Federal Judge's Son Killed and Husband Injured by Men's Rights Activist Lawyer

Threats Against Federal Judges on the Rise

As many legal observers have followed in the news, Judge Esther Salas--the first Hispanic woman to be appointed as a federal district court judge in New Jersey--and her family became the victims of a horrific crime on Sunday evening when a gunman shot and killed her twenty-year-old son and injured her attorney husband. The main suspect, who shot himself shortly after these events, was a self-described "anti-feminist lawyer" seeking to protect "men's rights". He left behind hundreds of pages of misogynistic and racist rants, some of which are detailed here.

The suspect seems to have had a particular distaste for Latina women, which provides potentially relevant background for his crime against a judge in front of whom he argued but who actually allowed some of his claims to proceed. He also appears to have been diagnosed with terminal cancer, which some speculate may have played a role as well when linked to his writings suggesting "Things begin to change when individual men start taking out those specific persons responsible for destroying their lives before committing suicide."

While there has been previous violence against judges and their families, such as the 2005 murder of Judge Joan Lefkow's husband and mother in Chicago, the attack on Judge Salas' home stands at the intersection of two trends worth noting. One is the increased domestic terrorism threat posed by the involuntary celibate (incel) movement whose ideas seem to have resonated with the suspect here. The other trend is the generally rising number of threats against members of the federal judiciary, which has experienced an almost five-fold increase from 2015 to 2019. Query the effect of President Trump's frequent inflammatory attacks on individual judges and courts, some of which are collected here. Endangering judges imperils democracy as a whole.

Comments

[dwshelf]

Let's get this straight. You're blaming Trump?

[Bob from Ohio]

When all you have is a hammer...

She makes David Post seem calm and rational.

[Krychek_2]

I would not blame Trump in the sense of saying it's his fault. I would say that his overblown rhetoric, including rants against judges he disagrees with, certainly isn't helping any. One of the worst effects of his presidency is the inflamed and coarse political discourse that he has taken to new lows.

But ultimately, the suspect was an adult, responsible for his own choices. He's the one who got the gun, drove to her house, and pulled the trigger.

[Jimmy the Dane]

And the Left announcing "the resistance" the night Trump was surprise elected then spending the next four years trying to "get" him on everything any anything has absolutely nothing to do about the toxic nature of politics today, right?

[Krychek_2]

Nice subject change.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You said "One of the worst effects of his presidency is the inflamed and coarse political discourse that he has taken to new lows."

"He" (Trump) is only part of the formula that has got us to the point where we are now at.

[Krychek_2]

The problem with what aboutism is that everybody gets a free pass because you can always find someone else who is acting just as bad if not worse. Even Hitler is off the hook because he gets to say “But what about Stalin”. So nobody is ever accountable for anything.

I will stipulate there are people on the left who are also coarsening political discourse. So what? None of them are the people this particular murderer looked up to as an inspiration. If and when someone on the left shoots a judge’s family it will then be appropriate to talk about leftists who coarsen political discourse. But today, the subject is Trump.

And what Trump has done to political discourse is just vile. Period. Full stop.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Well no it is just asking you to be honest. Violence is OK when it is done by a certain crowd and not OK when done by another kind of person. Just be honest.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Jimmy,

No, you switched the topic. Now, once again, you have failed to engage with his point and attributed to him views he didn't express. At all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Trump is President. Trump has attacked judges as a group and particular judges as individuals in ways no previous President has. He has taken things to new lows.

It is reasonable to posit he is part of the problem. Do you agree or are you just going to try to talk about something else?

(And, because you seem to think anyone who disagrees with Trump necessarily absolves leftists of everything. I very much oppose political assassinations and the targeting of judges more, frankly, than the targeting of politicians. This is so no matter the politics of the person wielding the weapon or the one on the receiving end. Judges' need to be independent and objective, that is certainly harder when your colleagues are being physically attacked.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Trump is President. Trump has attacked judges as a group and particular judges as individuals in ways no previous President has."

