need to keep inventing more ways for us to kill each other?

              1. Because those who beat their swords into plowshares plow for those who don’t.

                1. For 80% of human history there were egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, in contrast to the strict hierarchy of chimpanzee society. The arc of human society is towards equal distribution of freedom, without coercion of the sword.

                  1. While this is widely believed, it is in fact not true.

                    Here is but one example among many:
                    “Resource scarcity drives lethal aggression among prehistoric hunter-gatherers in central California,” by Mark W. Allen, Robert Lawrence Bettinger, View ORCID ProfileBrian F. Codding, Terry L. Jones, and Al W. Schwitalla, PNAS October 25, 2016 113 (43) 12120-12125; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607996113

                    The Abstract
                    “From warfare to homicide, lethal violence is an all too common aspect of the human experience, yet we still do not have a clear explanation of why individuals kill one another. We suggest the search for an answer should begin with an empirical understanding of where and when individuals are more prone to experience violence. Examining patterns of lethal trauma among hunter-gatherer populations in prehistoric central California, this study reveals that violence is explained by resource scarcity and not political organization. This finding provides a clear rationale to understand why violence may be greater in specific times or places through human history, which can help predict where and when it may arise in the future.”

                    And, from the discussion: “When accounting for environmental variation, our findings provide no indication that societies with more complex societal forms were more prone to intergroup or interpersonal violence”

            3. “We have been supplying Israel for decades.”

              Back in the 80’s, we were supplying Iran, too. They already had F-15’s from before the revolution, when the Shah was a US ally.

              1. I think you meant the 70’s. That whole “holding American Embassy members hostage” thing in 1979 put the damper on US weapons sales to Iran in the 80’s

                1. Reagan was President when it happened. Was Reagan President in the 70’s? No? Then I guess I didn’t mean the 70’s.

                  1. Sorry, I thought you meant openly selling arms and large weapons systems, which was the line of the conversation.

                    If you wanted a snide reference to the Israelis secretly supplying Iran in the whole Iran arms – hostages thing in the ’80’s, that’s rather different

                    1. “If you wanted a snide reference to the Israelis secretly supplying Iran”

                      was Reagan President of the Israelis? No? I guess I wanted a snide reference to the US sending weapons to Iran. Which is why I said “we” were supplying Iran.

                2. And it was F-14s, The Shah liked them better.

                  1. I believe Dr. Ed is correct. Hooray for broken clocks.

              2. It was F-14s and 1974 when the Shah first ordered them.

                The thing to remember is that high performance aircraft require LOTS of spare parts, and that’s why most of Iran’s F-14s aren’t flying.

                1. It was F-15s when Reagan sent them spare parts in exchange for maybe getting some hostages back from Lebanon.

          2. Yes, but will the F-35 have all the toys?
            When we sold F-14s & F-15s over there, I don’t believe that we included all the classified extras. Maybe to Israel, but I doubt elsewhere.

            And we have a common foe: Iran.

            The Arab countries may hate Jews, but they are TERRIFIED of the Persians (Iranians) and that’s a point that Israel has been quietly making for some time — you don’t have to like us to join us in a common defense against a common enemy.

            1. “Yes, but will the F-35 have all the toys?”

              They’ll have the “export” avionics, just like all the other fighter planes we’ve ever sold overseas.

    3. I think we are getting close to some form of “herd immunity” if the antibody levels in those infected stay high enough at the six month mark (which we will find out.) Since transmission is mainly through droplets if even a small, but significant percentage of the population is immune that is going to create natural buffers (social distance) between those who are vulnerable and those who may be infected. That is going to do a lot to reduce rates. Probably not enough to get us below community outbreak infection levels, but enough to prevent another spike if immunity is conferred long term that is.

      1. Covid 19 would be a pretty unusual disease if immunity faded that quickly; Antibody levels normally drop from active infection levels once the infection is cleared.

        Most of the time when you can get infected multiple times by the “same” disease, it’s because it’s rapidly mutating, and thus isn’t really the same disease each time.

      2. What about all of Hillary’s super-spreader baby hookers?

    4. Yes, the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 is declining rapidly — but like the “March of Dimes” had to find a new mission after poliio was defeated, the medical fascists are now expanding their authority into other things.

      For example, the Brave New People’s Republic of Massachusetts has now decreed that all “students” — both K-12 and college — must have a flu vaccine shot by December 31st.

      Now Influenza has NOTHING to do with SARS-CoV-2 — they are completely different viri — but because the Commonwealth has dictatorial powers, it’s decided to use them.

      We’ve had flu vaccines for over 50 years — and in some cases, a serious flu — and never mandated this before. Nor does the Commonwealth have the authority to do it — outside of its COVID emergency powers.

      We no longer live in a free country….

      1. “For example, the Brave New People’s Republic of Massachusetts has now decreed that all “students” — both K-12 and college — must have a flu vaccine shot by December 31st.”

        Those rat-bastards! How dare they try to protect children from a potentially deadly disease! I bet they still require proven measles immunity, too! (Just because the disease can cause birth defects if it is transmitted to a pregnant woman, they have the crazy idea that they should be against spreading the disease, grumble, grumble.)

        1. There is an actual LAW, duly passed and such, that mandates the Measles vaccine.

          This was just an arbitrary and capricious fiat.

          There is a difference.

          1. Then maybe you should have said that, instead of what you did say, which is that you are unhappy that the government will require flu shots for students in Massachusetts.

            1. “decreed” has a meaning….

              1. Apparently not the one you think it has.

          2. Since when does “duly passed” elevate something beyond “arbitrary and capricious fiat”?

            Lots of arbitrary (and unconstitutional) shit is “duly passed”. Still arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unethical besides.

  2. Is Todd Zywicki in the witness protection program?

    1. Perhaps he never recovered from the Bank of America incident?

    2. Re: Zywicki: Please, PLEASE let sleeping dogs lie.

      1. Ok Call me a hypocrite but I couldn’t resist checking. I suppose all veteran VCers, knew this already. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse..

        1/9/2020:
        “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has appointed Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, to chair a task force that will identify potential conflicts and inconsistencies in consumer finance law.”

        1. Wow. Talk about a bad appointment.

          1. It sucks for the Consumer of Finance but it’s not so bad if you’re a payday lender. I mean, at least *someone’s* getting Protected.

          2. Why? If you want to protect financial imstitutions from consumers, it’s hard to think of a more well-qualified appointment.

        2. My bad. I was happier when I didn’t know.

          1. Me too (But once I knew, pain shared was pain lessened) 🙂

      2. I miss having Todd Zywicki to kick around. It was like batting practice.

  3. I’d like to thank whoever mentioned 1177 BC (Cline) and The Crusades (Tyerman) in one of the earlier open threads. I very much enjoyed both of them.

    1. I don’t know if I recommended 1177 or not, but I also read and enjoyed it.

      I haven’t read the Tyerman book, but if you are interested in the Crusades you might like The First Crusade, by Peter Frankopan.

  4. (Note: This is an original thought but I’m sure others have thought it also.)

    Suppose there’s God.

    And God created humans but when he did he accidentally made the Idiot gene one of the dominant genes.

    And God spread the humans throughout the Universes (plural).

    But then God saw the idiocy and destruction the humans made.

    But instead of just destroying all humans, God found an isolated planet (Earth) in an isolated Universe and placed all the humans there.

    But God didn’t want the humans to spread back throughout the Universes (God had also made the humans creative and resourceful), so he had to figure a way to imprison the humans but without them realizing they were imprisoned.

    So he created an invisible atmosphere which acted as a prison wall and where if the humans went outside the atmosphere they would die.

    He also created gravity which made it extremely difficult for the humans to leave the planet and also made it extremely difficult to determine how gravity works.

    Then God expanded the Universe where the humans were located so if they found a safe way to leave Earth, the Universe would be so large that they would die before they could spread throughout the Universe (and into the other Universes).

    And lastly God limited the speed at which the humans could travel to also ensure they could spread throughout the Universe.

    And while a handful of humans have indeed broken out of our prison (for a short time anyway), the other 99.99999….% will forever remain here – imprisoned.

    And God figured if the humans destroy themselves on planet Earth, well, so be it.

    Have a nice day!

    1. . . . to also ensure they couldn’t spread throughout the Universe.

    2. God told us, “by the sweat of your brow, shall ye till the soil”.

      Now we have machines and the fattest segment of society are the poor.

      Do we need God, if that’s how he wants to treat us?

    3. I suggest you read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. It’s kind of the same ideas.

    4. My favorite apedad post yet.

      If there is a God, surely history shows us that he/she/it doesn’t care about the goings on of humans, anymore than humans care about the goings on of ants. “Get out of my house”, sunlight+magnifying glass, *stompstomp*.

      1. Depends on whose history you’re reading. Some folks have records that shows God taking an intense interest in the affairs of mankind. Of course, these are the same people who like to claim “God told me to tell you He doesn’t like some of the things you do, and He wants you to knock it off.”

    5. You’re saying paradise exists just beyond the observable universe?

      1. Nope! Not sure if God (if God exists) created a paradise.

        I’m just thinking about God and humans.

        1. You’re saying there were people spread on various planets, the planets were relatively close together, and people were floating between planets?

          1. Beats me. I guess that all could happen if God allowed it.

    6. Look into how time is a variable.
      We know this — clocks on satellites have to run fast in order to run at the right speed relative to earth.

      1. You need to either be deeply inside a gravity well or travelling at a substantial portion of the speed of light to get relativistic time effects. Orbital velocity isn’t going to do it.

        1. Except for atomic clocks that carry a fraction of a second out four decimal points. Then you will notice it — the USAF has a video I can’t find where they took two atomic clocks, identical time. They put one in a C-130 and flew it around for a while and them compared it to the one left on the runway and it was *slightly* slower.

          1. C-130? The difference is probably due to vibration on the mechanism.

        2. No.

          The astronauts on the ISS do experience relativistic time dilation. It’s on the order of only a handful of milli-seconds for 6 months in space, but it’s there.

        3. revision:
          You need to either be deeply inside a gravity well or travelling at a substantial portion of the speed of light to get MEANINGFUL relativistic time effects. Orbital velocity isn’t going to do it.

    7. “He also created gravity which made it extremely difficult for the humans to leave the planet and also made it extremely difficult to determine how gravity works.”

      Giving us a moon and a bunch of other planets was a big tipoff, though, and Newton figured it out.

    8. Your flaw is in Step 2 — If God do all those other things, then surely he wouldn’t, and likely couldn’t, make a mistake like that.

    9. You could have started off with “suppose god is evil and an idiot”, you know.

  5. Suppose I wrote a legal brief in iambic pentameter. Should the judge sanction me or should he or she bestow me with laurel wreaths?

    1. Is there any reason they couldn’t do both?

      1. Patton approved the pinup picture, then swatted it down with his riding crop.

    2. I’m reminded of the TV show Moonlighting, int he late 80’s, with Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd. The episode Atomic Shakepeare, a spoof of The Taming of the Shrew, was entirely in Iambic Pentameter, and critically acclaimed. But when the suggestion was made to build a whole series like it, pretty much everybody said no — you can do something like that once, but you can’t sustain it.

      So, you can try it once, but don’t try to promote yourself as The Iambic Lawyer.

      1. I learned in HS English class that iambic pentameter is the natural rhythm of English. I have not independently verified that claim.

        1. That was probably more true of Middle English than of Modern English. Today’s English has lots of borrowed polysyllabic words which may tend toward three-syllable feet, so iambic is harder to sustain consistently. And we have a grammatical structures such as preposition – article – noun where there are two unstressed syllables in a row. I’m looking at Churchill’s “we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be” and it’s a mixture with a lot of iambs but also a lot of tri-syllabic feet.

          1. If you want to find out, ask a songwriter or an advertising jingle writer. After you explain what the hell you’re talking about they’ll be able to tell you about English meter.

  6. I’m working on an interesting case. My state uses red light cameras at intersections. There is a state statute that says that no red light camera citations may be issued for drivers turning right on red without stopping so long as the driver was proceeding in a safe manner. Guess what? Cities have been widely ignoring the statute and issuing red light citations to drivers turning right without stopping without respect to whether that specific turn was safe or not.

