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: Thoughts on Trump's Potential Plan to Cut Federal Grants to "Anarchist Jurisdictions"

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Anyone else find it interesting that Trump is cutting off federal funds instead of using the anti-Klan act? I think his reasoning is purely political. With Klan in the name of the act Democrats would have the talking point that Trump is trying to compare a BLM to the Klan, which is a winning argument for them no matter how silly.

    Can anyone think of any legal reasons I might not know about that he chose his current path over the other options?

    1. Doesn’t the Klan Act require jury trials?

      This appears to be Administrative procedures instead.

      1. That would make sense. Jury trials would take a ton of time and aren’t a guarantee.

        1. Not that as much as where you are drawing the jury pool from.

          1. DC I’m guessing from your comment.

            1. Did you see that whistleblower that talked about how they can rig the jury pool in DC?

              As if that was even needed.

              1. Flagged this by accident, apologies (also on behalf of those who let this brain dead UI persist)

    2. Some of the anti-Klan acts hinge on whether you’re committing the crime while masked. That’s kind of problematic at the moment.

      I think the bigger issue is not strictly a legal one. It’s just that Trump has only limited influence over the DOJ. He directly controls a few people at the top, and that’s that. There’s no point in his issuing orders the people down the chain of command will ignore or sabotage.

      1. Assuming sabotage, why can’t he do something about it? There’s a difference between a largely independent day to day agency following general instructions from the top (the correct and natural consequence of elections in a democracy) in pursuit of law enforcement, and actively sabotoging those policies.

        1. Its not like La Resistance was secretive about it. They even published an anonymous op-ed in like the NYT or WAPO.

        2. Why can’t he do anything about it? You mean, aside from civil service protections?

          He’s only got so much leverage, and so much time to apply to it. Suppose you were trying to turn the Titanic away from the iceberg, and most of the crew were trying to hit it?

          1. Better example was the Exxon Valdez — the 3rd mate was trying to steer away from the ledge and the computer overrode all his commands and maintained the course heading straight for the ledge, which it managed to hit.

      2. There are two reasons why President Trump hasn’t rooted out the Deep State after three and a half years.

        1. It doesn’t exist. The nearest thing we have is the self-confessed White House resistance, but those were senior administration officials rather than low-level bureaucrats and their objective wasn’t to sabotage his policies, it was to prevent the worst effects of his unprincipled impulses.

        2. This is a President who never accepts responsibility for any failure, so on those occasions when one can’t be blamed on an actual opponent it is useful to have an Eastasia to pin it on. Going through the motions of a purge and declaring the threat eliminated would leave him without an excuse.

        1. “Deep State…doesn’t exist.”
          That’s absolute nonsense. Please look into the releases of documents, showing the FBI’s concerted effort to take down Trump. This is the probably the biggest political scandal in a century.

          1. I’m not sure this is bigger than QAnon or when President Bush murdered all those Americans on 9/11. It’s probably closer to when NASA faked the moon landing.

            1. This is why the Federal Class gets away with oppressing us, spying on us, and creating a two tier justice system.

              You people act like its not true no matter what facts come out.

              1. But how do you know the facts that came out weren’t also faked by the deep state? Maybe the deep state is pro President Trump, and they’ve been falsely accusing DOJ personnel of spying on us and being out to get the President, just to make the President look good? Had you considered that?

                If there’s one thing I know for sure, it is that facts that support my personal views are presumptively true, and facts that do not support my personal views are either false and unsupported or, if supported, merely part of the coverup.

                1. hey remember when those VA staffers literally killed vets by putting then on secret wait lists and denying then care?

                  Did you know they still got bonuses and no one was even fired?

                  Thats the Deep State in action.

          2. This has become received wisdom on the right.

            It’ll fade, like the Clinton Death List and Birtherism and Nixon wuz railroaded.

            For now, it’s the tonic the troops need. Later, it’ll fade and they’ll be onto some other secret history.

            1. If it does fade that’s just evidence of the cover-up, which has always been the real scandal.

              1. I do like the conspiracy hipsters that go on about Nixon or McCarthy.

      3. ” Trump has only limited influence over the DOJ.”

        This will come as a surprise to the Attorney General, who has his lips firmly attached to the royal buttocks.

        1. And if the AG were the entirety of the Department of Justice, you’d have a point.

          1. If it’s an IRS targeting controversy, or Operation Fast and Furious, either the President or the Attorney General are the puppet masters, directing every cog in the vast bureaucratic machine. But this President has no power, and therefore is totally unaccountable.

            1. Emergent behavior.

              Have you ever heard of that? Its how birds flock. It also explains things like every agency in the State of Michigan harassing that doctor who sued Whitmer. Whitmer doesn’t need to directly command her government fascists for them to engage in oppression.

              These government fascists can act independently and on their own.

              1. And conveniently unfalsifiable, to boot!

                1. You can falsify it by uncovering the commands from the top. You dunce.

                  1. Not as you wrote it above – no need for direct commends, you said.

                    1. You can falsify my emergent behavior observation by exposing a conspiracy.

                      Think man. Good grief.

                    2. Or, maybe, there is neither conspiracy nor emergent behavior, and Trump is really just that bad at his job.

                    3. And Orange Man Bad is how you explain the IRS targeting or what those agencies in Michigan are doing to that doctor who sued Whitmer or what LA County is doing to MacArthur?

                      You’re deranged and pathetic.

                    4. Ah yes name calling. The true indicator of a strong argument.

              2. The perfect conspiracy! It needs no direct command from on top. That means you don’t even need evidence of an actual conspiracy, you just need to find conduct you don’t like, and it transforms into a conspiracy.

                You know what else is a great example of emergent behavior? Conspiracy theories.

                1. Its a conspiracy how birds flock! Its a conspiracy how autonomous drones can coordinate with a conspiracy!

                  The people in government do oppression happen citizens. Emergent behavior explains how it can happen without it being a conspiracy.

                  Take new knowledge and grow instead of staying ignorant, reactionary, and tribalist.

                  1. “Its a conspiracy how autonomous drones can coordinate withOUT a conspiracy!”

    3. “Can anyone think of any legal reasons I might not know about that he chose his current path over the other options?”

      He is an idiot. The worst kind of idiot, a lazy one.

      1. No, he’s pragmatic.

  2. I found responses to the Clint Bolick thread disappointing. I have a question for libertarians, about rights and their practical enforcement. Whatever you think your rights may be, do you agree with me that government is usually the principal threat to them? If so, what power greater than the power of government do you suppose is available to protect your rights, after some powerless court demands that the government which is violating your rights instead act to protect them?

      1. Now to answer lathrop’s questions directly.

        Whatever you think your rights may be, do you agree with me that government is usually the principal threat to them?
        Answer: Yes. Closely followed by the threat of corrupt men and women. Those are the principal threats to liberty.

        If so, what power greater than the power of government do you suppose is available to protect your rights, after some powerless court demands that the government which is violating your rights instead act to protect them?
        Answer: The ballot box.

        1. Answer: The cartridge box

        2. >Answer: Yes. Closely followed by the threat of corrupt men and women. Those are the principal threats to liberty.

          Corrupt men and women who make up the people in government?

          Why do so many people act as of government is some sentient being, and not just a group of people? People also seem to act if you are a human who works in government you are somehow immune to human vices and failings and are some sort of altruistic and omnipotent demigod.

        3. “If so, what power greater than the power of government do you suppose is available to protect your rights, after some powerless court demands that the government which is violating your rights instead act to protect them?
          Answer: The ballot box.”

          The President is actively asking his supporters to vote twice while his appointed officers actively interfere with absentee voting and vote-by-mail.
          So, sorry, the ballot box isn’t going to protect you from disenfrachisement.

    1. Stephen, to answer your question, here is Thomas Jefferson:

      ““[T]he several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and .. nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”

      1. Could you expand? If the government is the problem, how is empowering state governments the solution?

        1. His side is sometimes able to win fair elections at the state level.

        2. It’s not an infallible resort, but it’s normally more efficacious.

          The proportion of the citizens to the State authorities is greater than that to the Federal authorities. Therefore the weight of their opinions is greater in the former to the latter.

          It’s just the usual formula that the more local the government, the greater the power its citizens can exert upon the magistrates.

          1. Counterpoint, if you assume that humans are on the whole more good than bad, the larger the polity, the less likely aberrant bad behavior will emerge by popular will. A historical example would be Jim Crow south.

            1. I assume humans are on the whole more good than bad, but that politics effectively concentrates the bad, both because the lust for power is a bad trait itself, and a lot of things about how politics is practiced give bad people the advantage.

              In local politics you have the first pass of “distillation”, the people in charge are worse than the average run of folks, but not yet terrible. By the time you reach the state level, you have double distilled evil, and at the federal level you’re talking the hard stuff, the people who clawed their way to the top over the bodies of those not evil enough to make it.

              1. If you have a democratic feedback loop it doesn’t matter how evil the elected officials are. Eventually they will be no more evil than the polity. But the smaller the polity, the greater the likelihood that the polity is evil, too.

  3. Is it time we add political affiliation as a protected class at the federal level?

    1. It already is. Republican presidential candidates are a protected class. Bush v. Gore.

      1. Trump had long running coup attempt against him and zero Democrats will be held accountable.

        Federal Democrats already are a protected class, they even have their own (lack of) Justice System.