Sigh. Why do people use "attack" when they mean "criticize"? Criticism, even unfair criticism, doesn't make the critic responsible if someone else responds to the critic by engaging in violence. You certainly wouldn't be responsible if some nutcase engaged in violence because you said Trump has attacked judges and is part of the problem.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Sigh.

Attack is a common synonym for criticize. But you know that. Also, it conveys a different sort of criticism and Trump does fall on that side. He has not criticized their reasoning or criticized a particular judicial philosophy or decision, so much, as attacked them as generally biased and corrupt. So, "attack" has a different connotation than "criticize" and is a pretty common way to distinguish between fair, reasoned critique as opposed to an emotional appeal using baseless insinuations and aspersions on character.

Criticism, even unfair criticism, doesn’t make the critic responsible if someone else responds to the critic by engaging in violence.

Sigh.

For someone so concerned about word choice, you seem to be arguing a point that I didn't make and I don't think anyone else made. I certainly didn't say Trump was responsible for the attack on Judge Sala and her family. (Responsible, since we are quibbling with words, generally means has moral culpability for a particular act. No one said Trump is responsible for this act.)

Or are you saying criticism that uses heated rhetoric and intentionally undermines people's respect for the judiciary, particularly when coming from the President of the United States, does not contribute to an environment where threats of violence and actual violence against judges is more likely, i.e., is not responsible for creating an environment where such violence is more likely?

As for whether my comments about Trump's intemperate and injudicious comments on the judiciary would make me responsible for violence against Trump, I am a random internet commenter, so there is at least one significant difference between what I say and what he says. Also, I have never suggested that political violence might be a good thing. Trump has openly applauded violence, has pined for the days of political violence, and often uses violent imagery in his comments. That's another aspect of his rhetoric that I find irresponsible and that contributes to an environment where actual violence is more likely.

Does that make him responsible if one of his supporters punches someone who protests at his rally? You tell me how you are using the word responsible and I can answer that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Attack is a common synonym for criticize. But you know that."

Sigh. No, it's not a synonym for criticize. The Japanese did not criticize Pearl Harbor, they attacked it. But you know that. It's a common metaphor, but it's not a good one, as it suggests that debate is something bad.

"He has not criticized their reasoning or criticized a particular judicial philosophy or decision, so much, as attacked them as generally biased and corrupt."

So what? He's allowed to think that judges are generally biased and corrupt, even if he's wrong. And he's probably not that wrong.

"I certainly didn’t say Trump was responsible for the attack on Judge Sala and her family."

You said that Trump was part of the problem. To the extent that the problem is that people are shooting judges, you certainly did suggest that. And if you're suggesting that the problem is that people don't have a high regard for judges, well, that's not really a problem, is it? People are entitled to their opinions, even if you disagree.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So what? He’s allowed to think that judges are generally biased and corrupt, even if he’s wrong. And he’s probably not that wrong.

What everyone is allowed (normatively) to think is not the same as what the President of the United States is allowed (normatively) to say in public. Whether or not Trump commits some violation of law when he rants against federal judges as presumptively corrupt, because they are of Latin descent, is beside the point. The point is that Trump, as President, is tearing down the federal judiciary, and doing it without justification. Normatively, no president should be allowed to do that.

Criticism, even unfair criticism, doesn’t make the critic responsible if someone else responds to the critic by engaging in violence.

Right. If the unfair "critic" is Joe Schmoe. If the unfair "critic" is the President of the United States, then it's different. If you don't get that, then you also don't get that the presidency is an office of honor and influence, which comes with heightened responsibilities. Maybe you would prefer it be otherwise. That would be a fringe position, with which most folks would disagree.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Twelve,

No, it’s not a synonym for criticize. The Japanese did not criticize Pearl Harbor, they attacked it. But you know that. It’s a common metaphor

Sigh. Maybe you don't know. Attack is a word. The second definition in Merriam-Webster:

to assail with unfriendly or bitter words a politician verbally attacked by critics

It is a word that has a slightly different meaning than criticize, but I said that already. Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English. Some words have more than one meaning. Attack is such a word. It can mean a physical attack, but also a unfair verbal criticism. Use context clues.