    When there have been hearings on these citations, some hearing officers dismiss the citation if the specific turn was safe, others hold that turning right without stopping is unsafe as a matter of law. So whether you can be cited for turning right without stopping depends, not on the language of the statute, but on whom you get as your hearing officer. Further, the Florida appellate courts have refused to resolve the issue; the only mechanism for getting a case to the Court of Appeals is by petition for certiorari, which the appellate courts routinely deny without ruling on the merits.

    So, tomorrow, I’m filing suit in federal court alleging that it is unconstitutional for the state to prosecute people where the outcome is very blatantly determined by who the hearing officer is, the state appellate courts have refused to resolve the matter, and those hearing officers who hold that such a turn is unsafe as a matter of law have added a requirement to the statute that the legislature explicitly rejected.

    1. Oof. Good luck with that. My first thought is abtention.

      My second thought is Jimenez II (246 So. 3d 219). In other words, it’s an argument regarding uniformity re: traffic citations, which is almost always doomed. The proper remedy would be an appeal which is preserved- just because the state appellate court may (or may not) be correcting the hearing officer doesn’t amount to a constitutional deprivation.

      Good luck!

      1. Thanks. I researched abstention, and while it’s possible, I don’t think it’s likely. It’s not that the state courts haven’t had the opportunity to settle state law; it’s that they have refused, after many opportunities, to settle state law. And I think there’s a due process right to know what the law is. And the federal courts have the option of certifying the question to the state courts if they choose to take that route.

        On the other hand, we’ve got a bunch of Trump appointees down here, and if they decide they don’t want to hear it, then they won’t hear it.

        1. WTF does “Trump appointees” matter for this case? Or is it just you trying to cook up an excuse ahead of time for losing a poorly thought out case? That thought is as reasonable as yours.

          1. Conservative judges, including Trump appointees, take a narrow view of federal jurisdiction, and are far more likely to find a jurisdictional reason to throw out a case. It’s liberal judges who have a more expansive view of federal jurisdiction. So yes, “Trump appointees” is indeed relevant to whether the case will be resolved on the merits or dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

            1. Any involve access to or from an Interstate highway? Can you work that into an issue of Federal interest? To a lesser extent if they involve a numbered US Highway (i.e. US Route 1) because those really aren’t Federal.

              BTW, aren’t you supposed to come to a full stop when turning right on red?

          2. I cannot speak for Krychek, but in my experience, there have been a number of Trump appointees that were appointed thinking that they were just going to be deciding “cool cases” involving “owning the libs” and seem decidedly uninterested in the large number of mundane cases that make up the bulk of the federal judiciary’s caseload.

            Not all, and there are some excellent jurists as well. But a troubling number of them seem to have been appointed because of their age and fealty, and don’t seem to have a real concept of being a federal judge. Especially at the DC level.

            Time will tell.

            1. ‘seem decidedly uninterested in the large number of mundane cases that make up the bulk of the federal judiciary’s caseload’

              A federal judge gently expressed a similar observation to me about recently installed colleagues a few months ago. He hoped they would mature.

            2. “I cannot speak for Krychek, but in my experience, there have been a number of Trump appointees that were appointed thinking that they were just going to be deciding “cool cases” involving “owning the libs” and seem decidedly uninterested in the large number of mundane cases that make up the bulk of the federal judiciary’s caseload.”

              They just wanted to exercise power and have no interest in doing the actual job? That sounds a lot like Trump himself.

        2. “On the other hand, we’ve got a bunch of Trump appointees down here, and if they decide they don’t want to hear it, then they won’t hear it.”

          Try a federal civil rights violation case against the hearing officer who ordered a fine without a violation of law, and the municipality or the agency that operates red-light cameras. The hearings officer might get out by immunity, but it puts them on notice that somebody is looking over their shoulder keeping an eye on how they do their jobs.

    2. Good luck! Red light cameras should be torn down by mobs and thrown in lakes.

      1. Hear, hear.

      2. What if they are at the border and feature sharks with laser beams?

      3. ” Red light cameras should be torn down by mobs and thrown in lakes.”

        Yeah! That way Trump can send in unmarked vehicles filled with federal agents who won’t identify themselves or their agency to disappear people who make right turns without stopping. You don’t mind driving through tear gas, do you?

      4. ” Red light cameras should be torn down by mobs and thrown in lakes.”

        Meh. I have a different perspective. 30 years ago, I used to walk to work I’d get cars coming down the street to the red, looking to their left to see if they could pull out into traffic on the cross street, and pull through the intersection if there was no traffic coming from their left, all without bothering to notice me in the crosswalk coming from their right In broad daylight, although late sunrise and early sunset sometimes made the light level a bit iffy. I tried getting a blinky red light like they made for bikes and put it on my hat to see if that would help, but it didn’t.

    3. Curious what are your federal constitutional arguments. Obviously equal protection, but as far as I have ever read equal protection doesn’t guarantee judicial authorities will consistently apply the law even in the face of an obvious textual reading. Are you going for due process in the result is clearly arbitrary and capricious? Just wondering how you are going to get over the abstention hurdle as both a matter of caselaw (which I think is easier if your plaintiff fully adjudicate his case in state court) and the comity aspect.

      1. FIRST CLAIM – DUE PROCESS OF LAW
        37. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1-36 above.
        38. The inconsistent interpretation and application of the law from one hearing officer to another throughout the State fails to afford Florida citizens adequate notice of the conduct that will subject them to sanctions, and therefore violates due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
        39. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth more fully below.
        SECOND CLAIM – DUE PROCESS OF LAW
        40. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1-36 above.
        41. The hearing officer added a condition to the Statute which is not found in the Statute itself, nor in any reasonable interpretation of the Statute.
        42. By adding a condition to the Statute not found in the Statute itself, the hearing officer violated the Plaintiff’s due process right to not suffer a penalty unless the legislature has proscribed the conduct in question, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
        43. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth more fully below.
        THIRD CLAIM – EQUAL PROTECTION
        44. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1-36 above.
        45. The enforcement regime described above results in some drivers who have received citations being treated more favorably than others, depending on how the hearing officer chooses to enforce the Statute.
        46. Such drivers are similarly situated, and there is no state interest in some receiving better treatment than others purely through the arbitrary and capricious happenstance of which hearing officer is assigned the case.
        47. The resulting harm is not de minimus. It results in fines, potential suspensions of driver licenses, a public record of a conviction, and higher insurance rates.
        48. Such a regime does not survive any level of scrutiny. The State has no compelling interest in some drivers receiving such arbitrary and capricious treatment, and it therefore fails strict scrutiny – the appropriate level for analyzing a fundamental right such as access to the courts and due process. The State has no interest at all that is served by these disparate results, so it doesn’t even survive rational basis.
        49. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth more fully below.
        FOURTH CLAIM – LENITY
        50. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1-36 above.
        51. While the Plaintiff does not believe § 83 is ambiguous, either on its own or in conjunction with any other Florida Statute, in the event that the Court determines that it is ambiguous, the Plaintiff is entitled, under the rule of lenity, to the interpretation most favorable to him.
        52. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth more fully below.
        FIFTH CLAIM – DECLARATORY RELIEF
        53. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1-36 above.
        54. Pursuant to 28 USC §s 2201 and 2202, the Plaintiff asks this Court to declare Florida’s red light camera regime to be unconstitutional, for the reasons set forth in Counts I-IV above.

        1. Interesting. I seem to recall some case law that suggested that at least when it comes to a federal due process right you don’t have to right to even a consistent interpretation of the law even if that interpretation is unreasonable as long as it does not implicate another right. (Or at least federal courts would not intervene in such circumstances through probably comity and abstention.) Did you uncover any of this in your preliminary research? It has been years since I have looked at this question and when I did it was administrative interpretations of statute.

          1. The argument is not that there is a right to consistent interpretation. The argument is that there is a right to know in advance what the law is. The law either is that you can make a safe turn without stopping, or you cannot make a safe turn without stopping. Whichever of those is the correct answer, I’m entitled to know what the answer is.

            1. 1: What does the state statute say?
              2: What does the FEDERAL mandate say?

              I say Federal mandate because Massachusetts long did not have a right on red law and the Feds mandated it circa 1979 or so.

              So the approach to Federal court may be the US DOT regs but you get to figure out the details, and this is a maybe.

              Also, look at Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U.S. 520 (1959) Different issue, but it involved interstate commerce and the need for a uniform rule on mud flaps. I’d argue that there is an equal need for a uniform interpretation of state law so out of state motorists can comply with it.

            2. But I do not think that you have a due process right as the 14th Amendment is currently understood to a consistent interpretation of state law. (I think inconsistency in behavior norm enforcing law is far from ideal, but doubt under current case law it is a constitutional issue.) What is the argument that you have a federal constitutional right?

              And how is it not a federal court issue an advisory opinion to then tell a state court what it thinks is a consistent interpretation of the law. Sure, maybe the court could certify the question, but still seems to me to be venturing toward advisory opinion.

              I mean best of luck in pushing the case. I just don’t see the federal arguments being that strong. As others remark, this looks like straight up an state appellate court error correction exercise. If the court of appeals won’t do it is there a way to get it in front of the Florida Supreme Court? Is there really no appeal as a matter of right to a court of record? If not, sounds like an issue for the legislature to address.

              1. I’m not asking the the federal courts to tell the state courts what is Florida law. I’m asking the federal courts to enjoin enforcement of the law until the Florida courts tell us what Florida law is.

                And I’m not asking for consistent enforcement although that would be nice. I’m asking for a clear and unambiguous statement as to what the law is. In other words, I’m essentially asking that the Florida courts be told to do their job.

                1. It isn’t that they are not doing their job. They are just doing a poor job (at least you alleged). Do you have an example of a federal court enjoining a state court from enforcing a law until it adopts some kind of uniform explanation? Seems to me that is going to be full of abstention and comity hurdles and pitfalls.

                  1. Jimmy, IANALNDIWTB, but I keep thinking of out-of-state violators (of which there are a lot in a tourist state like Florida).

                    Doesn’t Florida report those violations to the home state, and doesn’t the home state suspend the license if the fine isn’t paid to FL? Hence wouldn’t his injunction be to have the federal court enjoining state 1 (FL) from reporting a violation of FL law to state 2 until it adopts some uniform definition of what the violation is.

                    And then all CDL stuff is (theoretically) reported to a Federal data center that is located in (I believe) Missouri — this is part of the 1988 Federal CDL Law.

                    1. “Doesn’t Florida report those violations to the home state, and doesn’t the home state suspend the license if the fine isn’t paid to FL?”

                      Not that I know of, but then most of my driving history is in Oregon with no trips to FL. Last summer I made a cross-country trip, from Oregon to the state I live in now (and I’m licensed here, now) But still no trips to FL. Because, well, FL is FL and the only thing they have there that we don’t have elsewhere is space launches, and those are televised.

            3. When the policeman pulls you over and starts writing in his citation book, you’ll know what he stopped you for. But the red-light-camera operator just has a form-letter generated by their proprietary software.

        2. Hmm. I have a lot of trouble with your third and fourth count. Like … I can’t see those at all.

          The second doesn’t fly either, IMO. That’s a matter for a state court appeal. That’s pure error correction, not due process.

          The first is a tough one, but at least I can imagine it. I don’t think it would fly, but I can imagine it.

          Good luck!

          1. Loki, thank you for the good luck wishes; I’ll let you know if you’re right. I don’t think it’s error correction because the state courts refused to rule on the merits. If the state courts had said, “You’re wrong on the merits,” then my disagreement with them on the merits would be irrelevant. But that’s not what happened. They’re refusing to answer the question at all. And because it’s an unanswered question, after the state had first crack at it, I think there is a due process problem. I think I’m entitled to know what the answer is.

          2. “The second doesn’t fly either, IMO. That’s a matter for a state court appeal. That’s pure error correction, not due process. ”

            If the claim is that they refuse to correct errors, that’s a due process argument.