        1. Disaffected, paranoid clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties. Their impotent seething indicates American progress continues.

          1. Kirkland, be careful of what you ask for, you might well get it.

            1. I want American progress rooted in science, inclusiveness, reason, education, freedom, modernity, and tolerance (at the expense of ignorance, bigotry, backwardness, superstition, authoritarianism, and insularity).

              So far, I have gotten what I have asked for. I want and expect more of it.

              What do you ask for, Dr. Ed 2?

              1. Tell me what about the science that says there is one mammal that can change its biological sex by the power of thought alone. Then change back, affirmed by the 4th Circuit.

                Can you tell me about that science?

                1. I do not know much about that element of science.

                  Neither does a half-educated bigot, Sam.

        2. “Trump had long running coup attempt against him and zero Democrats will be held accountable.”

          In today’s “duh” news, the military is largely Republican. If they attempted a coup, why would you blame any Democrats for what Republicans do/did?

          1. Not if he ordered them to — and to his credit, he didn’t.

            1. Could you try making your point again, in English this time?

      2. “Bush v. Gore.”

        20 years of butt hurt. Excellent.

        1. It’s probably good that conservative culture war casualties get a periodic flicker of relief from their general, desolate plight on the wrong side of history.

        2. Establishing the point that it isn’t necessary to count all the ballots to decide who won the election.
          Helpful when one candidate is urging people to try to vote for him twice, in hopes of slowing down the polling place, causing people who wanted to vote for the other guy to give up and go home without voting.

          1. Establishing that any count must use standards is important.

    2. Sam, affirmative action for communists?

    3. Asking for special treatment? Too sensitive?

      1. I’m asking for the same treatment as everyone else, to not be discriminated against.

  4. Anyone else notice the WORLDWIDE rebellion to mask mandates and related fiats associated with the Wuhan Flu?

    In the past 10 days, violence in Germany where they stormed the Reichstag, and protests in both England & France. Two protests in Massachusetts, anticipation of which caused Baker to activate the NG. And ongoing pieces in the pokice report about store clerks being physically assaulted by customers refusing to wear masks.

    This is unprecedented.

    1. Dr. Ed 2, nah, it’s highly precedented. It’s right in line with standard right wing political tactics: block and obstruct at all costs any government initiative which threatens to deliver a positive and popular outcome. If your main political point is that government cannot work, you quite naturally fall into doing whatever disruptive things you can to make sure government fails. Getting that done is a cause which right wing dark money funders will rally to.

      1. They took the lead from the public health establishment.

        However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives. Protests against systemic racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence, must be supported.

        – 1200 public health experts (emphasis added)

      2. Boy, you really don’t want to look into the Democratic control of big cities and the protests and rioting.

        Correct answer: both sides have the elites at the top being opportunists to gain power stepping on the freedom and rights of the people and leading outrage crusades. I’m watching two sides screaming the other side stinks, while wearing a clothes pin on their nose because of the people behind them, not in front.

        1. Krayt, so is it your view that Democrats also seek to block and obstruct at all costs any government initiative which promises to deliver a positive and popular outcome? I’m not seeing that. What examples do you suggest?

          1. The description of the quality and type of outcome as positive, of course, depends on how it is portrayed by the politicians.

            So Trump portrays his as positive, wins, and gets obstructed by Democrats in the normal political process (and some unusual ones as well). This is fine by me, but I am not the one claiming they are not obstructing things. Nor do I claim Trumps policies are good. Like most libertarians, I have grave problems with a lot of it.

            And a lot of the Democrats’ policies. Every time, for example, a Democrat squeaks not “I want everyone to have health insurance”, but rather “I want socialized, cost-cutting, price-controlled medicine”, I think, “They want to slow development of medical technology and drugs, increasing needless deaths over a faster invention policy over decades”.

            So the most kind-hearted portrayal is a hideous thing that needs defeating.

            Hence my lament it is too bad both can’t lose the election as they both richly deserve.

            1. How long have to labored under the misapprehension that you can change reality by imagining things differently?

              1. You think a government monopoly on Healthcare would be efficient, cost saving and innovative?

                Why do you think that?

      3. This assumes those initiatives are positive and popular.

        Popular often, especially in this context, depends upon who is framing the narrative – and this usually is awarded to the government magistrates as they are afforded the “bully pulpit”. Look beyond the facade and they don’t necessarily seem so popular. In addition to Dr Ed’s examples there are many, especially in my region of Michigan where most people simply ignore the putative “popular” restrictions.

        As far as “positive”, how does any one person or group of people, short of a super-majority know? Is it not wiser to commence by imposing limited policies and then gradually accelerate if later circumstances warrant them?

    2. Watch this pregnant woman in AUS being arrested in her own home . . . for a Facebook post! In which she attempted to organize a peaceful protest against government tyranny.

      The same jurisdiction where a cop choked and body slammed a girl for not wearing a mask . . . although she had a medical exemption.

      1. And tackled a mother to the ground and handcuffed her in front of her daughter.

        Victoria police should be so proud in contributing to the hysteria and lack of humanity on display.

        1. That wouldn’t be happening if they hadn’t first confiscated the guns.

          1. Yes, tackling her wouldn’t be happening.

            But would be happening instead? If the US is any guide, the cops would assume, as they so often do, that the person is armed and just, oh, I don’t know, shoot her in the back seven times instead of tackling her.

            More guns is always the solution!

            1. More guns plus no accountability for using ’em.
              “Your honor, I feared for my life, so I had to shoot him”
              “Of course you did. Case dismissed. You’re free to go.”

              1. Exactly, James.

                Have a gun? Then it’s the other guy’s fault if he gets shot. I think we should move toward strict liability for use of a firearm outside one’s home (and gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance for guns carried outside the home, just like with an auto.). If you choose to take a gun out in public, then you bear the consequences if things escalate to a shooting (whether self-defense or not). Guns make people more likely to engage in confrontation, not less. Incentives matter, because of the psychological incentive to play big man with a gun, there should be a counter-incentive to discourage playing big man with a gun.

  5. Why is politician the best career to become a multimillionaire these days?

    Why is a double income federal family a top 5% household in terms of total compensation?

    Why are the richest counties in America DC suburbs?

    Why do federal agencies exist where people who are unelected, can’t be fired, and often with budgets not appropriated by Congress allowed to make law?

    Why are the economic sectors most heavily controlled by the people in government
    the worst ones in terms of performance and outcomes?

    Why do the people in government, through direct spending and compliance, control over $1 in every $3 spent in our economy?

    1. Why is politician the best career to become a multimillionaire these days?


      Why is a double income federal family a top 5% household in terms of total compensation?

      SEE NEXT

      Why are the richest counties in America DC suburbs?


      Why do federal agencies exist where people who are unelected, can’t be fired, and often with budgets not appropriated by Congress allowed to make law?


      Why are the economic sectors most heavily controlled by the people in government
      the worst ones in terms of performance and outcomes?

      RES IPSA

      Why do the people in government, through direct spending and compliance, control over $1 in every $3 spent in our economy?


      ALL OF THESE ISSUES COME FROM 1 PLACE – THE PEOPLE. YOU MAY NOT LIKE WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS OR HOW IT OPERATES, BUT THIS GOVERNMENT ONLY GETS AWAY WITH WHAT THE PEOPLE ALLOW. (as long as we have legitimate elections, or least elections that the people believe are legit. when that changes all bets are off)

      1. The political class has re-election rates nearing Saddam’s Iraq and the USSR.

        They’ve rigged the system and the people do not have a voice.

      2. “Why do the people in government, through direct spending and compliance, control over $1 in every $3 spent in our economy?”

        Vivid imagination, is why.

        1. Our GDP is $19T.

          Government spending at all levels is over $8T.

          Regulatory compliance is also several trillion dollars.

          That puts the number closer to $1 in $2, not $1 in $3.

          But facts don’t matter to you true believers.

          1. You’re imagining precision is impressive and not that impressive, both at the same time.

            1. Can you point out where I am wrong?

      3. You were doing well up until the end. Elections do not make any difference.

    2. Why do federal agencies exist where people who are unelected, can’t be fired, and often with budgets not appropriated by Congress allowed to make law?

      Because “democracy, yay!” is a memetic rationale for the power hungry to lord over you. It isn’t supposed to actually be used for its primary purpose, to kick you out by holding you accountable for your actions.

      The primary justification for the regulatory state is literally that “it takes the politics out of it”.

      So much for the need for democracy.

    3. “Why is politician the best career to become a multimillionaire these days?”

      The highest-paid public employees are sports coaches.

      1. Politicians don’t make their millions from salary.

        1. The sports coaches have side hustles.

    4. The federal government is mostly run by a permanent, unelected bureaucratic state.

      The actions of Congress and the President are at best, occasional ripples felt through the government.

      It’s time for the federal government to be dissolved like a corporation and rebooted.

      1. You have made things up. You don’t know of what you speak.

        Political appointees still drive agency policy.

        Right-wingers outside the government insisting they know of secret sabotage is not a legitimate source.

        1. The appointees are temporary but the bureaucrats are permanent and resist things they don’t like. The rules require a long time to implement any substantive change and internal inertia nd opposition can delay something until the next appointee. Each bureaucracy has it’s own culture which generally favors it’s own expansion and “mission” The EPA favors environmental regulation. The State Department wants to talk things to death. The Military like to blow thing up. etc.