Or maybe you are a native speaker but you are prescriptivist and do not believe attack should have a meaning other than physical attack. Well, a quick Google Ngram shows attack has been used in this way since the Founding of this country (the U.S.), so, if you are prescriptivist, you are late to the fight.

Whoa, whoa, Two-inch! I see what you're about to do. Hold on.

Fight is another word that doesn't necessarily mean a physical assault or battle. If the second definition of attack was ever in serious dispute, the prescriptivists lost by 1792, at the latest. You are a bit over 200 years late to that skirmish.

Or, perhaps, you are trying to argue that, in line with Neitzsche all truth and language is metaphorical. But that proves too much. Criticize is also a metaphor in that case and we've gained nothing and lost the slight difference in meaning.

Consider this a free ESL lesson. You are welcome!

He’s allowed to think that judges are generally biased and corrupt, even if he’s wrong. And he’s probably not that wrong.

He has...(TRIGGER WARNING: This sentence contains a word that can mean both a physical assault and a merely verbal criticism that is somewhat bitter and unfair)...attacked particular judges as biased without basis. That is generally considered impolite for common folk. For the President of the United States to make such charges against a sitting Article III Judge in a case involving one of his associates, it's not a good thing.

You said that Trump was part of the problem.

I explained what I meant. It was clear. You basically just restated the problem of his contributing to an environment that is not healthy for democracy. Now you are pivoting to whether the problem I identified is a problem, i.e., whether it actually is unhealthy for democracy. Concession noted.

People are entitled to their opinions, even if you disagree.

This is a frequent, but incredibly dumb, defense of intemperate and inappropriate things Trump says. The argument is stupidly circular, among other things.

President Trump: “That’s not law. This was an Obama judge.”

Me (and Chief Justice Roberts): "Trump shouldn't attack judges in this manner. It is unhealthy for our democracy."

Two-inch: "You shouldn't say that, Trump has a right to his opinion!"

Me: "Seriously? I guess you shouldn't say that then, because I have a right to have an opinion too. Run along now."

Next, you'll tell me he has a First Amendment right. Yes, he also has a First Amendment right to use racial slurs, that doesn't mean it is inappropriate to denounce him when he does it as President of the United States.

To recap: You are a mistaken pedant (the worst kind of pedant) whose criticism of my comment relies on circular reasoning. Not your finest moment.

[SKofNJ]

Trump has a right to verbally attack the judiciary. Some of his criticism has been correct. Is there even a scintilla of evidence that the gunman was influenced by anything that Trump said?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Not a question of rights. It's a question of whether doing it is good or bad for the country. All things a president does is judged on that spectrum. Very similar arguments occurred when Justice Ginsburg criticized then-candidate Trump. She had a right to say that. Was it wise or good for the country?

[SKofNJ]

0k. It is good for the President to cricize the judiciary. They are not sacred. They are often wrong, and, as Ginberg's comments show, often as motivated by politics as any others. The invention of rights out of whole cloth, such as the inventionnof the right to abort and to marry someon of the same sex, is as political an act as anything Trump has ever done.

[Sarcastr0]

'This decision is wrong, but I'll enforce it'

versus

'The SCOTUS has become the enemy of the people; I'm looking into nullification.'

Not all criticism is okay, regardless of how you or I feel about the underlying decision.

[David Nieporent]

Is there even a scintilla of evidence that the gunman was influenced by anything that Trump said?

Is there even a scintilla of evidence that any of his criticism was correct?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, you switched the topic.

No, he didn't. The topic was the current political climate and how we got here, and his asinine attempt to hold one man responsible for it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

WuzYoung,

No, he didn’t.

Yes, he did.

The topic was the current political climate and how we got here, and his asinine attempt to hold one man responsible for it.

You start off good. Up until that comma.

First of all, Krychek didn't "attempt to hold one man responsible for it." He explicitly pointed out that there are people on the left who coarsen our discourse too. And explained:

But today, the subject is Trump.

And what Trump has done to political discourse is just vile. Period. Full stop.

He's right.