    4. Oy…

      1. No the federal courts don’t want to interfere with relatively minor state laws and matters, especially regarding traffic violations.

      2. You’re misquoting the law in question. The actual wording is “A notice of violation and a traffic citation may not be issued for failure to stop at a red light if the driver is making a right-hand turn in a careful and prudent manner at an intersection where right-hand turns are permissible.”

      This is actually quite significant, because “failure to stop at a right light” is the name of the citation. Not the full and complete actions. And certainly not “you can “turn right on red without stopping”

      I can go more into depth as to the differences if you like. But thank you for entertaining me for 5 minutes.

      1. The argument is not that it is permissible to turn without stopping. The argument is that the statute creates a procedural bar against prosecution if the citation came from a red light camera.

        And even if I’m wrong about that, the fact that some hearing officers read the statute the same way I do indicates a need to settle the law, which the Florida courts are refusing to do.

        1. WTF? How does the camera know if you stopped or not?
          Every one I’ve ever seen described takes a still shot of the car in the intersection and then a second one for the plate.

          How does that tell if you stopped first or not?

          1. Typically they take 2 pictures (at least) which are time stamped. In this way, you can tell the speed of the car. In addition, there are two induction loops which tell the cameras when to take pictures, and the elapsed time between when the light turned red and when the pictures were taken.

            To trigger the induction loops, the car needs to move over them at a given speed. If the car is stopped at the intersection, its speed is zero, so it won’t trigger the first induction loop.

            There’s more here. https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/red-light-camera2.htm

            1. I ride a motorcycle so I know about these induction loops — on a bike you often have to find them in order to get a green light on a side street. (I’ve even seen some places painting a small motorcycle where you should be to trip it.)

              All you can get with two loops is an *average* speed between the two of them. It has no way of knowing if you came to a full stop *between* the two loops and then accelerated. *If* the loop recorded how long it was active (which I doubt) then it would know if he stopped *om* it, but then aren’t you supposed to stop before you enter the intersection and hence before both loops?

              Notwithstanding the latter, if the stop was between the two loops, I could see calculating a maximum possible speed possible if one did come to a complete stop, but that doesn’t appear to be what they are doing here.

              Look at this a different way: The fact that I have an average speed of 65 for my whole trip doesn’t mean that I didn’t go down a hill past a statie at 80. Average over time does not indicate actual speed at any particular point.

              1. “I ride a motorcycle so I know about these induction loops — on a bike you often have to find them in order to get a green light on a side street. (I’ve even seen some places painting a small motorcycle where you should be to trip it.)”

                I remember when these were new. You’d often see the cyclist hop off, put down the kickstand, and run over and push the pedestrian signal to get the light to change. Still get that with bicyclists, because they aren’t sitting on enough metal to trip the detector.

        2. It’s only a procedural bar if it was done in a careful and prudent manner. That of course, is a matter of opinion as to what is careful and prudent. And hearing officers have different opinions on what is careful and prudent. As do most people.

          If it wasn’t done in a careful and prudent manner, it can prosecuted. Many people consider it careful and prudent to come to a full stop at a red light, then proceeding to turn right, after looking both ways, if the way is clear.

          Perhaps others think that if the light is red, they can pull 30 mph right hand turn, swinging around the corner, and that is careful and prudent.

          But often the courts are hesitant to limit the judgement of officers too much in situations like these.

          1. And if hearing officers treated careful and prudent as a question of fact you’d be right. That different hearing officers might reach different conclusions on questions of fact is not problematic.

            The problem is the ones who treat it as a question of law and say that not stopping is per se not careful and prudent, thus gutting the whole point of the statute. If not stopping is per se not careful and prudent then what exactly is the point of having a statute that bars red light camera prosecutions so long as the turn was careful and prudent?

            1. The issue there is the law (316.075) regarding turns on red lights. Which says…you’re supposed to stop before turning on red. The text is below the break. That’s the law they’re holding on.

              The law above regarding red light cameras is supposed to prevent red light cameras from ticketing you if you make what would otherwise be a legal right on red.

              It would make no sense for there to be one set of laws that says you have to stop at a red light before turning on red, and a second set of laws that says “no you don’t if there’s a red light camera”

              (Law follows)
              (c) Steady red indication.—
              1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown; however:
              a. The driver of a vehicle which is stopped at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or, if none then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection in obedience to a steady red signal may make a right turn, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection

              1. But I’m not arguing that you can legally turn without stopping if there’s a red light camera. I’m arguing that the state is precluded from prosecuting you for turning without stopping if the citation was initiated by a red light camera.

                Think of it this way: suppose I commit a crime with a one year statute of limitations and the state discovers I did it the day after the statute runs. That they are barred from prosecuting me doesn’t mean I didn’t commit the crime, or that it wasn’t a real crime. It means they can’t prosecute me for it because there’s a procedural bar.

                I’m not arguing that it’s legal to turn without stopping. I’m arguing that there’s a procedural bar that precludes a prosecution if, on the facts of the case, the turn was otherwise careful and prudent. Otherwise you’ve just made 083 a dead letter.

                But even if I’m wrong about all that, there is still the problem of some hearing officers agree with me, rendering my legal duties unknowable until I find out who the hearing officer will be.

                1. 1. “But I’m not arguing that you can legally turn without stopping if there’s a red light camera. I’m arguing that the state is precluded from prosecuting you for turning without stopping if the citation was initiated by a red light camera.”

                  That returns us to where we start.

                  “A notice of violation and a traffic citation may not be issued for failure to stop at a red light if the driver is making a right-hand turn in a careful and prudent manner at an intersection where right-hand turns are permissible.””

                  Logically, this means a notice of violation and traffic citation MAY be issued if the right hand turn was NOT done in a careful and prudent manner. See?

                  Your reading of the law would potentially ban red light camera citations if a person blasted around a corner at a stoplight at 50 mph.

                  As for hearing officers….officers or judges have different opinions all the time about what they think is reasonable. And many will think you have to stop, as a matter of law, under 316.075. And that stopping and looking both ways is careful and prudent.

                  1. “Your reading of the law would potentially ban red light camera citations if a person blasted around a corner at a stoplight at 50 mph. ”

                    Yeah, in the absence of a traffic accident. No blood, no foul.

                  2. There are probably situations in which it would be safe to blast around the corner at 50, but the central point you’re still missing is that it’s a case by case determination. My objection is to hearing officers who say it is never safe to turn without stopping and won’t take individual circumstances into account. The facts that gave rise to this case is that there was a line of eight cars that made a right turn on red, some of which stopped and some of which didn’t. My client was number six and could see that nothing was coming. Under those facts that was a perfectly safe turn.

                    But all that aside, I’m not going to relitigate in federal court whose interpretation of the statute is correct; that’s a question for the state courts if they ever decide to answer it. The problem is that the law itself means different things in different courtrooms. Some hearing officers agree with my statutory interpretation and others don’t.

                    Suppose this were a case about speed limits rather than red light cameras. Suppose one judge said that a statute that says 50 mph means 50, another said it really means 25, and a third said it really means drivers should use their best judgment. Would you not see a due process problem with the fact that no driver would have any way of knowing what the true speed limit was?

                    1. Blast around a corner at 50 and you’ll roll the vehicle.

                      How much is the ticket — and how much is your client paying you?
                      I know you can’t answer that, but I’m just wondering….

                      And you’d love this — Massachusetts still has a “reasonable and proper” speed law — regardless of what it is posted, the cop can ticket for a lower speed if he thinks your speed was “imprudent.”

                    2. “There are probably situations in which it would be safe to blast around the corner at 50”

                      Sorry what? At a red light to NOT STOP, but instead keep going at 50 mph?

                      Do yourself a favor and don’t try making that argument in front of a judge.

                    3. I doubt I would make that argument to a judge, but yeah, if it’s 3:00 a.m., and I’m the only car on the road, and I have clear visibility that tells me there’s no cross traffic, then turning right at 50 mph probably would be a safe turn. Never say never. Though I’m not sure I could make a right turn at 50 mph without doing damage to my car.

                    4. “Would you not see a due process problem with the fact that no driver would have any way of knowing what the true speed limit was?”

                      No. Many states have a variant of the one I spent most of my life driving under, the Basic Speed Law:
                      No driver shall operate a motor vehicle at a speed greater than the local conditions safely provide for. Under this law, the posted speed limit is one speed limit, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t get a speeding ticket if you’re under the posted limit but there’s ice on the road, or heavy fog, or stopped traffic.

                    5. “Blast around a corner at 50 and you’ll roll the vehicle.”

                      Have you never been on a freeway off-ramp?

                    6. “’There are probably situations in which it would be safe to blast around the corner at 50′

                      Sorry what? At a red light to NOT STOP, but instead keep going at 50 mph?”

                      The situations where it would be safe might include driving an ambulance, fire truck, or police cruiser with lights & siren.

          2. “If it wasn’t done in a careful and prudent manner, it can prosecuted. Many people consider it careful and prudent to come to a full stop at a red light, then proceeding to turn right, after looking both ways, if the way is clear. ”

            Are we talking about an intersection of busy streets, or a deserted intersection at 3 a.m.? the automatic camera doesn’t care what time it is or how much traffic there is, but the human operator takes it into consideration when deciding what is safe to do.

            1. Which is precisely the rationale for treating red light citations differently from citations issued by live police officers. The officer can make a judgment call as to whether a turn was careful and prudent or not. The camera can’t. Further, the camera only takes a picture of the car going through the intersection; it does not take a picture of traffic from the other three directions, which may well be determinative of whether a turn was careful and prudent or not.

            2. Yes.

              The “deserted intersection at 3 a.m” has been known to have half asleep truckers barreling through the intersection at 60 mph since the light is green.

              1. And assorted drunks stumbling into the street, debris placed into the street by said drunks, etc.

                Besides, you are not going to make a 90% turn at 50 MPH. Your vehicle will keep going straight and will roll.

                1. 90 degree.

                2. “you are not going to make a 90% turn at 50 MPH. Your vehicle will keep going straight and will roll.”

                  Never seen cars drifting? or on ice?

              2. “The “deserted intersection at 3 a.m” has been known to have half asleep truckers barreling through the intersection at 60 mph since the light is green.”

                Not without changing the meaning of the word “deserted”, they don’t.

    5. Saying it is unsafe as a matter of law makes the plain text of the statute meaningless surplusage. And a basic canon of statutory construction is that statutory text must mean something and can’t be treated as surplussage.

      So the magistrates who are saying every right turn on red without stopping is unsafe as a matter of law are asking for reversal – if someone can afford the cost of appealing a traffic ticket.

      1. That said, I don’t think this is a valid federal case. It’s clearly not unconstitutional for there to be a circuit split about what federal law means. It happens all the time. Resolving conflicts is a big part of what the Supreme Court does. It’s also an important part of what the Conspiracy blogs aboit. So why should it be unconstitutional for state judges to disagree about what state law means?

        The way to resolve a disagreement is to appeal a ruling to a higher court. Assuming state law provides an avenue to appeal a traffic ticket, that would seem the way to go.

        I don’t see how judges can rule that judges disagreeing is unconstitutional. It happens too often.

        1. ” It’s clearly not unconstitutional for there to be a circuit split about what federal law means.”

          It’s impossible to get a circuit split on the meaning of a state law, such as the one under discussion. And there’s a procedure for resolving differences of judicial interpretations. For state laws it ends at the state supreme court (except in NY, where the supreme court is at the bottom).

  7. Anyone out there know if there are any specific cases or rulings that limit the free speech of the President?

    1. There’s the 2nd Circuit case on Trump’s twitter account. It’s more about the President limiting others’ free speech rights, but maybe you could view it as limiting Trump’s own editorial discretion when speaking officially.

    2. Hatch Act?

      1. Hatch Act specifically does not apply to the President.

    3. “Anyone out there know if there are any specific cases or rulings that limit the free speech of the President?”

      How could you get one, without a separation of powers problem? The answer is not to not elect a blithering idiot as President in the first place.

      1. This seems to be a larger problem than one would have expected, considering the leading candidates in the current race.