          1. Except you have no proof that bureaucrats are so unprofessional as to put their personal feelings before their leadership’s desires. You just declare so.

            I declare no. Most you get is bureaucrats saying someone else has to do a task, because they have a problem of conscience.

            1. What proof do you have that they are so free of bias?
              I am not suggesting corruption but bias.

              1. As much proof as you do.

                As the one asserting the thing, the burden is on you. No one pushing your preferred narrative in this thread has provided any evidence beyond bare assertion.

                  1. What do you think this proves?

                    1. >Except you have no proof that bureaucrats are so unprofessional as to put their personal feelings before their leadership’s desires.

                      Unless you think these secret proceedings were done from the top.

                    2. I don’t think it proves anything like what you think it does.

                    3. Why not?

                    4. 1) the article is all smoke no fire. Looks like the Congressional investigation they mentioned petered out.
                      2) there is zero mention of political appointees and this article was written in 2013, so you also need to prove leadership desires otherwise.

          2. “The appointees are temporary but the bureaucrats are permanent and resist things they don’t like.”

            Like when the monkey wrenchers get appointed and show up to try to destroy the agency’s ability to serve the express purpose.

        2. Sarcastr0,
          You are unquestionably neither a dunce nor uneducated. But perhaps some of your education has been restricted. (And your being a bureaucrat doesn’t necessarily tilt your perspective.)

          Even back more than a half-century ago there were not a few scholarly studies asserting that the Fourth Branch of government had arguably acquired an “organic quality”. It was able to survive, persist, and propagate on its own.

          Through public consciousness of its policies – many of which were admittedly prudent, responsible and, even, necessary – the citizens were “educated” as to the necessity of its existence. This symbiosis enhanced its organic potential.

          In the last half-century this process has unquestionably flourished.

          1. Having an organic quality is not the same as being the deep state.

    5. Maybe you should work on your set of facts?

      1) It’s not. There are far more people who become multimillionaires in many other professions.

      2) It almost never is. Top 5% household income in the US is ~$375K, so you need two jobs that pay on average ~$188K. For the DC area, GS-15 tops out at ~$170K, so that’s not going to get you there. For some agencies, even the top SES pay scale isn’t going to get you there. For that matter, even most political appointees aren’t going to get paid enough. Two Under Secretaries (Executive Schedule Level III) won’t earn enough to break into the top 5%.

      3) Because there’s a high concentration of skilled white collar laborers, and counties turn out to be a slightly weird way to measure income concentration. If you look by zip code instead none of the DC burbs show up in the top 100. They tend to have upper middle class levels of wealth, but not the extremely high levels of wealth you see in Silicon Valley, New York, etc. The reasons that Santa Clara County and New York County don’t show up as high as the DC burbs, though, is that there tends to be more income inequality and bimodal distribution in wealth in those places whereas the government jobs in DC do tend to smooth income distribution towards the upper middle class.

      4) I don’t understand your question. Only Congress can make laws. Federal agencies exist because governments need people to implement those laws and in the US that’s done by the executive branch. Congress has passed laws to create those agencies to do so.

      5) They don’t. Pharmaceuticals are highly regulated but very profitable. The apparel business is not very regulated at all and not a strong performer.

      6) Because people really like entitlement programs and the military.

      1. Trying to reason, using facts, with the fans of this blog is a waste of time. You can’t reason with superstition, bigotry, or belligerent ignorance.

        (You can lather up the rubes, though, as the Volokh Conspiracy demonstrates daily.)

      2. Re: #2, I said total compensation, you stated salary. Weird.

        Re: #3 What highly skilled white collar labor lives in the DC suburbs it? it is a fact that the more educated you are, the less the federal government pays you with respect to the private sector. It is a magnet for the stupid.

        Re: #4 you have never heard of an independent agency that can make regulation?

        Re: #5 Banking, Healthcare are doing just great guys!

        # 6. Can’t be any other reason?

        1. 2) If you think I’m wrong, show your math–it’s not like the federal government pays big bonuses or hands out stock options. Non-cash compensation isn’t included in household income data, so I’m curious how you think you’re computing total compensation in the first place.

          3) The counties in the DC suburbs have some of the highest rates of educational attainment in the country. I get that you think all government bureaucrats are morons, but looking at objective criteria there’s a strong correlation between educational attainment and income throughout the country, so it’s not surprising that this is true in the DC suburbs as well.

          4) I have indeed. I remain confused by what your point is.

          5) Are you trying to be sarcastic? Banking and healthcare are indeed doing great. Banking is probably the most profitable overall sector in the economy, and healthcare has been making tons of money:

          6) That’s where the government spends most of its money and polling data seems to support my position. Feel free to propose an alternative theory, though.

          1. “DC suburbs have some of the highest rates of educational attainment in the country.”

            Translation from Prog-ese to plain English: “DC environs inhabitants have experienced some of the highest rates of globalist technocratic credentialed indoctrination, and that’s why they live and work in DC.”

            1. My response with sources is stuck in moderation. In the meantime here are the facts.

              The CBO itself established the fact that the federal government over pays stupid people and under pays smart people w.r.t. the private sector. So its not likely DC is filled with white collar geniuses.

              2018, total compensation for the average federal worker, $135k. Nearly double that of the average citizen.

              Your 375k number is the mean, 248k is the lower limit. I’m pretty sure 135k+135k is more than 248k. I could be wrong though.

              There are over 30 independent agencies, many of whom regulatory agencies whose regulations have the force of law. In your mind, what are these independent agencies independent from?

              Healthcare is doing so great the Democrats want to take over the entire sector? Banking is so great Democrats are calling to cease all reforms? Education is so great Democrats are saying they finally have enough funds and the tuition crisis is a myth? You people talk out of both sides of your mouths.

              1. First, you’re right about the $248K figure. I thought I was looking at the 95th percentile cutoff, but clearly was not. See how easy it is to admit when you’re wrong? You should practice, because you’re wrong about basically everything else.

                I assume the CBO study you’re referring to is this, which I’m going to use as a reference for the next couple of observations:


                First, it makes no sense to compare total compensation numbers (which include non-cash income like benefits) with household income numbers (which do not), which is what you’re doing by looking at total comp for federal workers and trying to figure out what percentile of household income they fall into. The people in the private sector earning $100K plus a year also get health insurance, contributions to their retirement plans, etc. The federal government’s benefits are, on average, more generous than the private sector for most people, but even in the private sector the average employee is seeing total comp about 50% higher than wage income ($37.20 per hour in wages and $18.00 per hour in benefits for the average private sector employee). If we adjust the household income numbers at this ratio, we end up with a 95th percentile total comp figure at about $368K, so nearly as high as the number I used last go-round. Once again, it is possible but very unlikely to find two income federal couples that would meet this threshold since even the average wages for a two-income “Professional Degree or Doctorate” couple won’t cross this threshold. Such a couple would be in the 90th percentile for income, but that would be true for a private sector couple with similar degrees so the only news here is that two income couples where both people have professional degrees or doctorates earn a lot of money.

                Second, you’re trying to simultaneously argue that the DC suburbs are high income because of all the government employees, but also that said government employees are “dumb” by which you mean, I guess, have low level of educational attainment since that’s what the CBO report focuses on. (As an aside, you and Miss Greenparker should probably have a chat since she seems to very much not believe that educational attainment is a good proxy for intelligence.). But all of the data points in the other direction: the DC suburbs do, in fact, have some of the highest levels of educational attainment in the country. DC proper and Fairfax counties have nearly double the fraction of the population with Bachelor’s Degrees or higher as the population as a whole, and Arlington County is more like 2.5x (75% vs. 32%), with a majority of the college grads having gone on to advanced degrees. The federal workforce in general is considerably more educated than the population as a whole. The federal government does indeed pay people without college degrees considerably more than the private sector, but this represents a minority of the federal workforce and has basically nothing to do with what’s going on with the suburbs.

                As for health care and banking, your point is basically completely incoherent. The reason that people on the left want health care reform isn’t because the health care industry isn’t profitable enough, it’s because we spend way more than any other country on health care and still deliver a substandard product that doesn’t even provide universal coverage. Similarly, the financial sector is extremely profitable but at least parts of the system have become dead weight upon the economy–extracting profits for the banks themselves without adding value. (This is not true of many parts of the financial sector, but I think there’s a reasonable argument to be had about whether, e.g., Private Equity or High Frequency Trading do anything other than move money from other parts of the economy into the pockets of the bankers.)

                1. You roll your household income by factoring in compensation then immediately exclude it from the federal workers calculation. While bashing me for allegedly doing the same.

                  The DC suburbs are the wealthiest in the country because its filled with overpaid Federal dances. Thats what the facts suggest.

                  And with healthcare and banking here you are again talking out of both sides of your mouth. Healthcare is perfect because look at all the profits, healthcare needs to be taken over because look at the high costs!

                  Our healthcare costs are so high because our per capita public spending alone exceeds every other OECD country but one. Yet our public dollars only care for 1/3rd of the population whereas those other countries care for more.

                  One must be economically illiterate to believe the people who are spending a majority of our healthcare dollars and heavily regulate the rest can some how spend less than what they spend now of we grant them a monopoly.

                  As if the genius of central planning and government monopolies can’t work unless they are in total control of the entire sector, anything less and they are miserable failures.

                  Its irrational.

                  1. overpaid federal dunces

        2. Yeah, you want to get rich, don’t be a politician.

          You already are rich and want a bit of national power…that’s why people get into politics.

          I don’t understand why so many on the right can’t understand that.

          Defense contractors make the fat sacks.

          Regulations aren’t laws. And most agencies are appropriated.

          Yeah, you have no idea what you’re talking about, but you’re hoping your indignation will paper over any inaccuracies.

          1. Regulations only have the force of law, guys! See how wrong he is guys!

            There are over 30 independent agencies many of which are lawmaking.

            When an agency is independent, what is it independent from?

            1. You’re being purposefully obtuse about what regulations are and how agencies get the power to make them.

              1. Congress grants them some ambiguous broad grant of power then these unelected, unaccountable, and unfireable bureaucrats turn that broad grant into concrete and specific laws.

                What am I misunderstanding? Do you think because Congress defines their scope, that they aren’t doing anything on their own?

                1. You’re saying what you feel to be true, not providing actual facts.

                  Regulations have the force of law but not it’s scope, they are vehicles of implementation, operationalizing a legal charge by Congress.
                  Laws trump regulations.
                  Regulations require notice and comment. Laws do not.
                  Regulations are reviewable under the ACA; laws are not.

                  1. Do people go to prison for violating regs?

                    If so, they are laws we just call regulations.

                    1. Choosing to look only at penalties just makes you myopic, not correct.

                  2. You’re desperately trying to make distinction where there is no real difference.

                    Unelected, unfireable, unaccountable bureucrats can create something that if you violate it you can be fined or imprisoned.

                    I don’t give a crap about your pedantic parsing, it doesn’t ameliorate the simple fact I stated above and stated originally.

      3. “Why are the economic sectors most heavily controlled by the people in government
        the worst ones in terms of performance and outcomes?”

        Just look at all the poor people running financial services businesses. Regulated to death and they don’t even get to keeps any of the money.

        1. Is that what current Democrat leaders are echoing about that sector?

          That it’s a success and nothing else is needed?

  6. You know, maybe the lawyers and law professors can weigh in on a topic of recent interest. I want to try a thought experiment of sorts. I have one: what is the liability of nursing home operators, executive branch employees (like a governor), and administrative bureaucracy employees (like state regulators) in promulgating executive orders or regulatory rules that required nursing homes to take in Covid-19 patients back in March and April.

    In my state, we had thousands of nursing home patients die of covid-19. Pretend for a moment I am your client. I engage you to argue the case that these people have legal liability.

    Would love to read the argue on ‘Yes you have a case, and here is generally why’ and ‘no you do not have a case and here is generally why’.

    Now for the thought experiment: Make both cases. 🙂

    These cases are bubbling up now in my state.

    1. the government will claim sovereign immunity so youre out of luck, and its gonna be hard to find liability for a nursing home that was following orders from the state.

      but once we get past the election, i wouldnt be surprised if the state (likely using federal bailout funds) sets aside a fund to payoff some of these types of claims, not because they are legally legit but because some of that money would go to the plaintiff’s bar and those folks are solid dem contributors. so its a flow of money to democrats, a lot like union dues.

      1. “the government will claim sovereign immunity so youre out of luck, and its gonna be hard to find liability for a nursing home that was following orders from the state.”

        I think this is true.

    2. A lot depends on what sort of communications are uncovered by the DOJ’s present investigation into this. If they find some email chains indicating that the people issuing the orders expected people to die as a result, maybe intended that they die as a result, (Viewed it as a cost saving measure?) then I suspect sovereign immunity could be pierced.

      If the communications indicate they were just being moronic, probably not.

      1. I think this is close to right. In my state at least, sovereign immunity, which shields the state and its agencies from suit, could not be pierced. But official immunity, which protects individual government officials from personal liability, can be overcome upon a showing of “bad faith”, which has been defined to mean essentially a willful intent to harm. If you had emails of state officials saying they we’re sacrificing people for the greater good (whether that be requiring nursing homes to take infected people, trying to achieve “herd immunity”, etc.), that may be enough to get your foot in the door. But even if you have a doctrinally viable case, you still have to get a court to override the decisions of the officials. Not a case I’d want to take, unless the emails were really outrageous.

      2. One wild card is USA Andrew Lelling’s investigation of the Holyoke (MA) Soldier’s home that could become problematic to both the Baker Adm & Mass RINOs *and* Mass Dems. A lot of politically-connected families are involved if you include the home’s board of directors.

        And the nexis here is the Federal money, hence no(?) Sovereign Immunity *because* of the Federal money because they were veterans.

  7. Harry Potter is an allegory on racism and bigotry but not a very good one imo. The problem is bigotry in the Potterverse works differently than it does in real life.

    In RL bigotry (leaving aside whether its justified) usually has some spark or trigger. Different appearances, cultural behaviors, and the suspicions of conspiracy that arise from it etc etc

    Muggleborns from all the evidence we see aside from their backgrounds are essentially indistinguishable from the rest of wizard kind. They don’t look different, they don’t appear to group together in ethnic blocs, and don’t appear to otherwise behave differently in any significant fashion. Technically the cultures of Wizardkind and muggles are different but examples of cultural faux pas on the part of muggleborns themselves are very muted and mostly limited to children who quickly adapt. Adult Muggleborns are basically identical to other wizards but with expanded knowledge of muggles. Muggleborns don’t appear to agitate politically as a distinct group either. Most ‘proMuggleborn’ legislation seems to be pushed by pure/halfbloods like Dumbledore and would change Wizard society in a way that is invisible to Wizardkind since Muggleborns themselves should be invisible and indistinguishable. Its like pushing for equal rights for Michiganders in the modern US. Who cares?

    Potterverse bigotry would seem to be closer to classism, which although often violent tends to typically be less intense and ingrained than the more familiar bigotry. But even then it doesn’t quite fit historical examples of classism. For instance the cultural gulf between a Roman plebeian and a patrician when classism was relevant was far more vast than we see in the Potterverse.

    You can make a slightly stronger argument that the trigger is Muggleborns taking resources/taking the jobs of Wizardkind but Wizards have magic and besides logically that would probably lead to more of a classism type of situation since there really isn’t any easy way to tell Muggleborns apart unlike other cases of ‘taking our jobs’.

    The sensible historical parallel left would be a sort of ultra snobbery such as that of artistocrats for newly rich that never manifests as overtly and as virulently its seen in the series. At least not in any examples I’m aware of off the top of my head.

    1. Yes, I think you’re mostly right. It’s much more classicism than racism. Blood purity has always been a part of proper heredity and claim to authority. The common people don’t look much different from the nobility, but they just smell so much different.

      1. If Rowling had written the Potter series 2,000 years ago, wars would have been fought over “verified” pieces of quidditch stick, July 31 would be a holiday, and gullible people would still be asking ‘what would Harry want us to do?’

  8. Why have we not seen the conservative establishment, i.e. Republicans in Congress, the National Review, Fox News etc rise up in mighty protest against the concept that the federal government can legally halt evictions?

    Leases are contracts and are governed by state and local laws. The feds have no role in lease arrangements other than things like non-discrimination. Yet there is massive silence in the face of the federal government saying it has the authority to halt evictions.

    And this is terrible policy! Renters will face back rents when the moratorium ends, and have debts they cannot pay. So then they will be evicted. And landlords face fixed costs (mortage payments, taxes, maintenance, insurance) which they cannot pay. In short, nobody benefits.

    But since this is a Trump policy expecting principled resistence is futile. But a few weeks after a Biden presidency starts, if that happens, expect massive criticism of the policy.

    Just one more instance of the lack of intellectual integrity in so-called conservatives.

    1. As has been pointed out, when the moratorium comes around and many millions cannot pay, it will be heaved onto the debt with an emergency appropriation.

      Good or bad policy, that is the path laid out, the cement is curing already.

      1. “As has been pointed out, when the moratorium comes around and many millions cannot pay, it will be heaved onto the debt with an emergency appropriation.”

        I don’t think so,

    2. “Leases are contracts and are governed by state and local laws.”

      The eviction moratorium doesn’t invalidate the leases. It just delays enforxement for nonperformance by the renter. After the moratorium ends, the landlord can demand payment in full, and begin eviction proceedings if not paid.

      “. In short, nobody benefits.”
      Alternatively, everybody benefits from keeping separated during the pandemic. When the pandemic ends, and there’s no longer a reason to keep everybody at least six feet from everybody else, then we can go back to throwing widows and orphans into the streets to get sick.

      1. This assumes the pandemic _will end_. But if it is artificially defined, and consists of multiple definitions, it may persist forever.

  9. Nancy Pelosi claiming she was “set up” is freakin’ hilarious and I guess her only politically viable response.

    1. Kind of ungracious (actually quite Trump-like) of her to point that out, even though it looks factually accurate. Also: trivial.

      1. Factually accurate? Pelosi was just some innocent amd ignorant victim and not some snobby prog elite?

        You people.

      2. Pelosi claiming it was a set up is beside the point really.

        She still went a salon (which has been unfairly kept in lockdown. Based on weak science I might add. I’m of the opinion there’s literally no scientific basis to continue with this charade and that officials are acting with malice) with others and without a mask.

        Her claim is a little like a pedophile being caught on 20/20 and clapping he was set up. You’re still committing a crime.

        Pelosi was breaking her own cruel and draconian measures imposed on others.