        1. Yeah, choosing between the guy who’s probably pretty dumb and the guy whose intellect resembles a container of geology samples is not thrilling.

  8. I became complacent in my career. I got laid off. I got a new job that pays significantly more plus a severance package and a signing bonus. Life is not so bad.

  9. I have a case that NY Appellate court upheld a visitation order which delegates court authority to a parent, which is illegal in NYS, but the panel ruled that as it came from out of state it was ok. The panel did state that if it was a determination by a court of NY it would have been struck, but they made an exception to equal protection and due process by not striking it. Panel overlooked the fact that the order was registered by the NY court, making it a NY court determination. Motion to reargue was filed, which the appellate court has pigeon holed for two months. Now a Mandamus has been filed, which the clerks trashed saying it was improper and deleted by the court, but there is no court order and a judge never saw it, no practice rule cited. Mandamus refiled.

    Needless to say, no statutes or case law is ever applied to a family matter. Just the ruling elite destroying parent child bonds to further the Marxist agenda of those out in left field.

    Where do clerks, who are attorneys, get off acting like they are the court. Is there not a difference between the ‘clerks office’ and the ‘court’ being judges in black robes on the bench? The ‘court’ does not contain clerks and the clerks office does not contain judges.

    Silliness masquerading as law.

    1. “I have a case that NY Appellate court upheld a visitation order which delegates court authority to a parent, which is illegal in NYS, but the panel ruled that as it came from out of state it was ok.”

      Almost as if states are somehow required to honor the official acts of other states, such as court orders.

      1. James you left out the part that’s relevant to that statement which was made to inform on the follow up:

        “Panel overlooked the fact that the order was registered by the NY court, making it a NY court determination.”

        Meaning it should be struck because it’s a NY court determination that is illegal in NYS.

        1. If it’s illegal in NYS to follow the US Constitution, you’re absolutely right.

  10. 1848: Year of Revolution
    Might not be everybody’s cup of tea. Possibly too much detail for some.
    What I appreciated most was doing a good job of keeping everything both chronological and grouped by region. I had not realized how many little revolutions and wars had occurred in this one year, some continuing into 1849 and even further, or how so many were related. I had also not known that at this time, the only democracies in all of Europe were Britain and France; every place else was still a monarchy.

    It is fascinating, all the different parties (republicans, democrats, monarchists, conservatives, liberals, radicals, socialists, artisans and craft workers, factory workers, peasants, serfs, landlords, nobles, bureaucrats, armies, national guards, militia) who initially wanted the same immediate goal of revolution, but quickly fell on each other because their ultimate goals differed so much, which lead to counter-revolutions. Kings and rebels helping and fighting each other, changing enemies within months, a big swirling mess, which the author does a remarkably good job of keeping it organized. It must have been all too tempting to have separate disjointed chapters on separate regions, losing all the interconnections, or to keep it much more chronological and losing the thread within regions and countries.

    It is a bit hard to keep track of all the characters and events; a lot happened in 1848 and 1849. There was a discussion of the “45 centime” problem near the end, and I could not quite place it — but it’s in the index, and refreshed my memory. The kindle version would have been searchable, but I’m not sure how much that would have helped if it had found too many references.

    It’s also remarkably even-handed and neutral, when it would have been all too easy to take sides and play down events which made one side or another look bad or good.

    Not a fast read at all, there is way too much happening to just skim. But a good read, not plodding.

    About the most I will criticize it for is lack of maps. Many place names would be better off with more context — some are in surprisingly different countries today, and a lot were not even in modern countries, which might not have even existed then — Germany and Italy, for instance, or the Balkans and Eastern Europe. You can usually make a guess from context — if some unknown city is invaded by the Austrians, it is probably Hungary or Italy, and the current discussion narrows it down — but it is not clear where they are geographically, and which city was invaded on the way to a different city.

    1. About the most I will criticize it for is lack of maps.

      This seems to be a growing problem. I read a fair amount of history and more and more often there are way too few maps, or those that are there are poorly designed and inadequate.

      Maybe I’m just getting curmudgeonly, but if you’re going to write about cities and wars and trade routes and whatnot show me a damn map so I can follow.

      1. Amen!

        Best book for maps had great big overall maps on the insides of the hardcovers, with plenty of detailed maps scattered around near where they were referenced. I forget the book now. It was great for knowing exactly where to find the overall maps.

      2. “Maybe I’m just getting curmudgeonly, but if you’re going to write about cities and wars and trade routes and whatnot show me a damn map so I can follow.”

        Once upon a time, most people would have a reference library that included, among other things, an atlas. If you needed a map you would supply your own, by looking it up in your atlas. Today, you live in the Information Age, so a map is just a Google image search away.

        1. I do have an atlas.

          But I don’t want to have to drag it out and find the area under discussion while I’m trying to read the book.

          Plus, the atlas may not show the region as it was at the time, and will often lack relevant features like roads, cities that no longer exist, or have different names, etc. It also won’t show you where, say, the armies were encamped relative to geographic features.

          1. “But I don’t want to have to drag it out and find the area under discussion while I’m trying to read the book.”

            So spend enough time with it that you don’t have to pull it out to remember what’s in it.

            Should authors also stick with grade-school vocabulary, because some people don’t want to learn more advanced vocabulary words?

            1. So spend enough time with it that you don’t have to pull it out to remember what’s in it.

              That’s ridiculous.

              Am I supposed to memorize the atlas? Every road (assuming it has roads), every town and region, (including their former names), etc.?

              And what about the stuff it doesn’t show?

              1. “That’s ridiculous.
                Am I supposed to memorize the atlas?”

                The “I don’t want to have to pull out an atlas” thing is you. If you don’t want to have to pull out an atlas, then memorizing it is indeed the alternative.
                Hell, the “I want things handed to me, so it’s easy” thing is you, too.

            2. James, how often does a Google search for map info supply comprehensive, time-sensitive, event-related, mapping, showing where, for instance, the Loyalist front was around Madrid in the autumn of 1937? And which factions among the Loyalists were stationed where? Let alone showing within which political boundaries various cities were to be found, date by date, throughout contested areas of Europe over the centuries?

              The notion that the internet has made books obsolete is, as always, premature.

              1. “James, how often does a Google search for map info supply comprehensive, time-sensitive, event-related, mapping, showing where, for instance, the Loyalist front was around Madrid in the autumn of 1937?”
                Depends greatly on the Google skills of the searcher.

                “The notion that the internet has made books obsolete is, as always, premature.”

                Meh. How often does a book search produce maps such as the one you wanted? If you don’t have a good reference librarian to do the search for you, I mean?

        2. My parents had an atlas from the 50s. It had a section on “The three great races of Mankind: Caucasiod, ***roid, and *****loid.”

  11. Got to love the duplicity of the media during the DNC. Calling Trump all kinds of names is funny. Really leg slapping hilarious. But try to make a t-shirt that says “Joe and his Hoe” and you are a racist who must be cancelled.

    Also did anyone notice over the last three days CNN hasn’t had one “fact check” feature below the DNC coverage? I

    1. Can you actually give some examples of comparative coverage here? I hadn’t heard about the “Joe and his Hoe” thing at all, and the only media coverage I can find is about Amazon’s decision to remove the shirts (i.e., the media is covering the “cancelling” but doesn’t seem to have been the reason why Amazon made the decision).

      Contrarywise, is there an example this week of a mainstream media outlet endorsing some similarly pejorative description of Trump?

      1. The standard DNC line is that he is fat and stupid and plays golf instead of governing. That is pretty offensive and also fat shaming by the left’s standards.

        Also, not that Amazon can’t engage in viewpoint discrimination if it likes, “Joe and His Hoe” is mild compared to anti-Trump stuff you can get (and is even sponsored) if you do a quick Amazon search.

        1. Once again, can you give actual concrete examples to back up your statements? I know you’re already convinced that the bias that you’re asserting exists, but it would be helpful to actually understand what you’re talking about.

          I don’t really know what to search for on Amazon, but this is the most offensive thing I could find in a couple of minutes of searching:

          https://www.amazon.com/STABLE-Acronym-T-Shirt-AF-RESIST

          …which is pejorative, but I could imagine lots of policies allowing for all of these words, but not “hoe” on merchandise.

          Just to bring us back to your original claim, though, you had asserted that “the media” had a double standard, not Amazon. I’m very curious what coverage you’re talking about.

          1. The linked page also no longer exists, so there’s that too.

        2. The standard DNC line is that he is fat and stupid and plays golf instead of governing.

          Reasonably accurate, but don’t forget that he spends his days watching Fox News and tweeting when he’s not golfing.

        3. “The standard DNC line is that he is fat and stupid and plays golf instead of governing. That is pretty offensive and also fat shaming”

          He IS fat and stupid, and spends more time playing golf than Obama did and he complained about how much golf Obama played.

          1. Harris is also a “hoe” by some objective standards. She was mistress to Willie Brown in the 90’s when he was still married.

            1. Yeah, go with the slut shaming morality play. When the guy on the other side is Trump.

              Jeez, you’re a tool.

              1. I don’t think it is slut shaming to say don’t mess around with married people. It is a moral norm. In fact, in some states that is a tort that can attach civil liability. It also speaks to the character of the person who engages in such activity.

                You attempt to deflect blame from Harris who engaged in ho-like activity because you really can’t defend her indiscretion here. You can go with the line “Trump did porn stars” but that also ignores the fact he was accused of doing that (never verified) while he was unmarried.

                1. “You attempt to deflect blame from Harris who engaged in ho-like activity because you really can’t defend her indiscretion here.”

                  Didn’t try to defend anyone’s indiscretion here. I did, however, limit myself to describing them accurately.

                  “You can go with the line “Trump did porn stars” but that also ignores the fact he was accused of doing that (never verified) while he was unmarried.”

                  Paying for sex while unmarried is just as illegal as paying for sex while married, speaking of trying to defend someone’s indiscretions. It’s amusing watching you contort yourself trying to find a way to paint Mr. Trump as the moral one.

            2. That makes her a mistress, not a ho. These are not interchangeable terms.

            3. Given how the GOP responded to “Trump hired a porn star hooker” with a resounding “meh”, I’m not sure that has the bite you think it would.

            4. Sen. Harris is a hoe.

              You are a bigot.

              The Volokh Conspirators and Conspiracy appease bigotry — when not embracing it.

              The reality-based world is too much for some people to handle, I guess.

      2. “Contrarywise, is there an example this week of a mainstream media outlet endorsing some similarly pejorative description of Trump?”

        Accurately describing him as corrupt, inept, and ineffective counts as pejoritive?

    2. ” try to make a t-shirt that says “Joe and his Hoe” and you are a racist who must be cancelled.”

      That is, objectively, racist. Plus poor spelling.

      1. Plus poor spelling.

        More seriously, a brazen disregard for the law of the land (or at least the 7th Circuit):

        The trial transcript quotes Ms. Hayden as saying Murphy called her a snitch bitch “hoe.” A “hoe,” of course, is a tool used for weeding and gardening. We think the court reporter, unfamiliar with rap music (perhaps thankfully so), misunderstood Hayden’s response. We have taken the liberty of changing “hoe” to “ho,” a staple of rap music vernacular as, for example, when Ludacris raps “You doin’ ho activities with ho tendencies.”

        But racist? Really?

        1. You think she’d be called ho if she were white?

          1. She isn’t the one calling herself a ho, someone else is. But skin color has nothing to do with being a ho. It’s an equal opportunity word.

            It’s not racist, but it is morally corrupt, distasteful, rude, among other things.

            1. I find it’s used a lot more with blacks, due to their popularization of the term.

              It’s not, like, syntactically wrong to use it to refer to a white person, but it’s nonstandard. Like calling a man a slut.

              Concur with you assessment of morality, taste, etc.

              1. Perhaps you haven’t spent much time in the poorer white southern areas. That’s okay though, I got out as soon as I could.

                1. I get that kids these days use THOT pretty race-neutrally. But somehow I suspect the ones buying those shirts are neither poor nor young.