    2. Simultaneously the dumbest and most entertaining recent “news.”

    3. On a larger note, it shouldn’t matter. The Representative should know the law, and should follow the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

      1. That’s true. From the bit I’ve heard; she was set up, and the set-up should not have worked.

        I do want to see the entire video. Pelosi says that she was wearing the mask for almost the entire time, except of course for the time right before/during/right after the hair-washing.

        The full video would confirm or disprove this.

        I’m not the tiniest bit disturbed by the Speaker of the House getting some special privilege. Just like I’m not the least bit disturbed by Trump and the White House getting massive daily rapid Covid testing that the rest of the country does not get. He’s the frickin’ leader of our country…OF COURSE he and his administration should be treated differently in this aspect.

        1. “I’m not the tiniest bit disturbed by the Speaker of the House getting some special privilege”


          1. For the exact same reason I’m not bothered by a few special privileges for the president, for federal judges and justices, etc..

            But I should have been more clear. Due to VASTLY higher security risks for these people, I do not mind if stores open just for them, for their own safety. The fact that Pelosi made efforts to have her hair done in her own house, as was her custom, and only went into this business after it proved impossible to have a stylist come to her house, and (apparently, but I’m far from 100% sure of this) after being told, “We’ll open the business just for you, which is fine, as we’re allowed to open up for one single customer at a time.” . . . all of that adds to my No. Big. Deal. attitude.

            I have no problem if people disagree with me on this. On a scale of 1 to 100, this whole thing rates perhaps a 2. Trump urging his supporters to attempt to vote twice rates at below a 10. No big deals. Now; Atty General Barr whoring his integrity to protect the president? Now we’re getting up there!

            1. I like everyone being treated equally under the law, but hey I’m some backwards clinger who doesn’t understand why some people deserve separate laws because of their political status or skin color.

            2. You’re not “bothered” by “Special privileges” (Like being able to break the law)?

              Let me tell you why it’s an issue.

              Because these are the politicians who are literally writing and enforcing the rules for our lives. And if they tell us something is necessary for safety, something that abridges our rights, but then don’t actually follow those rules themselves, it’s a problem.

              It’s one set of rules for the rich and powerful, and a second for the poor plebs. The rules they make don’t apply to the rich politicians. They don’t have to suffer the restriction in their rights. And it’s always easier to deprive someone ELSE of their rights, but not your own.

              That’s the problem.

      2. For the record, Dan Quayle and “potatoe” was a setup. If you watch the video, he was helping in a spelling bee. They gave him a card and he asked a little girl to spell potato. She spelled it correctly, then he said that was wrong and offered evidence from the card, which spelled it with an ‘e’. No, no teacher screwed up. They deliberately gave him a misspelled up card of a commonly misspelled word, pointed cameras at him, and challenged him to contradict the card’s authority.

        1. There is no evidence the card was intentional and not negligence.

          Also, even given the card it’s dumb as hell.

  10. I love Josh Blackman’s posts typically. But sometimes I wonder if he just wakes up and just starts typing before he even had his morning coffee.

    1. Perhaps if we had enough Josh Blackmans sitting down at typewriters for long enough, they could accidentally produce the Federalist Papers?

      1. So far, they just misinterpret them.

    2. That’s one way to look at it.

      The other is to recognize ‘this is what conservative legal academia has and will become,’ and be content in victory.


    Columnist Rod Dreher reports that Northwestern University Law School held a town hall meeting online, and participants were “require to begin with a ritual denunciation of themselves as racist. The screen shot above is from the discussion.

    You know, I am increasingly seeing ethics stories that require little or no elaboration or commentary, like this morning’s post about the Washington D.C. government favoring eliminating the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument. If you have to have these things explained to you, the probability is that you are already beyond helping, or, perhaps, six.

    What we see above is reminiscent of the forced behavior in Communist re-education camps. I do not what kind of Americans would submit to such a directive, but I do know what must be involved: weak character, weak self-esteem, destructive education, flaccid parenting, basic estrangement from American culture, and dangerous vulnerability to peer pressure.

    And cowardice. Let’s not forget that. These people are cowards. The United States is too good for them. They weaken the nation’s values, strength and spirit by submitting to coerced “confessions” of this kind.

    Oh, how I would have loved to be in the meeting, and announce myself to these sad shells of human beings, so willing to abandon their liberty and self-respect to signal imaginary virtue.

    – Jack Marshall

    1. What such stories require (and they don’t require much more than that) is authentication.

    2. “…If you have to have these things explained to you, the probability is that you are already beyond helping, or, perhaps, six”


    3. Of the various topics here, I’m surprised there were so few replies.

      This trend seems the most-terrifying of any of the present controversies, including those addressed in these comments.

      It’s no longer good enough not to be racist; one has to be anti-racist, whatever that entails. If I have enough time to research scholarly analysis of what constitutes “anti-racism” I’ll try a Blog post on it. But it seems so inexplicable, I’m not sure I have the energy to do so.

  12. Well, the President came right out and asked his supporters to all try to vote more than once.

    1. The Dems have been doing that since the 60’s….

      1. “since the 60’s….”

        1860s, yes.

      2. Assuming that to be true, which I’m not conceding, the Republicans already stole democracy with voter suppression, the electoral college, gerrymandered house seats, and the two senator per state rule, so to the extent that Democrats do try to steal elections, they’re just stealing back.

        1. That pesky Constitution again. I think it predates both Democrats and Republicans.

          1. It’s a living constitution and should be read to give the results we want.

            1. No, it should be read based on some non-existent one original public understanding of the words, and then we get the results we want.

    2. It was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Voting twice in NC is illegal, a felony. So you think the President is soliciting criminal acts? I don’t.

      OTOH, Trump certainly did make a point.

      When I was an elections board member in NC in the 70’s we had hell keeping up with absentee ballots. They were constantly a source of fraud, confusion, delay, and mistake. Luckily for us in my County of Buncombe there were not enough questionable absentee ballots to have affected the final results.

      Nonetheless, I did see some troubling election fraud.

      Therefore, I do not trust wholesale voting by mail. It will be a massive riot of paper ballots… and it will diminish or destroy public confidence in elections, no matter what the end result. Elections should be held where representatives of the political parties, registrar and judges, and the public appear in public polling stations, and in the presence of each other.

      What I hope to do at my advanced age is receive a ballot by mail and stick my completed ballot in a slot at the Board of Elections. Then I’ll wonder if it is counted since the election machinery in NC is controlled by Democrats, and I won’t be voting Democrat.

      1. “obviously tongue-in-cheek”

        A. The President joking about his supporters committing a felony to help him win the election and undermine democracy? Hilarious. (How is this acceptable conduct even if we assume it is a joke?)

        B. The President isn’t claiming he was joking. He is claiming an equally implausible justification, but not that he was joking.

        1. Whats your excuse for when Obama told illegals to go out and vote?

          1. He didn’t say that; you’re either misled or lying.

    3. James,
      Odd that no one is actually responding to your gravamen: THE PRESIDENT SUGGESTED THAT HIS SUPPORTERS VOTE TWICE.

      That’s pretty mind-bending. That’s pretty shocking. Even for Trump (which is saying something).

  13. Any comments on the Pelosi Scandal, where she was recently found to be flouting mask laws and laws regarding closed businesses?

    Does it speak to society, where the high and mighty can flout quarantine laws freely? And the fact Pelosi doesn’t appear to have apologized for her actions?

    Shouldn’t we expect our leaders to follow the same laws that they demand we follow?

    1. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi is a Latin phrase, literally “What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a bull”. The phrase is often translated as “Gods may do what cattle may not”.

      They are the gods, the rest of us are cattle. That’s their attitude.

    2. She’s an entitled, corrupt hypocrite. Big news. I’d take your concern more seriously if you were just as concerned about Trump’s far worse actions. Or any Republican politician, for that matter.

    1. It says you’re wallowing in confirmation bias.

      Bad stuff happens all over the country all the time.

      Pretending that each new bit of human treating each other badly is somehow special to create an ‘O Tempore, O Mores!’ narrative is within our oldest political tradition.

      But it’s not true. I know conservatives being special victims these days is something that you love to believe, but this proves nothing.

      1. Sigh,

        It’s sad to see you ignore this.

        When a woman goes and assaults a 12 year old boy just because he had a Trump sign. Something is very wrong.

        1. Or an assault on an 82 year old man….

          Why are fear and violence being used to attack and suppress those who would support Trump? Is that right?

          1. Meeting my pointing out your invocation of confirmation bias with another confirmation biased example just shows you’re not being serious, just angry.

          2. When you’re accused of cherry picking data it doesn’t really help your argument to go out and pick another cherry.

        2. Its just Baghdad Sacrastro doing his job. Pay him no nevermind.

    2. We could just borrow a page from the right and assert it’s a false flag attack.

      Obviously it’s reprehensible, but I think it’s a bit weird that people who generally expect us to treat each incident of, e.g., police violence or racial discrimination as standalone suddenly wanting to extrapolate out from single events to nationally significant trend.

      The level of political polarization in our country is a problem. This trend has been showing up in worrying ways for years, with the two sides increasingly not sharing a factual ground truth, not being willing to talk to each other (or date/marry people from the other team) and now engaging in violence. But trying to imply that it’s a problem for one side and not the other just makes the problem worse. If you’re concerned about this, maybe the question you should be asking is how we as a society take a step back from this level of extreme polarization.

      1. JB,

        Part of me wishes I could say it’s a problem for both sides. But…that’s not necessarily true. There have been a number of attacks…physical attacks…on people for having Trump hats or signs. Completely out of nowhere, no protests, no yelling… Just walking down the street with a Trump hat or sign, minding your own business, and BAM, someone decides to punch you in the face because of that hat.

        I can’t remember any stories like this for Obama supporters. Or Hillary supporters. Or Biden supporters. Where they were outright attacked, no provocation, no warning. Perhaps you can find some.

        Then there are polls like the one below, where Conservatives are afraid to discuss their political views in public. “Strong” liberals are not. Why is that? Is it because Conservatives are afraid that they’re just going to be punched in the face for having a political view?

        1. To Sacrast0’s point, the reason you don’t hear about violence in the other direction is because the American right is engaged in a massive self-pity party that attempts to amplify any slight against it.

          But if you’re really stuck thinking this is a thing that OMG only the Democrats do and you haven’t noticed all the store employees getting assaulted trying to enforce mask requirements:

          Dallas Frazier, 29, got out of his truck and repeatedly punched a 61-year-old anti-Trump protester in the head outside a Trump rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, in August 2019.

          Randal Thom was arrested for attempting to assault supporters of Elizabeth Warren at a campaign event for the Massachusetts senator in Storm Lake, Iowa, in January 2019. He hit a Warren supporter with a selfie stick, according to one report, and yelled “Trump 2020!” before being placed in a police car.

          Caesar Sayoc mailed 16 homemade pipe bombs to prominent critics of Trump across the country and to CNN, the cable news station most frequently derided by the president.

          Morris May pepper-sprayed the face of a demonstrator preparing for a “Stand Against Hate” rally in Asbury Park, New Jersey, in September 2017. He was wearing a shirt referencing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.

          Louis Travieso attacked two men and a woman in Washington DC, after one of them made a comment about his red Make America Great Again baseball cap and said they had a problem with his politics. He straddled one of the men and punched him 20 times in the face. Police arrested Travieso, 32, and he was charged with assault.

          Brandon Davis knocked a gay man off his bicycle by ramming his scooter into him in Key West, Florida, in February 2017. He used homophobic slurs, told the man and his partner: “You’re in Trump country now” and noted they probably voted for “that bitch Hillary”.

          1. Note the difference there.

            “Outside a Trump Rally”
            “Said they had a problem with his politics”

            Instead of, just minding your own business, doing nothing, and BAM, a teenager or old guy is hit.

            1. Well, I only listed the ones where the perpetrator had been clearly identified. The random acts of violence (like your case in Colorado) tend not to result in arrests or IDs, e.g.:


      2. Except it’s just about crystal clear it does come from one side: The progressive left. The right are just playing defence and jabbing back.

        The Economist, Pew, and NYT all published articles that showed the Democrat party had pulled left whereas the GOP pretty much stayed in the middle.

  14. Mail-in votes should be required to be received and accounted for by November 3rd and no later. That’s election day. Can you vote the next day? No. It’s a simple deadline.

    Democrats have intentionally set things up contrary to this common sense, because this looming disaster is very deliberately planned to undermine our elections.

    The wild accusations are always projection. After years of “destroying our democracy” talk, this particular projection is coming into focus.

    Bloomberg-Funded Group: Trump May Win Election Night, But Joe Biden Will Win Days Later Due to Mail-in Votes

    “Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of Hawkfish — funded by Bloomberg and currently working for various pro-Biden super PACs — told Axios that his firm predicts a “red mirage” where Trump wins on election day but Biden wins the election days later when mail-in votes are counted . .

    Mendelsohn claims it could take weeks before Trump’s election night victory is chipped away at by mail-in votes that will show Biden as the winner . .

    Hawkfish’s claims come as a Democrat operative detailed large-scale mail-in voting fraud conducted for years by him and staff in states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. Part of the operation includes rigging elections for Democrats through paying homeless voters off, taking advantage of the elderly, posing as registered voters, and printing up fake ballots.

    Democrats have fought to implement universal mail-in voting, where every registered voter on state voter rolls is mailed a ballot unsolicited, though many efforts are being challenged in court.

    Last month, the Trump campaign filed suit against Nevada for their universal mail-in voting plans that would allow votes submitted after election day to count for the election. More than 223,000 mail-in ballots sent to registered voters in Las Vegas, Nevada, for their June primary bounced as “undeliverable” — 17 percent of the total 1,325,934 mail-in ballots that were sent out in the county.

    Currently, Democrats are fighting in Pennsylvania to ensure mail-in votes received after election day are counted.

    Primary elections held in crucial swing states like Wisconsin have revealed major issues with mail-in voting. Data from 11 cities in Wisconsin, published in May, shows that at least 30,000 mail-in votes were counted after election day.

    Recent data has not shown a compelling public health justification for mail-in voting. In Wisconsin’s April election, only 52 of more than 400,000 voters and poll workers were confirmed to have contracted the Chinese coronavirus. None of those cases were fatal. This equals an infection rate below two-hundredths of one percent.”

    1. This could make Bush v. Gore look like small peanuts come December…

      1. “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.”

        Hillary Clinton, August 24, 2020

        “Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election.

        That’s a direct threat to our democracy.”

        –Hillary Clinton, October 24, 2016

        1. Media 2016: Questioning the health of Hilary Clinton is out of bounds and sexist!

          Media 2020: Hey here is an unverified claim Trump had a mini-stroke. Let’s give it 24/7 coverage!

        1. Biden landslide is probably not riots because that isn’t what the alt-right does, but it is probably not going to be peaceful either. The 35% that back Trump no matter what are going to see red and thinking (probably rightfully so) Trump got robbed of his first four years and his next four years by the left and the media. They are going to want revenge for those perceived wrongs.

          1. In the Biden landslide scenario, the violence comes later, after the Democrats go nuts with their majority the next year and try to impose their radical agenda on a 50-50 nation. In the Trump wins scenarios, the violence is immediate, as the Democrats go nuts over not winning.

            It was good, though, that even the Democrats admitted that the Democrats would riot if Trump won, regardless of whether the win was legal.

    2. I don’t see any fraud in permitting ballots to be post marked by election day nor in waiting to decide close races until all those ballots are received. That is, the statement “Trump (or Biden) May Win Election Night” doesn’t mean he has won the election.

      1. I will give you 100 to 1 odds that if Biden is leading on election night he calls for Trump to concede even if it looks like a recount of additional ballots might tip competitive races. And when Trump refuses to concede Biden calls him a fascist that won’t leave the White House.

        1. Biden might do that. Trump might do it if he is ahead. Both would be wrong if they did.

        2. If Biden is leading on election night I strongly doubt he will care much about calls to or from Trump. I also doubt that he will ask Trump to leave the White House until Inauguration Day, at which point he still won’t ask Trump to do anything — he will insist.

          I strongly doubt Trump will be treated as former presidents have traditionally been treated. With good reason. Mostly, he will be shunned. (I also doubt he will act as former presidents traditionally have acted.)

          1. He’ll be on Rush Limbough’s show, trashing Joe Bite Me.

            1. Heh. It’s hard to criticize you on the occasions when you’re (sadly) absolutely right. Except that I think it’s equally likely that Rush will instead be appearing as a guest on Trump’s new show, on Trump’s new alt-right-competing-with-Fox-News network.

      2. Even if ballots are received prior to election day, since many states don’t allow counting mail-in ballots until after polls close and the process is generally more manual than for in-person voting, it’s possible not to have a clear resolution on election night. For example, Arizona requires that mail-in ballots are received by 7 PM on election day but in the 2018 election it still took six days to work out who won the McSally vs Sinema Senate race.

        1. Unfortunately, there’s a likely scenario where Trump wins on election night, quite decisively, and then over the next several days one state after another he carried switches over to Biden as the mail in ballots are counted.

          In that scenario the Democrats riot on election night, then the Republicans come out to “greet” them a few days later.

          1. If there are enough outstanding ballots to overcome Trump’s lead on election night, then that lead can’t be “quite decisive.”

            1. Have you forgotten clinger standards? Trump won by ‘biggest landside EVER!!!’ and his inauguration crowd was the “BIGGEST EVER — PERIOD!!!”

              I wouldn’t mind seeing Republicans hold a nice lead during the early evening of Election Day, take a slight edge that Fox News calls “decisive” to bed, then learn the next day that Democrats have taken the White House, the Senate, and the House.

        2. Yes, and that’s bad enough. USPS has been having serious delays all over the country in recent months. We don’t need suspicious boxes of ballots showing up in December. Get them in by election day, and get your operations up to par so that they can be counted as quickly as possible.

          1. Yes, working with the postal service and local election officials to make sure that it goes as smoothly as possible seems like a good idea, and a lot more productive than just trying to pretend vote-by-mail isn’t going to be widespread this election or wish it away.

            1. As smoothly as possible would mean DO NOT make these drastic and totally unnecessary changes to the operations of our election system this year! It’s not workable, and they are not ready. Government incompetence is bad enough when keeping things simple.