            2. ” But skin color has nothing to do with being a ho”

              It has a lot to do with being called a “ho”, however.

              1. Not in the places I have lived it doesn’t.

                1. RIGHT! They have a completely different language there!

          2. You think she’d be called ho if she were white?

            Yes, I think the term should be (and in my experience, is) used without regard to skin color. Who’s the racist here, exactly?

            1. LOL at thinking recognizing existing stereotypes means you adopt them.

              1. LOL at couching your own baseless and unsupported prejudices as “recognizing existing stereotypes.”

                1. I would point you to Pollock’s well-put comment above explaining that there is no prejudice involved:

                  https://reason.com/2020/08/20/thursday-open-thread-5/#comment-8415952

                  1. I would point you to Pollock’s well-put comment above explaining that there is no prejudice involved:

                    You’re pointing to someone else’s conclusory one-liner that doesn’t even use the word “prejudice”? Good grief. Why not just admit you’re out of moves?

      2. I asked Clinton. He said a “ho” can be of any race. He knows. He has done plenty of them.

        1. Clinton wasn’t paying his side pieces. You’re thinking of Trump.

          1. One doesn’t necessarily have to pay for the action to obtain the moniker of ‘ho’.

            1. the one paying isn’t the ho. the one paying is the “john”.

              1. Unless he prefers to be called “The Donald”.

              2. I see my mistake.

                One doesn’t need to have been paid to obtain the moniker of ‘ho’.

                1. No but one needs to have been paid to EARN the moniker of “ho”.

    3. “Got to love the duplicity of the media during the DNC.”

      Let me guess. You’re complaining about the monologues in the late-night network talk shows, not news content.

  12. Very interesting!

  13. What I appreciated most was doing a good job of keeping everything both chronological and grouped by region. Thanks!

  14. I have a question for any law students/ex-law students about course workload. In Prof. Barnett’s recent post about a seminar he teaches, I was stunned to learn that he has his students read no more than 250 pages of a book, and that’s for every two weeks (i.e., 125 pp per week). Plus no writing beyond a precis of the book. Is that generally a normal workload for a law course or is he a softy? Because that’s crazy light compared to my undergrad experience in history—grad school is far beyond that yet—and what I assign for my seminars.

    1. Depends on the school. I was at about 500pp/week over 4 classes my 1L year.

      Remember, reading means reading and briefing so if you’re doing it right you read it twice at least.

      1. Thanks for the reply. That sounds sensible for first year, also factoring in lecture attendance, exams, and papers.

        1. There is also a big difference, IME, between reading a casebook (which is what most law school readings are assigned from) and reading a regular, if scholarly, book (like the ones Prof. Barnett is talking about).

          Casebooks are usually much denser, and can require considerable re-reading to keep everything straight, especially until you get comfortable with the terminology and the format.

          Personally, I never found the reading workload in law school to be overwhelming. It was basically 2-3 hours of reading per day (excluding weekends). As long as I stayed disciplined, I could complete my classes and my homework/reading (and usually fit in a workout) in a 9-5 day.

          1. Thanks for the additional perspective (and likewise to James Pollock below). Different disciplines and different demands and content, so there is a certain reluctance on my part to be too critical. My experience as an undergrad 30 years ago, which I continue with my own seminar courses, is ten weeks of meetings to discuss readings divided between books and articles. Five meetings focus on a book (200–350 pp each) and five on three or four articles per meeting (roughly 25 pp per article). When we do books, students have to write a précis. And there’s a term paper and usually a proposal or annotated bibliography before that. Lazy students grumble about the amount of reading but I’ve never had a complaint from the intellectually curious ones.

            1. Reading for law requires closer attention to detail than does most academic reading. There’s a reason that most of the LSAT is about reading.

    2. You read more for a seminar than for an ordinary course. Plus, the readings for ordinary courses often include edited versions of court opinions, where the textbook authors have cut out the words they consider to be extraneous to understanding the ruling. I did a seminar on telecommunications law, and the readings had a lot of supplemental material describing how relevant technologies work in addition to the legal material describing how the cases were decided. The central case for the course involved whether or not the city of Portland could force the cable-TV provider to allow their cable-Internet customers to select the ISP or, as the Comcast would have preferred, could they force cable-Internet customers to use Comcast’s choice of providers. The course’s instructor was one of the city’s attorneys in that case. Most of the class had no technical background and needed the supplemental readings to understand what the parties were actually fighting over.

  15. Lots of voices out there saying the President should rescind his pardon of Susan B. Anthony, for the same reasons that the Queen was criticized for pardoning Alan Turing.
    Now, a President can’t actually retract a pardon, which should be a relief to Roger Stone. But there is some support for the notion that a pardon has to be accepted before it can take effect, which would imply that until it is it remains only an offer of a pardon, and a President can retract an unaccepted offer.
    What do you think?

    1. I believe constitutional scholars have suggested the courts would not allow a President to rescind a pardon. Once granted it fully vests and cannot be undone. I know of no case challenging the withdrawal of a pardon though absent ones given out in actual duress.

    2. The Supreme Court has held, in an interesting case, that cannot pardon someone without their consent. At least if there are conditions attached.

      The government was trying to pardon to abrogated someone’s right to avoid self incriminating on the grounds that you have no fear of persecution if you are pardoned, and thus we can force you to testify. The court said, rightly, that that is a ridiculous series of legal shenanigans, and it said that had the person agreed to be pardoned, they could also agree to testify, but they didn’t agree to the pardon so you cannot force it on them.

      And interesting follow up would be if the government pardoned you, you agreed, but it did not stipulate testifying as a condition. Once pardoned, it forced you to testify. That has not been a case because the government probably wouldn’t risk freeing someone without that condition solid, but yeah.

      Pardoning dead people has no effect and is likely symbolic.

      Now, if the estate had an obligation to pay the state and the president issued a pardon and either the estate rejected … thats a rather fascinating scenario. But I don’t think it would come up, so practically it means nothing.

      1. That would be the 1913 case Burdick v. United States, with Woodrow Wilson as the crafty President.

      2. But the earlier, broader case that Burdick relied on, was US v. Wilson in 1833. Wilson’s influential friends convinced Andrew Jackson to pardon him for murder in connection with mail train robberies, but (somewhat inexplicably) Wilson refused the pardon and was hanged. Justice Marshall wrote:

        A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.

        Marshall did mention conditions, but that mention is dictum since there were no conditions on Wilson’s pardon.

      3. “likely symbolic”

        Totally symbolic.

        Pardon is an act of mercy for the living, removing disabilities and restoring full civil rights.

        Better if he had pardoned some woman in her memory, if he cared to make a statement. Maybe Marilyn R. Hatch or Regina R. Dinwiddie.

  16. Now that Russia has approved a vaccine for Covid-19, should the US import it or require citizens to take it?

    1. I don’t trust Russia, especially with aggrandizing stories like this

      If they reopen with no ill effects, then we can take a look.

      1. So now you TRUST the Russians?

        1. Um. He said he didn’t.

          1. That’s a detail. Jimmy can’t be bothered with those.

        2. “I don’t trust Russia”

          “So now you TRUST the Russians?”

          1. “I don’t trust Russia…”

            “But if they open up without any problem we ought to take them at their word!!!!”

            Is basic what Sarc said in his own self contridiction.

            1. That’s not a self contradiction: If there wasn’t any problem, that would be evidence that their word was good.

              1. TY Brett, that is indeed my thought.

        3. Trusts them enough to be telling the truth when they claim no ill effects, no?

          1. No, we can recognize COVID cases when we see them now. Our own government has been trying to convince us that there isn’t any COVID here, and we know they’re lying about it, too.

      2. Israeli top virologist said the Russia vaccine was good, so take it!

        1. Did Putin take it?

    2. If they show data its safe, we of course should import it.

      I don’t understand the scientists freaking out. If it works it works if it doesn’t it doesn’t. At this point, medical ethics has done so much harm to the response effort at large.

      1. “they show data its safe”

        Data can be faked.

        1. But it sure can be twisted.

          I can say the car isn’t working because there’s no gas in it (a true statement driving by data).

          However, if the car doesn’t have a motor, wheels, electrical system, etc. well, my saying the car isn’t working because it has no gas isn’t a 100% truthful statement.

          It’s the difference between something being true and something being truthful.

      2. “If it works it works if it doesn’t it doesn’t.”

        Yeah, if. That’s the problem.

    3. “Now that Russia has approved a vaccine for Covid-19”

      I’ll believe that Russia has approved a vaccine for Coronavirus when they show Mr. Putin getting his vaccination on state TV.

      1. Don’t worry Sarc believes them. That is all that matters.

        1. What the heck is wrong with you?

          1. He doesn’t read well.

    4. Once Russia gives a sample of the vaccine, along with all required documentation for other nations to review and reproduce. Then have them check and test it.

      Then, maybe.

  17. Been reading a lot.

    “Waging War” essentially goes over every major conflict from the founding to now and discusses the presidential right to declare war. Argues that at the founding, there was real debate over whether the president can even decide tactics to use which evolved in an interesting way to the president essentially declaring war unilaterally.

    “Disrupted” is essentially a 50 year old shitting on the worst aspects of working in the text industry, and I sympathize. Like I am nowhere near silicon valley and have had very similar experiences, even though I am much younger than 50.

    “At her zenith” is a really well done biography of Thatcher. Really well done. And the parts about Hong Kong are fascinating to read in hindsight.

    Also to British people, it seems a common theme that the foreign office runs foreign policy by itself and completely ignores the pm. Or tries to. The bio makes the case for that, yes Minister joked about it, etc … any truth to that?

    “Sleepwalkers” is a WWI book I have been meaning to pick up for a while, essentially arguing that no one party is the aggressor in WWI the situation was a ticking time bomb and it went off. The history of Serbia preceding the war is particularly fascinating.

    “Good Profit” Charles Koch … ignoring the political aspect of it (I agree with him in most areas but its unnecessary) it is a decent book on management.

    Library opened but everything else still closed so … yeah. Not an unproductive use of time. Actually probably is, but it is nice to gain knowledge without having to plug yourself into the 24 nonsense machine news cycle.

    1. They just built a library only a couple of blocks away from the house I currently live in. I could walk there easily, and have. alas, its opening has been delayed because COVID.

    2. I use the Overdrive app (I think there is also one called Libby) to borrow ebooks from my county public library system.

      1. I had that from my previous library. But the time to keep it is not quite long enough, so I switched to getting ebooks from Project Gutenberg, instead. Alas, only a few of the classics of the SF field have fallen to public domain. The original magazine version of Little Fuzzy, and the Lost World, and most of the Sherlock stories are available.

    3. Any suggestions for a good biography of
      Clarence Darrow?

      1. An excellent one I read was John Farrell’s Clarence Darrow: Attorney for the Damned.

        1. Many thanks AWD.

  18. nic LeptoConnect allows to prevent hunger crises and turn fat quickly. https://tiendabeyond.com

    1. Do do chocolate malteds.

      1. Gah. “So” do chocolate malteds. At least that was my experience.

    2. Joyce eats ketchup pancakes vague sense trees gave birth to dinosaurs.

      1. Er, what are examples of a declarative declamation, a revolting repast, and a misbegotten musing?

  19. The whole wall grift seems to have nevertheless a bunch of satisfied customers.

    Pay to feel like you owned the libs is a pretty low cost thing to deliver, as it turns out.

    1. Steve Bannon arrested! These rogue prosecutors carrying out political persecutions should be fired immediately.

      Just think how this compares to the Clinton foundation. Did they ever collect any salary, or pay any personal expenses, for themselves or their family and friends? Of course they did, that’s what it’s all about. That’s not even the bad part about the Clinton Foundation. The bad part is that they collected a quarter of a billion dollars from foreign interests and governments, including terror sponsors, with the obvious expectation of pay for play on the part of the donors.

      1. ” the obvious expectation of pay for play on the part of the donors.”
        Hint: Bill Clinton hasn’t been President for a while. So the objection to people paying for access to him would be…??