              1. I’ve written basically this exact comment to you, so I guess it didn’t resonate, but for those reading along:

                – Mail-in balloting is a fact of modern elections and hardly anything new. In 2016, 40% of votes were cast by mail.
                – The majority of states allowed no-excuse absentee balloting even prior to the pandemic. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people are concerned about going to vote in person in the midst of a pandemic, so even if you made no changes at all you’d have to cope with significantly more mail-in balloting than in the past.
                – Similarly, the reality of the pandemic is that we can’t operate in-person voting at the scale we have in the past. Many people who served as poll workers in the past aren’t willing to do so now and I haven’t seen any credible plan to replace them (other than Trevor Noah encouraging people to sign up to do it), so there’s no way we can support previous levels of in-person voting.

                Given all of the above, it would be irresponsible to do anything but to plan for an election with large-scale mail-in balloting, including thinking about the best procedures to make it successful. Saying “you shouldn’t change” anything just ignores the facts on the ground and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of an election disaster.

                1. If you did, I missed it.

                  From what I’ve seen, many states have made drastic and sudden changes to their election systems this year — such as universal unsolicited ballot mailings to every listing on the horrendously inaccurate “rolls” (which has been a joke e.g. in the Nevada example above). Most of this is ostensibly due to the coronavirus — a laughable and unscientific farce of a justification.

                  “In 2016, 40% of votes were cast by mail.”

                  According to Pew, it was actually 20.9%. “Some states are expanding access to voting by mail amid ongoing fears over the coronavirus outbreak. But while the share of Americans casting votes by mail has risen in recent presidential election cycles, it remains relatively low overall, and there’s wide variation across the country when it comes to the percentage of voters who have used this method.

                  Overall, the share of voters who cast ballots via mail-in methods increased nearly threefold between 1996 and 2016 – from 7.8% to nearly 21%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the Census Bureau’s voter supplement data.”

                  “there’s no way we can support previous levels of in-person voting.”

                  That’s obviously false. Of course we can. And we should, since it is the most secure method at this time. The security and integrity of the vote is paramount. Furthermore, I suspect that denying people the opportunity to vote in person may be unconstitutional.

                  1. Re: 2016 voting, I think you’re right and the numbers I had seen was over-counting because it was lumping early voting in with absentee and vote by mail. Actual total in 2106 seems to be about 24%:


                    That’s still pretty significant, but I agree a lot less than 40%. I don’t think it really changes either of the later points, other than recognizing that the magnitude of the change is likely to be significant. I just took a look at some polling and it seems like 35-40% of people expect to vote by mail this cycle.

                    If your contention is that we can magically make in-person voting work with way fewer poll workers, please explain how. Similarly, since most states already allow for no-excuse absentee ballots and we’re seeing MUCH higher levels of in-person voting throughout the country, shouldn’t we try to make sure that the USPS and the election authorities can actually handle it? You can’t wish away people’s behavior in response to the pandemic, even if you think they’re being paranoid or stupid.

                    Sidenote: All of the Universal Vote-By-Mail states do allow you to go to a physical location day of election to either drop off your ballot or vote in person. I’m not sure what your constitutional concerns are, but I don’t think anyone is proposing to fully eliminate in-person voting; it’s just a question of defaults.

                    1. Er, typo in that last message: we’re seeing MUCH higher levels of mail-in voting, not in-person voting.

                    2. I mean, if we rely on volunteer election workers, and this stops working out, then we would simply need to turn to paid election workers. Or, ya know, just give up on this democracy thing, I guess.

                      I suppose a third alternative would be to attempt to replace some poll workers with a billion dollar app that replaces a few poll workers and ends up being horrendously dysfunctional.

                    3. Poll workers are already paid in many areas, but we still saw dramatic shortages during the primary. Maybe we could try to pay even more money, but most localities are already strapped for cash because of declining revenues. So is your idea that the federal government is going to hand out money to hire poll workers? That’s maybe an interesting idea, but

                      I don’t think attracting a new set of workers really solves the problem, though. Trying to run an election relying primarily on poll workers who have never done the job before seems to be equally problematic as switching from in-person to vote-by-mail.

                      And you still have basically no plan whatsoever to deal with fact that more people are going to vote by mail even if no changes are made. You can’t control people’s preferences by wishing that they were different. No excuse absentee voting has been legal for a long time in most of the country. If it’s good enough for the President and the Vice President, I don’t understand why you think it’s not good enough for the millions of Americans who just want to stay away from the polls this year.

                2. “Mail-in balloting is a fact of modern elections and hardly anything new.”

                  In the US, and basically only the US. Essentially every other democracy on the face of the planet highly discourages them, and turns ballot security to 11.

                  I’d say that we have 3rd world ballot security, but the 3rd world actually takes ballot security seriously.

                  1. I have no idea whether this claim is correct or not, but I’m not going to bother to investigate because it’s basically irrelevant. I’ve heard no serious proposal to actually get rid of or discourage existing vote-by mail practices, so why do we care whether or not the US is unique in allowing for it?

                    Okay, I lied. I spent ten seconds doing research. It seems like you’re very wrong:


                    1. Australia: Absentee ballots for cause.
                      Austria: No cause required, but must be requested.
                      Canada: Still only 3%
                      Finland: For cause, you have to be out of the country on voting day.
                      France: Just this election, for cause.
                      Germany: No cause required.
                      Hungary: You have to be out of the country.
                      India: Only available to a restricted set of people.
                      Indonesia: Must be overseas on voting day.
                      Italy: Must be outside the country.
                      Malaysia: Only certain jobs if you’re stationed away from home.
                      Mexico: For people living abroad.
                      Philippines: Abroad in select countries, you vote in person at the embassy.
                      Spain: Absentee for cause only
                      Switzerland: The only one that’s basically all by mail.
                      UK: Absentee available without cause.

                      Switzerland was basically the only democracy that conducts anything approaching all vote by mail, and most democracies discourage it.

      3. It’s not inherently fraudulent, but it’s the sort of thing that makes fraud easier: Once you’ve counted the in person ballots, you know how many absentee ballots you need to go your way to win, and that’s tempting knowledge.

        Even the campaign experts who are committed to claiming fraud isn’t a big thing in our elections concede that mail in ballots are much more vulnerable to it, because of chain of custody issues.

        1. The same could be said for the last X% of ballots to be counted on election night when there is no mail-in voting.

          1. Not really. This NYT article describes a big part of the problem well.


            The disaster is deliberate.

            1. It’s not just an issue of fraud, although there is definitely an issue with fraud.

              It’s an issue of the perception of fraud. We can’t have a situation where the election drags on for months, with countless headlines stating that we have no idea even how many ballots are still out there. Meanwhile ballots are floating around the country in the hands of 92 IQ postal workers and election officials.

              Some of the actions being taken only make sense as a deliberate attempt to (further) undermine confidence in our elections.

              1. Actions like constantly Tweeting about how the election is rigged?

                1. No, that’s a criticism of the actions I am talking about here.

                  1. Ah, I see. So it’s concerning to undermine confidence in the election by doing something that one team has decided needs to be a political fight, but *explicitly* undermining confidence in the election is cool and a good idea. Got it.

            2. It took about 5 weeks to count the ballots. That would be the high end of an acceptable time for November.

              1. Yes and that was a tiny fraction of the volume that will take place on November 3rd. So extrapolate it out.

                Perhaps the stories about Democrat election officials finding new boxes of ballots will continue into the new year.

                1. Just like when a well known national media pundit said when Florida looked like it was going to go Republican “where are the extra votes, we need the extra votes!”

                2. Republicans will be whining about illusory problems for an extended period no matter what occurs. They love to believe in fairy tales.

  15. I had a colleague point out today that a lot of the enforcement tactics leftist governors and mayors are using to let antifa and other rioters, looters, and anarchists have free reign of their cities and other areas are the EXACT SAME that southern governors used to let the Klan preside over reigns of terror. As much things change they stay the same. Just a whole different set of racial terrorists now.

    1. I said that about UMass Amherst 20 years ago.

      1. Back in the day I visited UMass for a weekend. That place was like PCU central. It actually reminded me of the movie.

        1. I’ve always thought the movie was based on it.

          1. I forgot a very young David Spade was in PCU. Gonna have to watch this again. It has been a long time.

            1. Also apparently based off of Wesleyan in the early 90’s…


    2. The Police in Kenosha allowed and even encouraged a bunch of (white) armed militias to roam the streets after curfew. This included a 17 year too young to legally carry a gun.

      That seems a lot more consistent with “Klan” tactics.


    I don’t know who’s funding them, but airfare is not free, nor are hotel rooms. And these aren’t kids sleeping in their cars.

    1. I’m sure some internet sleuth out there could track private jet flights from addresses of arrested rioters and looters.

      1. Yeah, because if for some reason you were going to pay for this, private jets would definitely be the economically efficient way to do it.

        FWIW, the article makes it clear that the significant majority of people arrested in all of these scenarios are local. This article implies (but does not actually say) that the people traveling to these locations are all on the left, but we know that there’s plenty of folks on the right traveling out of town to join protests/riots as well. Do we imagine a shadowy organization paying airfare for those folks as well?

        1. No, but I think there is a good chance that someone is shuttling around professional agitators and using private planes to do so is an efficient way to moving a small number of people quickly. Do you think these riots are just a groundswell of random violence every time they erupt?

          1. Yes, I do. The good people at Fox News seem to think so too. From the article:

            “The large number of locals also indicates the riots are largely not centrally organized, but instead planned on social media with activists in the individual cities and surrounding areas converging on urban areas, as a fraction of the crowds is represented by out-of-state rioters.”