        1. Access to POTUS Hillary

          1. Hillary hasn’t been President for a while now. Were you not paying attention?

        2. Guh, you really know nothing about this do you.

          The Foundation got $249 million during Hillary’s first year as Secretary of State alone. Before that, it received many millions during her tenure in the Senate and after that it continued to do so during her tenure as SOS, during which she was a presumptive leading candidate for presidential nominee, and then of course as a presidential candidate and then nominee.

          1. The Foundation has been investigated and found clean to all those without partisan brain worms.

            Find better whattaboutism.

            1. Donations collapsed after 2016.

              Donors don’t think it was “clean”, they think it was vehicle to employ family retainers and get publicity for her campaign.

              1. Who cares what the donors thought, reputation evidence is not actual evidence.

                The Foundation was looked at. Carefully. By the Republican House, and Trump’s DoJ, among other things.

                1. “The Foundation was looked at. Carefully. By the Republican House, and Trump’s DoJ, among other things.”

                  And they were in on the scam. That’s how far the conspiracy goes.

              2. Let’s assume you are correct. The complaint against Bannon is that he tricked donors by telling them he wasn’t going to take any money and that it was all going to be spent on building the wall. If your assertion that people gave to the Clinton Foundation with the expectation that it would just help out people that were Clinton-adjacent, then there’s obviously no fraud involved. Maybe (like the Trump Foundation) it should lose tax exempt status or be shut down, but that’s very different from the charges against Bannon.

              3. Bob from Ohio : Donors don’t think it was “clean”, they think it was vehicle to employ family retainers and get publicity for her campaign.

                1. Donors thought it would do tremendous good in the world, as it did. Eleven million people in Africa began receiving AIDS medicine, which means the Clinton Foundation saved millions of lives. Scores of thousands of people received malaria medication in the Philippines; thousands of healthcare clinics were opened in India; the list of Foundation accomplishments is lengthy and growing longer all the time. (I’ve pointed this out to Bob before, but he’s addicted to lying)

                2. The Clinton Foundation gets stellar ratings from all the charity oversight and rating organizations such as Charity Navigator and CharityWatch. The C.F. gets high marks from these groups for financial transparency, documented accomplishments, and percentage of donations used in projects. (I’ve pointed this out to Bob before, but he’s addicted to lying)

                3. If saving millions of lives in Africa (for example) translates into “publicity for her campaign”, then that would be a just thing, right Bob? In fact, the Clinton Foundation was probably the ultimate example of press whattaboutism imaginable. Because they barely reported on millions of lives saved or ant other accomplishment. Instead, the media went down one dry hole after another trying to make Clinton’s charity as much as a fraud as Trump’s. And came up with nothing. Thus Bob’s need to lie….

                1. “The Clinton Foundation gets stellar ratings from all the charity oversight and rating organizations such as Charity Navigator and CharityWatch.”

                  Those other organizations are obviously part of the conspiracy.

                2. “Donors thought it would do tremendous good in the world”

                  Yeah, that is why they stopped giving right after the election.

                  I hope you are getting a check for your spinning at least.

                  PS, its the US government program quietly started by George W. Bush that is saving millions in Africa from AIDS, not this duplicative foundation.

                  1. Oh, Bob – why even bother with such nonsense? Let’s me show you how easy it is to leave a comment without the stench of lying :

                    George W. Bush merits full praise for his exceptional efforts to help Africans suffering with AIDS. His program PEPFAR provided more than $80 billion in cumulative funding for HIV/AIDS treatment, making it the largest global health program focused on a single disease in history. His efforts saved millions of lives. Even though I strongly disagreed with many of his actions as president, it would be dishonest, petty and contemptible in me not to acknowledge and applaud the good George W. Bush did on AIDS.

                    See? Being honest just isn’t that hard. Now, you try it with the Clinton Foundation. Everyone here is rooting for you to make this great leap in personal integrity.

                    1. You can also respect W for the fact that after he left office, he basically went into hiding and refrained from critiquing his successor in office, because he knew the job is hard to learn and takes time. That must have been hard when Big O won a Nobel Peace Prize by taking the daring public stand of not being W.

            2. Dead folk tell no tales.

              1. Take off the tin foil, Jimmy.

          2. “The Foundation got $249 million during Hillary’s first year as Secretary of State alone. Before that, it received many millions during her tenure in the Senate and after that it continued to do so during her tenure as SOS, during which she was a presumptive leading candidate for presidential nominee, and then of course as a presidential candidate and then nominee.”

            During which time Bill continued to be not-President, so it’s still not a big deal that people were buying access to him.

            “Guh, you really know nothing about this do you.”

            Do you mean actual facts, the the things you “just know”? Because I’m limited to the first, unlike you.

      2. Did the Clinton Foundation promise donors that 100% of the money donated would be used for some specific purpose and that the administrators wouldn’t take a salary? If not, the comparison is completely irrelevant.

        1. What is shows is that the Clintons are much, much better at graft than pikers like Bannon.

          1. “The absence of evidence is what proves they’re guilty!” never gets old.

            1. That is how conspiracy theory works, quite often.
              You complain that there’s no evidence that supports the conspiracy theory, and the answer is “that’s how you know the conspiracy is working!”

        2. Also, there is the money laundering aspect of Bannon’s grift. Isn’t Bannon also charged with setting up a charitable organization of some sort and funneling money from the waller enterprise through that organization?

      3. Anyone want to dig out that graph of prosecutions and convictions of partisan elected officials and appointees by presidential administration?

        1. Apparently that’s just proof of the Clintons’ skill and death squads.

          Make your story unfalsifiable and never feel the shame of being wrong again!

  20. Between the complexity of the law, police and judges who don’t know it, and the cost of attorneys (and a scarcity of good, honest ones), the average person really has no civil rights anymore.

  21. Barack says Trump must be defeated to save democracy!

    But which administration was it that spied on and sabotaged the incoming?

    It’s always projection.

    1. “But which administration was it that spied on and sabotaged the incoming? ”

      Very likely the same one actively attempting to prevent people from voting.

    2. Your premise is a contentious one, so your conclusion is supported only by those that share your partisan narrative.

      Less a conversation opener, more a partisan flag waiving, really.

      1. Facts don’t care about your contentious feelings.

        1. You pounding on the keyboard doesn’t make something a fact.

          1. Are you saying the wishful thinking doesn’t work? If that’s true then most of the Republican Party’s governance is undermined.

        2. “Facts don’t care about your contentious feelings.”

          and you don’t care about facts, so it probably evens out.

    3. Barak also said if I like my doctor I can keep him and Obamacare was magically going to give everyone insurance. That never happened.

      1. It’s Barack’s fault that your previous doctor wanted you to get lost.
        Approximately nobody said the ACA was going to give everyone insurance, magically or otherwise.

      2. I’m not sure it’s reasonable to blame Obama because you hallucinated him claiming he had magical powers.

        1. The doctor should have corrected that.

  22. Professor,

    Can you address Distance learning in California public schools? Specifically, the power of local school districts to require public school teachers to report to work during the pandemic? While most schools are shuttered and lessons are being administered remotely via zoom, teachers in many cases are forced to report to work.

    1. What a crazy notion, requiring your employees to show up for work.

      1. Next thing you know, they might be expected to show up during the summer, or not get paid.

        1. They ARE expected to show up during the summer, or not get paid. It’s the KIDS who get summers off responsibility-free.

    2. As a Professor of Education, I can — at least as to Massachusetts.

      Teachers are hired on an annual (school year) basis, and are off contract in the summer — although some districts have opted to have a portion of their pay withheld from each check and then redistributed to them as paychecks in the summer.

      Unlike in higher ed, “Tenure” is actually a “continuing contract” — if you successfully complete your third contract, the district is legally obligated to offer you a contract every subsequent year until you refuse to accept it (i.e. quit, retire, or die). There are exceptions to this, the big one being “RIF” — Reduction in Force” and there are all kinds of stuff involving that which don’t apply here.

      So the teacher is offered a contract, e.g. to teach 3rd grade at the Volokh School. The teacher can accept it and show up to teach — or not. I don’t see how a teacher can refuse to do this without waiving the contract — and (at least in Massachusetts) all teacher union contracts are required to have a “no strike” clause.

      1. Even if they have a no strike clause, they’ll still strike. Like they did here in WV. I mean, they of course insisted it wasn’t a strike but they were doing everything that one would do on a strike. But they absolutely were very sure and insistent that it wasn’t a strike because that would be illegal. So they weren’t striking, they were just doing everything involved in a strike and they called it something else entirely, because strikes for teachers are illegal.

        I hope you read all of this with as much sarcasm as you can muster for me.

        1. “Even if they have a no strike clause, they’ll still strike.”

          so fire them, instead of whining about it. Used to be air traffic controllers couldn’t strike, either.

      2. […] (at least in Massachusetts) all teacher union contracts are required to have a “no strike” clause.

        How ethical. Nothing says “free and fair workforce” like “it’s literally illegal for you to refuse to come to work”.

        If you need a “no strike” clause, that’s evidence that your workers should be striking.

  23. Sen. Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic nomination for vice president Wednesday night, exactly three weeks after journalist and pro-life activist David Daleiden appeared in a San Francisco Superior Court, once again fighting the criminal charges Harris brought against him at the behest of her political donors four years prior. As Harris joins a campaign fighting for the “soul of our nation,” Daleiden continues a years-long battle for countless unborn souls and the First Amendment, both of which Harris has a record of fighting against.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/20/four-years-later-planned-parenthood-whistleblower-still-trapped-in-kamala-harriss-persecution/

    1. March 28, 2017, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed 15 felony charges of invasion of privacy against Daleiden, alleging that he and associate Sandra Susan Merritt conspired to pose as BioMax employees in order to intentionally record confidential communications between themselves and Planned Parenthood employees

      You break the law with your activism, you need to be willing to do the time.
      And what does Harris even have to do with this?

      More importantly, who is this for?
      Who is going to be convinced by your copypasting a pro-life fulmination in the Federalist that isn’t already convinced?

      1. Would you hold 30 years of environmental activists to the same standard? You know, all the folks who trespassed on company land to get samples of what they were dumping onto the ground or into waterways and such.

        Or the people who leaked cigarette information and the like.

        Seems we have a double standard.

        1. Yes. I believe a vital part of civil disobedience is being willing to go to jail.
          Do you not think liberals are willing to?

          Insider whistle blowing is a different thing, of course. Lots of law on that.

        2. “Would you hold 30 years of environmental activists to the same standard?”

          Yup. Plus the guys up in the trees to keep them from being cut down have to actually stay in the trees. And the ones who set fire to the heavy equipment to keep the greedy capitalists from using it on the land are guilty of arson, which can be prosecuted as a felony.

      2. Plenty of mob rioters in Portland seem to be immune from the law for their “activism.” Let’s see some of them prosecutions.

        1. Your conviction otherwise does not change the fact that rioters are getting arrested. As they should be.

          1. He said “prosecuted”, you said “arrested”. Those are two different terms and you know better than to try that word play.

            1. I mean, given the timeline none would be prosecuted yet which makes his objection even dumber.

            2. The wheel of justice grinds slowly. You have to arrest them first, then eventually you get to the prosecutions.
              They did, eventually, get around to prosecuting the nutjobs who took over the bird sanctuary over in the less-popular end of the state.

                1. turns out that to successfully prosecute, you need evidence that the people who were arrested actually committed crimes.

      3. So all those folks out there in Portland burning things, blinding officers with lasers, assaulting people. They should all be prosecuted, correct?

        1. Yes. Do you think that’s a hard question or something?

          1. You’re supposed to answer the way he wanted! You’re doing it wrong and messing him all up.
            Prosecute all those people who stole the federal agents’ pepper spray by absorbing it with their eyeballs. They were rioting by just standing there on the sidewalk talking about being moms.

            1. That tricky thing, where the DA has to actually prove criminal charges against people the police arrest, rears its head again.

    2. How did Kamala Harris, who became a United States Senator in January 2017, file criminal charges against David Daleiden in March 2017 and June 2017?

      Are you so eager to castigate an uppity black female for offenses against the clingerverse that the calendar is meaningless?