            1. You don’t import rioters. You import agitators that get people to riot. That is how the system works.

              1. While we’re doing non-sequiters, I had a nice ham sandwich for lunch today.

                1. They didn’t actually demonstrate that the question didn’t need to be asked. Their position was more, as I understood it, that they’d rather people didn’t look for the answer.

                  If they’d been confident there was nothing to find, they wouldn’t have minded people wasting their time looking…

                  1. First, the notion that the violent protests cropping up in U.S. cities are funded by a secret, shadowy cabal is a myth. Conspiracy theorists on all sides of the political spectrum like to imagine that their enemies are financed by some secret puppetmaster but, in general, people who show up to protests are usually not paid actors. People engaged in militant, far-left activism may travel from city to city, and they may be loosely connected with other activists in a semi-organized fashion, but they probably aren’t sitting on some secret pile of money.

                    1. Sarcastro, I’d assumed you understood the difference between “demonstrating” and “asserting”; Was I wrong about that?

      2. It’s easier & cheaper to have them buy their own tickets & hotel rooms with their own credit card and reimburse — political groups on both the right & left routinely do this to bring students down to DC.

        Two different groups brought me down to DC that way. And that was for a legit conference, and reimbursement by check. Now if you are just handing out cash, there is absolutely no paper trail.

    2. These kids need a hair cut, a real job and a life. They need to get it together like their big brother Bob.

  17. Serious question. Has anyone seen the media, other then local press, do a focus piece on any small business owner who lost their entire operations due to the recent riots? Seem there are plenty on individual protesters that were arrested or supposedly subject to police abuses. And even some on BLM people. But I haven’t yet seen any personal stories from anyone who lost a business or other livelihood from the riots. I’m sure it is probably media “blackout” but curious if I just haven’t seen it.

    1. Worse, many of these small business owners are themselves Black.

    2. Yeh, I don’t think a sob piece about monocled shit lord capitalist is part of the narrative. Even if black because it’s not about black lives either.

  18. You Can Support Convicted Murderers and Terrorists on Facebook, But Not Kyle Rittenhouse

    “Yesterday, Facebook told the world that it considers Kyle Rittenhouse’s actions in Kenosha to be “mass murder,” and that posts defending him would be taken down, even though he has not been convicted of any crime.

    But it appears that the platform has long tolerated support for murderers, mass murderers, terrorists, and violent criminals — people who have been convicted of such crimes, not just accused. . .

    1. Assata Shakur Black Women Liberation Movement

    Assata Shakur is a BLM darling and far-left terrorist who carried out a number of murders, assaults, and bank robberies in the 1970s. .

    2. The Campaign to Bring Mumia Home

    Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted in 1982 of the murder of Philadelphia policeman Daniel Faulkner. .

    3. The Friends of Justice – Justice For Charles Manson . .

    4. Free Rasmea Now

    Rasmea Yousef Odeh is a Palestinian Arab nationalist. A member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, she was convicted of two bombings in Jerusalem in 1969, one of which killed two people. . ”

    1. First, do you just post Brietbart now?
      That’s a bad idea – Google the event their talking about to get other takes; theirs tend to be…curated to say the least.

      Case and point, this story contains it’s own refutation. They’re talking about folks convicted and/or let off in the the 1970s and 80s.

      This shooter, on the other hand, is now and the justice system hasn’t yet finished with him.

      1. Case and point, this story contains it’s own refutation. They’re talking about folks convicted and/or let off in the the 1970s and 80s.
        This shooter, on the other hand, is now and the justice system hasn’t yet finished with him.

        And what difference does that make? Facebook is taking the position that you cannot defend the current mass murderer (as they see it), but you may defend convicted mass murderers. I fail to see the moral difference.

        Facebook, as a private company is entitled to promote whatever views it wishes. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

        1. I’m not sure that is an equivalence Facebook, or most humans make.

          You can read legalistically if you want, but that seems pretty outcome-oriented to me.

          1. You’re right that most people don’t consider people accused of murder equivalent to people convicted of murder. But doesn’t that point work against Facebook, not in their favor? I mean, taking down posts if they take the presumption of innocence seriously, but not if they defend convicted murderers?

            1. People don’t consider stuff that happened 30 years ago as salient as stuff that happened last week, Brett.
              Are you this blinded?

              1. SOME people, Sarcastro.

                Are you so blinded yourself, that you can’t recognize that Facebook is banning support for the presumption of innocence, if they happen to not like the guy who hasn’t been convicted yet? Rather like GoFundMe permitting Reinoehl to have a fund raiser, but not Kyle.

                Only people whose politics they like are entitled to the presumption of innocence, that’s Facebook’s stance. Are you really comfortable with that?

                1. Are you really comfortable with that?

                  Remember that you’re arguing with a proven pathological liar and a complete and utter tool.

    2. Goggle’s gonna get sued….

  19. Question: Is it defamation for Facebook to label Kyle Rittenhouse a “mass murderer” in a public statement? Of course, media organizations are always careful to say “allegedly” and such when someone is accused but not convicted. Here, Facebook — speaking for itself, in relation to its censorship policies — has expressly labeled Kyle a mass murderer.

    1. Good point — hopefully his attorneys will use this.

      1. Use in what way? I would think it could be used in an effort to move where the trial was held. (Obviously, I think such a motion would be unsuccessful.) Is this what you’re alluding to? Or are you suggesting that, post criminal acquittal, it could be used to civilly sue for damages? (Again, given the chances of an acquittal, I’m not sanguine about this possibility as well.)

        1. I think one consequence, should we ever start enforcing Section 230 as written, is Facebook losing their safe harbor.

          Taking down posts defending the presumption of innocence hardly qualifies as good faith moderation, when you’re leaving up posts defending convicted murderers.

  20. Well, it is an open thread…

    Just won two bronze medals in the 2020 WineMaker competition, category fruit mead. Yay!

    Looking forward to seeing the judges notes, find out what I need to work on to move up to silver next year. Probably need to work on my clarity.

    1. Did you use the tears of AK to make it extra sweet?

      1. Nope, orange blossom honey. Tears are too salty to go well with fruit.

    2. Congratulations Brett!

  21. Hey, fellow eggheads.

    I’m a 30-year civil litigator (mostly defense), and reminiscing about my now-long-gone former partner, mentor and world-class curmudgeon.

    He like to yell “This is champerty! Champerty!”

    Discuss amongst yourselves.

    1. Ahhh, Champerty, Maintenance, and Barratry … Do they even mention those in Law School any longer?

      1. Sure, they have symposia on how to commit them most effectively.

  22. From Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn‘s GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, beware *social prophylaxis*.

  23. In good news, the antifa murderer in Portland has met justice.

    1. Fuck you.

      No one. Not Antifa, not white supremacists, deserve death. Certainly not without due process.

      You’re so deep into your tribalism you’re cool with extrajudicial killings. Welcome to Nazi-land.

      1. I agree that, ideally, he would have died in a properly run execution after being convicted by a jury of his peers.

        But it’s not an “extrajudicial killing” in any meaningful sense when the police show up to arrest a murder suspect, and he pulls out a gun and gets shot. That’s not “Nazi-land”, that’s every country where people being arrested aren’t entitled to shoot the cops there to arrest them.

      2. I should add that, the only reason Reinoehl was in any position to murder somebody, was that in July he’d benefited from Portland’s “catch and release” program for rioters. He was arrested in July for illegal possession of a firearm, and resisting arrest, and then just, poof, the city made the charges go away because he was just a peaceful rioter not deserving of penalties for any felonies he might have gotten caught committing.

        Indeed, when he was arrested in July for illegal firearms possession at one of the riots he took part in, he was already a wanted man due to multiple crimes he’d committed in June!

        That’s two lives now that the Portland DA’s “catch and release” program has cost: First Danielson, and now Reinoehl himself. The failure to permit the law to be enforced against (politically favored) rioters has cascading effects.

      3. Deserves got nothing to do with it.

        Your angrier with Sam than the murder itself.

    2. I fail to see anything good in this.

      Except maybe confirmation of your ignorance.

      1. Social prophylaxis as practiced by the Soviet Bolsheviks and recalled in The Gulag Archipelago.

        Jordan Peterson calls The Gulag Archipelago the most important book of the Twentieth Century. I believe that, had it been taught in elementary and secondary school, we would not be relearning its lessons today.

        But then the idiots refuse to memorize multiplication tables and are unable to memorize trig and calculus transforms. We are doomed. It’s a good time to be old.

  24. Jessica Krug, a professor at George Washington University who previously self-identified as Black, today revealed that she is biologically White [ ]. GWU is still deciding what, if anything, to do about it, although many people seem to believe that she should receive some sort of punishment.

    Recently, the Supreme Court found that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination because, for example, a man that has sex with another man is treated differently from a woman that has sex with a man. By that reasoning, would racial declaration discrimination — treating a White person that declares herself Black differently from a Black person that declares herself Black — also be a form of racial discrimination, i.e., would GWU run afoul of laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race were it to discriminate against Prof. Grug on the basis of her racial declaration? Note, that one can’t simply say that, as long as both Whites and Blacks that declare their race to be *different* from their biological race were treated equally, then there would be no racial discrimination. Under that principle, as long as both men and women that had sex with people of the *same* gender were treated equally, then there would be no sex discrimination.

    1. Your legal reasoning is sound, but it will never be ruled that way. If you demand people be treated equally based upon declared race, then it would utterly destroy the affirmative action scheme.

Please to post comments