      1. She started the investigation before she was Senator, as California AG. Becerra filed the later charges continuing the harassment.

        Sorry you couldn’t be bothered to check into it, instead of launching a sad personal attack.

        1. The claim was that “David Daleiden appeared in a San Francisco Superior Court, once again fighting the criminal charges Harris brought against him”

          Now, pointing out that she was a Senator, not an AG, when the charges were filed is a fair criticism of the claim that Harris brought criminal charges against him.

        2. You spiked the ball at about the eight-yard-line, Art Kumquat.

          Get an education, Art. Start with standard English.

          Backwater religious schooling doesn’t count.

  24. California has banned discrimination of the basis of hair. While That seems to me at least on the surface reasonable. I wonder about the definition of “natural hair”.

    Recently a group challenged a New Orleans Catholic School’s dress code which forbid extensions, as discriminating against “natural hair”.

    I have trouble understanding what is natural about extensions, and the student’s picture in the paper showed a young African American student dressed in her school uniform with long, straight hair which was probably not natural to her and if it was human hair likely came for Asia.

    1. My “natural hair” is a Santa Claus-type beard.
      Can I just let it grow out, shaggy and unkept, and it’s discrimination if anyone makes an issue of it?

    2. If you’re talking about the lawsuit against Christ the King, from a 2019 article on the lawsuit I found this:

      Christ the King’s policy on “natural” hairstyles was discriminatory because only African-American girls were subject to the inspections, investigations and reprimands, the lawsuit alleges.

      If that’s what you’re talking about, the problem was that teachers were singling out Black girls for hair inspections and enforcing the policy (which didn’t actually ban hair extensions) in a racially-discriminatory way.

      If there’s another case you’re thinking of, maybe give more hints to what it is, because that’s the most recent one I could find.

      1. This was a more recent incident but I’m unable to find it right now.

        The Christ the King case was dropped the school changed the policy.

  25. “Well, it’s unlikely that vaccination is going to be mandatory anytime soon, so the question is more whether you can get comparable levels of compliance.”

    Is that right? I’d think it would depend on the efficacy of the vaccine. If an at risk person gets a reliably effective vaccine, aren’t they immediately safer, even if no one else gets it, than if sans vaccine 60 or 70% take a daily spit test? If the vaccine is only 30% effective, as I’ve seen it asserted some flu vaccines are (is that really true?), then sure, even the vaccinated still need herd immunity to be safe, so compliance levels would matter as much for vaccines as for daily spit tests. But if the vaccine is near 100% effective, like say polio vaccine, than why does third party compliance matter for any particular vaccinated person?

    I mean I get it that as a public health matter we want high compliance even if the vaccine is 100% effective, for the same reasons we want it with other vaccines, e.g., avoid re-introducing previously eradicated infection to unvaccinated populations. But that seems to me a different question than when we can safely reopen an economy. If each person who elects to be vaccinated is close to 100% immune, wouldn’t it be immediately OK re-open worksites for everyone irrespective of vaccination compliance? Those who get it are protected, and those who refuse it proceed at their own risk?

    I have zero expertise in these matters, so my questions aren’t rhetorical.

    1. “If the vaccine is only 30% effective, as I’ve seen it asserted some flu vaccines are (is that really true?)”

      the problem is that during flu season, there are usually more than one virus being passed around. When they start the vaccine, they guess which strains are going to be common and create the vaccine to fight those strains. So, when the flu season comes, did the vaccine-maker guess right about which strains you needed to be protected against? The vaccine is about 0% effective at blocking virus strains that it isn’t designed to fight. That 30% efficacy is referring to how likely it is that the vaccine-makers forecasted correctly, rather than how effective the vaccine is at stopping the actual viruses that are actually trying to infect you.

      1. ” If each person who elects to be vaccinated is close to 100% immune, wouldn’t it be immediately OK re-open worksites for everyone irrespective of vaccination compliance? Those who get it are protected, and those who refuse it proceed at their own risk? ”

        The problem is that some people cannot get the vaccine for reasons unrelated to willingness. the people who refuse to get it put THEM at risk as well as themselves.

  26. So much for Joe being seriously mentally impaired or whatever. I’ve heard better speeches, but that was a humdinger.

    And well pitched for the medium – no pauses for applause made it better.

    1. Strong speech, and I loved the granddaughters. But the highlight for me had to be that Brayden kid. I mean, generally I detest maudlin, manipulative human interest pieces, but this wasn’t that. Apart from a few agonizingly difficult moments, it was all upbeat and inspiring. The watery eyes were mine, not his.

      If you could watch that spot and still feel Donald Trump is the guy you want to be your head of state and national role model, all I can say is I’m glad I’m not you. There are plenty of good reasons I want Biden to win, and even more that I want Trump to lose. But more than anything, what I want is to have a decent human being back in the White House. That piece said it all for me.

      1. Any chance the Lincoln Project might provide a split-screen?

        Joe Biden with Brayden Harrington, trying to help a struggling child

        vs.

        Donald Trump mocking a disabled reporter for a chronic condition — and then trying to deny it

        Do conservatives still wonder why they have been routed in the culture war by better Americans? Our nation has demonstrated repeatedly that lousy people and bigots do not win in America, not over the long term.

    2. We must all study up on malapropism, now that memes are common place. Last night, “White is more powerful than dark!”. Four more years!!

      Crossing rural Wisconsin getting our Singer Featherweight sewing machines fluffed and buffed, I saw more political signs that ever, certainly more than at home. In particular, a *few*, “Truth over facts” misquoted as “… over lies.”. The demotic and media retention span is minuscule.

    3. You wanna know what’s funny? The Right-wing smear Biden is mentally impaired is paving the way for his election. First, it sets the bar so low any success at all is a brilliant victory. Usually politicians work to lower expectations for just that reason. Only Trump and his cultists could labor month after month to perform that service for the other side.

      Second, the smear creates the maximum impact from the minimalist campaign Joe wants to run. Biden will debate Trump three times and – like the two hour face-off against Bernie Sanders in October – he’ll do fine. How many polling percentage points will he earn for that alone? Which brings us to……

      Third, the Biden-dementia smear takes up all the oxygen in the Trump campaign. Everything else is fragmented & secondary. When Biden (more than) holds his own in the debates they’ll be no justification left for Trump’s reelection. That’s the result of taking an entire campaign down a dead end. Here as with everything, Trump is just incompetent.

      1. ” The Right-wing smear Biden is mentally impaired is paving the way for his election.”

        Just because their guy is already being tested for cognitive impairment, and bragging about how difficult the test is, you mean?

    4. I didn’t watch, but pulling off a good drug-assisted moment every couple of days is far from refuting a charge of creeping senility/dementia/whatever.

      He needs to come out of the basement. Let us see Joe Biden run a campaign with just 1/4 the grueling endurance and intensity of Donald Trump and see what happens.

      1. Let’s give him a real test. See if he can drink a glass of water without requiring both hands “to avoid spilling water on his tie”. See if he can walk down a ramp.

        1. It’s a low bar indeed! Get out of the basement and take questions at a press conference. He hasn’t done this yet. Let’s see if he can do 1/4 as many as Trump.

          1. 1/4 of zero is zero, so, yeah, he definitely can. Have you not seen your guy angrily storming off when a reporter asks him a question he hasn’t got a lie ready for?

      2. Biden will debate Trump three times and will do more than fine, just like he did in the 2hr face-off against Bernie Sanders last October.

        And after the first Trump-Biden debate they’ll be nothing left to justify Trump’s reelection. If your entire campaign is based on schoolyard-grade bullshit about your opponent’s “dementia”, what’s left when that story explodes in your face? Biden’s large lead grows larger and the election is effectively over, that’s what.

        I sense Trumpites are having great fun with their Biden insults. Like their Cult Idol, they lack the self-discipline to see anything beyond immediate gratification – no matter how shallow & meaningless. And Lord knows, trashy lies about Biden has to be easier than finding a positive reason to reelect President Dumpster-Fire. But their shtick is just making Trump’s loss more inevitable.

        1. “Biden will debate Trump three times and will do more than fine, just like he did in the 2hr face-off against Bernie Sanders last October. ”

          Maybe let Biden pack a weapon for when Trump does that stalking thing he likes to do during debates. Or does he only do that to women, so Ms. Harris should be the one?

      3. “Let us see Joe Biden run a campaign with just 1/4 the grueling endurance and intensity of Donald Trump”

        Trump? The flabby guy who cart-golfs (after he said he wouldn’t), uses a cart for any distance that exceeds a few dozen yards, can barely aim his paunch down a walkway, and is a two-fisted drinker because one arm can’t manage the task?

        Trump? The guy whose “executive time” involves watching Fox News from bed, tweeting illiterate hash, and gets pictures books from staff because he doesn’t read words?

        Trump? The guy whose wife won’t sleep with him, who still won’t say why he was rushed to the hospital, and is officially obese?

        1. Trump, who discussed being given cognitive tests because he wasn’t coherent enough to figure out that claiming cognitive tests were super hard isn’t to his advantage, and also wasn’t smart enough to keep the whole thing quiet? Somebody out there thinks he’s impaired, and had enough clout to actually get him tested.

  27. Curious about your thoughts of mandatory flu vaccination of students (as recently in MA).

    Though the case for many childhood vaccines is fairly straightforward, the flu vaccine is relatively ineffective (probably less effective than regular hand-washing) and might have negative side-effects.

    How does the law balance individual rights to health management with social needs. This applies equally to those in-person US universities who are enforcing a COVID testing process on all campus members that is (i) not FDA approved for such use, (ii) not designed for such large-scale and repeated asymptomatic usage.

  28. “Federal prosecutors in New York unsealed criminal charges Thursday against Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, and three other men they alleged defrauded donors to a massive crowdfunding campaign that claimed to be raising money for construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.”

    I see the DNC’s tame prosecutors are playing politics again.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-bannon-arrested-charged/2020/08/20/6d46847c-e2ea-11ea-b69b-64f7b0477ed4_story.html?hpid=hp_politics1-8-12_bannon-mts-701pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

    1. What makes you say it’s the DNC’s guy? You just assume anything bad that happens to Trump is a sign of a conspiracy?

      1. If one is conspiracy-minded it could argued the other way, as payback for betrayal. This is the former insider who wrote Fire and Fury.

        We’ll have to look at the evidence behind the charges. We’ll also have to look at the overall pattern. Intent matters. Did these people run a non-profit primarily intended to accomplish its mission and pay themselves primarily reasonable salaries and expenses, but slip up on the paperwork? Or was siphoning off money for themselves a core purpose of the endeavor?

        The charges alone don’t tell us which. It’s not hard to imagine generally honest but unsophisticated people caught in a dragnet by people intent on finding something to charge them with. It’s also not hard to imagine these people being crooks. We’ll have to see what the evidence shows.

        1. …I’m pretty sure Trump didn’t order a prosecution of Bannon with this timing.

          1. It seems more likely Trump tried to squelch (or at least delay) the prosecution, but Barr couldn’t get it done.

      2. The Democrat party is the party of a banana republic. They employ “the law” as a weapon in dramatically unequal fashion to jail political opponents.

        From Kamala doing the bidding of Planned Parenthood as noted above, to the illegitimate “Crossfire Hurricane” and all of its poisoned fruit.

        1. Lord, you’re really out there, aren’t you?

          1. Remember all the handwringing over “lock her up” ?

            Trump’s former campaign managers are being locked up, and they would not have been locked up but for the fact that they were Trump’s campaign managers.

            1. In that they were only able to do the crimes due to being in Trump’s circle, yeah.

              Other than that you’re just working off a persecution complex by proxy, which is no way to go through life.

              1. It’s impressive that you can be so wrong so often. Paul Manafort’s crimes were in relation to his work with . . . the Podesta Group. It had nothing to do with Trump and occurred years before Trump. He may have done wrong, but he was only targeted for this 1 in 100 selective enforcement because he made the mistake of affiliating with Trump.

                1. That…doesn’t make Trump look better, that he hired someone under multiple investigations.

                  1. He . . . wasn’t under any investigations. He became under investigation after he became a political opponent.

                    1. He came under investigation when he was recorded communicating with a foreign intelligence service.

                2. M L : It had nothing to do with Trump

                  Talk about willful blindness! I’m guessing you didn’t read anything on the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report. So let’s do a synopsis : Donald John Trump hires a sleazy huckster to head his campaign, just like he’d pick a sleazy huckster to be his National Security Advisor. I’m guessing it’s the sense of the familiar – something like looking in a mirror….

                  In Manafort’s case, Trump put his campaign in the hands of a person deeply in debt to Ukrainian oligarchs who were known Russian puppets. Collectively, they had paid Manafort tens of millions of dollars in the past and lent him millions more still. Manafort would later tell the F.B.I. he tried to brief Trump on his Ukraine work, but “did not go into detail because Trump was not interested.”

                  Per the Senate report, Manafort contacted his former Ukrainian employers immediately on becoming Trump’s campaign chief. The process of paying off his debts then began. His primary contact was a Russian intelligence officer named Konstantin Kilimnik. That in turn was Manafort’s link to a Putin associate named Oleg Deripaska, who the Senate report calls a “proxy for the Russian state and intelligence services”. It’s know Manafort regularly fed Kilimnik private campaign information and internal polling data, though the exact extent of their exchanges isn’t known. Both regularly used advanced encryption programs to cover their tracks. To close the circle, the Senate also found evidence Kilimnik was personally involved in the hacking of Democrats by the Russian intelligence services, as they sought information to help Trump become president.

                  So Trump hires someone crippled by dept to foreign interests of a government opposed to the U.S. Trump’s new hire then regularly briefs a Russian spy, who is intermediary to a figure close to Putin himself. Meanwhile the Russia government is running an active campaign to help Trump become president, while DJT’s personal lawyer takes secret trips to Moscow asking for Russian government assistance on a massive business negotiation, while Trump repeatedly lies to the American people about his Russia dealings during the campaign.

                  Nothing to do with Trump ?!?

                  1. grb:

                    I’m guessing you are unfamiliar with Manafort’s criminal charges.

                    That’s a nice story you are telling and all, but none of those things have anything to do with tax evasion from 2006. Collusion was debunked by Mueller. Remember?

                    Paul Manafort would not have been jailed but for his working for Trump (and, to be fair, also but for the tax evasion).

                    1. ” Collusion was debunked by Mueller. Remember?”

                      The way I remember it, collusion was partially debunked. We know that Trump campaign officials were quite willing to take meetings, but that the Russians didn’t actually want their input.

                    2. ML: You’re missing the point in such a big way I have to believe it’s purposeful. the shtick you sell is that Manafort’s troubles predated his hire as Trump’s campaign head, so there’s a (sorry, but I have to use the word) wall between the phenomena. Nothing is further from the truth.

                      Since I have no idea while Donald John Trump liked bringing people into his circle with sleazy connections to Russia – Carter Page, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort being some examples – I’ll approach it from the other side :

                      Manafort took the job heading Trump’s election campaign precisely because of his illegal dealing with Russian & Ukrainian oligarchs. He was buried under debt to them and saw no other way out. Immediately after becoming campaign chief he began peddling insider information to the people he owed money to. That is a direct finding of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

                      I objected to your statement Manafort’s problems had “nothing to do with Trump” because it’s nonfactual and a crudely stupid thing to say. Trump hired someone deeply compromised by a foreign enemy of the United States, and he did so without the slightest vetting. Trump ignored troubling signs obvious with the most superficial review. He disregarded explicit warnings from other Republicans and refused to pay attention when Manafort tried to give a personal gloss on his foreign dealings. Trump also didn’t consider it strange Manafort took the job without pay.

                      Of course he did, because he was getting payment of another kind: Relief of debt by reporting on the Trump campaign to a foreign intelligence service. Please explain how that has “nothing to do with Trump”. I’d really like to see you try.

                    3. “the shtick you sell is that Manafort’s troubles predated his hire as Trump’s campaign head”

                      On the contrary, I said the exact opposite – Manafort didn’t have any “troubles” previously, and would never have had any, but for his joining Trump’s election campaign.

                      But, his crime was tax evasion in 2006. There were no crimes committed by Manafort or anyone else in connection with the Trump campaign. The Trump-Russia collusion hoax was a deliberate lie to bring down Trump, cover for illegal spying, and block the America first agenda.

                    4. ML : “The Trump-Russia collusion hoax was a deliberate lie to bring down Trump, cover for illegal spying, and block the America first agenda”

                      Tell me, ML : Would it help you face facts if they come from your side of the political fence? Might it stiffen-up your shaky personal integrity when the ugly truth is from one of your own? David French in the National Review :

                      “When a campaign chair clandestinely communicates with a Russian intelligence officer, when a campaign tries to obtain opposition research from Russian government sources and Russian intelligence assets, and when a campaign lies about attempts to engineer multimillion dollar business deals in Russia, it has not only crossed every line of propriety, it creates grave counterintelligence vulnerabilities. And we haven’t even discussed the fact that its chief national security consultant, Michael Flynn, had received tens of thousands of dollars from the Kremlin and was serving as an unlawfully undisclosed foreign agent of the government of Turkey during the campaign”

                      Just part of the above facts would warrant full investigation, and French’s list isn’t close to comprehensive. Your “Trump-Russia collusion hoax” is a pathetic lie. Do you even believe your own bullshit?

            2. “Trump’s former campaign managers are being locked up, and they would not have been locked up but for the fact that they were Trump’s campaign managers.”

              The ones who keep quiet are waiting for pardons. The would not receive pardons but for the fact that they keep quiet about Trump.

            3. “Remember all the handwringing over “lock her up” ? ”

              You’re retconning the chanters into Democrats??? I don’t think you’ll get that one to stick.

    2. “I see the DNC’s tame prosecutors are playing politics again. ”

      Prosecuting people who break the law is “playing politics”?

      1. “For my friends, everything, for my enemies the Law.”

        Its the choice to begin the investigation that is sometimes political.

        1. You’re assuming I’m against investigating, but I’m not. So long as the prosecutions remain limited to people who can actually be proven to have violated the law.

  29. The makes people liable if they try to solve a problem and do so imperfectly. But if they don’t touch the problem, leaving it unsolved, they often completely escape liability. They can do even better if they can come ip with somebody else to blame. This means that the law often induces people to find a way to blame somebody else as their only way to address a problem.

    A human society which has become so blame-based that peoples’ primary approach to problems is to find somebody else to blame for them is a dysfunctionally society, one incapable of solving its problems, and hence with lower survival chances than a society where people are encouraged to find solutions and imperfect solutions are preferred to no solutions.

    Has our system of law and its influence in our culture become so pervasive that we have become a dysfunctionally blame-based society?

    If so, what can we do about it? How could we become a society in which people are encouraged to take responsibility for problems and in which taking action is preferred to blaming others?

    How could we learn to compare the solutions devised by people who have taken action, not to an ideal standard of perfection we can imagine while lying in our beds gazing at our navels, but to what would have happened if no action had been taken at all?

  30. I’m starting to warm up to Joe Biden. His honesty and character was just vouched for by a corrupt, delinquent crackhead named Hunter.

    1. Don’t be like this.

      You don’t need to be like this.

      1. He’s the one out there putting himself in the spotlight.

        What do you think about the right seemingly calling for riots, to adopt the tactics of the left? “‘No Justice! No Peace!’—On Russiagate, the Right May Have to Steal From the Left” https://www.theepochtimes.com/no-justice-no-peace-on-russiagate-the-right-may-have-to-steal-from-the-left_3468997.html

        1. Does that link force you to be an awful person somehow?

          1. No I’m genuinely curious what you think. The Democrats have been meticulously ignoring, downplaying, and outright denying rampant political violence in the wake of the tenuously related death of an overdosed druggie in MN. What do you think about this?

            The GOP is the stupid party, or the party of stupid, while the Dems are the evil party. Things will continue to be bad and worse, with one side or another having a false sense of winning every few years depending on the Presidency.

            1. You seem disaffected, M L. Thank goodness the American mainstream has stomped your stale, bigoted preferences in the culture war. Sad!

              1. Not really – as a general matter, I respect those in authority, and I support what is good in the U.S. government. I guess the opposite of your notion of “disaffected” would be a bootlicker?

                Anyway, I guess the DNC’s impressive lineup is delivering more of that “culture war stomping” that you obsess about: DNC Features Convicted Murderer Who Squeezed Victim’s Testicles with Pliers

                1. “, I respect those in authority, and I support what is good in the U.S. government.”

                  These are contradictory statements.

            2. I think you’re in too deep to properly frame a question anyone not as crazy as you can answer.

        2. “What do you think about the right seemingly calling for riots, to adopt the tactics of the left?”

          You mean like when they were taking their rifles to to the capitol to demand an end to pandemic precautions?

      2. “Don’t be like this.”

        You’ve seen no doubt the stuff aimed at Trump’s kids? Liberal Jews are constantly policing Ivanka’s Jewishness, for instance.

        This has more justification than most of that.

        Criminal conviction and later less than honorable Navy discharge for Hunter after his dad pulled strings.

        1. Open wider, Bob. More progress coming your way, and you are powerless to do anything about it — except comply with the preferences of the liberal-libertarian American mainstream.

          Well, that and cry about it.

        2. I get that you live in a world where the answer to all wrongs your side commits is rage at the left.

          But pointing elsewhere is not an actual excuse for personal behavior.

          1. I don’t see what’s so wrong and awful about my comments on Hunter.

            1. I don’t believe you.

              1. Rehabilitated crackhead?

                1. Are we sure about “rehabilitated”?

                  1. About which of you?

          2. “But pointing elsewhere is not an actual excuse for personal behavior.”

            If its ok for the goose, it must be ok for the gander or the goose can crap all he wants without fear that the gander will crap back.

            1. Problem is that when the goose isn’t a product of pretextual nutpicking, it’s often the outright fabrication of overheated tribal imaginations. That’s among the lesser reasons two wrongs don’t make a right. A predicate goosey wrong turns out to be illusory, while the ensuing gandery wrong is deliberate and all too real.

              Your parents taught you two wrongs don’t make a right (even when the first wrong actually exists), didn’t they Bob? I’m sure they did. So what happened to make you think it’s OK?

            2. Is this guy what you want to be, Bob? Just like you he’s sure he’s justified by something something Biden.

        3. ” Liberal Jews are constantly policing Ivanka’s Jewishness, for instance. ”

          Oh, noes. How awful.

          Fox News commentators took on the opinion that Kamala Harris isn’t black enough to be called “black”, although they continued to hold the position that she’s too black to be Vice President.

  31. Who else thinks the Dems plan is to get Biden elected, wait until the electoral college selects him and the VP, then tell everyone he has Alzheimers and won’t take the oath. Don’t get me wrong his speech was good (a little too good) and that is because they made him practice it for weeks so he didn’t stumble through. If Biden could give performances like that off the cuff he would do so. But they have to keep him in the hole and only let him out when the setting is super controlled. I wonder if he has another two months left in him and then a month after that to hold tight while the electoral college meets.

    1. Isn’t there a QAnon grift somewhere waiting for you to give them your 401(K)?

      1. No but if you like I know an African Prince who could use someone to help move around a million dollars. You get to keep 10%. Let me know if interested.

        1. 10% of a million dollars? Soros pays me more than that just to post Marxist comments on the Internet.

          1. Well it is nice to know at least you don’t believe the garbage you post…

            1. So long as it distracts you from our baby hooker pizza parlors my job is done.

    2. ” Don’t get me wrong his speech was good (a little too good) and that is because they made him practice it for weeks so he didn’t stumble through.”

      The other guy stumbles through, and brags about how hard the cognitive impairment test that he managed to pass is (which it isn’t). I think you’re barking up the wrong tree.

    3. ” Don’t get me wrong his speech was good (a little too good) and that is because they made him practice it for weeks so he didn’t stumble through.”

      A couple of weeks isn’t enough time for your guy to prepare, because preparing is too much effort for him.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.