Jimmy did switch the topic because he responded said: Violence is OK when it is done by a certain crowd and not OK when done by another kind of person.

Krychek didn't condone violence by anyone and specifically criticized people on the left for coarsening our political discourse. This was an off-topic tangent that had no factual support as Krychek.

Yours is an asinine attempt to defend and asinine attack on Krychek's honesty and integrity. But, I guess such asinine attacks (by which, if Two-Inch is reading, I don't mean an actual bombing or physical assuault) are de rigueur in TrumpWorld.

That this state of affairs is lamentable actually is kind of the point we are making.

[Krychek_2]

Jimmy please show me where I said that violence is ok if engaged in by certain kinds of persons.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The problem with what aboutism

In this case, the only problem with it is the use of the word as a dishonest and cowardly dodge by you.

[TW]

Why? There were two big jumps in the numbers recorded. The first was from 2015 to 2016 when they removed the requirement that to be counted, the Marshals had to mitigate and deter the threat or inappropriate communication. Which means that every number after that is measuring from a much broader pool than was recorded up until 2015. The second big jump was in 2018 which was the year a sitting federal judge reported that he and his family received numerous death threats and harassing phone calls and emails after he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Pretty sure those weren't coming from Trump supporters.

[Bob from Ohio]

"rants against judges he disagrees with"

Like this?

“Where you see Neomi Rao, you can expect a lot of Trumpy dirt to follow,” Whitehouse tweeted on Thursday evening. “She’s a cartoon of a fake judge. Watch this space.” lawandcrime.com/high-profile/lawyers-slam-dem-senator-for-calling-trump-appointed-judge-neomi-rao-a-cartoon-of-a-fake-judge

or this?

Sheldon Whitehouse@SenWhitehouse
Jun 24
‘Judge’ Rao delivers the coverup she was put on the court for.

[WillDD]

But, of course, it's not anti-female bullying because Whitehouse is a Democrat. Or if it is anti-female, it's not wrong because she's a conservative judge (and, worse still, a conservative judge appointed by Trump).

[Krychek_2]

It’s also not relevant; see my response to Jimmy directly above.

[damikesc]

So ONLY Trump is responsible?

Because you are certainly not expressing any issues with the comments posted here by Whitehouse.

[Krychek_2]

Did Whitehouse serve as an inspiration to someone who shot up a judge’s family? No? Then how is he relevant to this specific incident?

Please read my 5:28 response to Jimmy above.

[y81]

I'm confused: is there some evidence that Trump was an inspiration to this man Hollander? Because in the absence of specific evidence, your comments are just the usual Orange Man Bad raving that we expect from Profs. Manta, Somin, et al., devoid of analytic content.

[Krychek_2]

Yes there is. It’s been widely reported in the media that the suspect was a huge Trump supporter explicitly because of Trumps racism and misogyny. A couple of minutes on google and you’ll find plenty.

[Henry]

Oh! The MEDIA says Trump is to blame for Hollander! That's all right, then.

[Krychek_2]

Henry, you really need to do something about your reading comprehension skills. I didn’t say the media said Trump was to blame. I said the media is reporting that Hollander idolized Trump. Those are two very different concepts.

[damikesc]

In what way was Trump an inspiration to this man, out of curiosity?

[Krychek_2]

I pulled the following two quotes from an article on the CNN Web site about the case:

"Den Hollander also claimed he volunteered for President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign because, he said, he hated "PC-Feminism more than I hate America."
. . .
In 2017, he unsuccessfully sued multiple media outlets, including CNN, accusing them of disseminating "false and misleading news reports" about Donald Trump's candidacy for president. The case was dismissed."

Now, is Trump responsible for every nut case that supports him? Of course not. Nutty supporters can be found for just about any cause. But still, when your cause tends to attract a particular type of nutcase, it's fair to ask why.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Which of those two quotes has anything at all about Trump influencing the nut's decision to kill someone?

[Kazinski]

Trump hardly seems the Incel type, nor does he seem to resent women, he seems to rather enjoy them. Sure some Incels may be jealous of his success, but that probably breeds as much hostility to him as admiration.

If Trump complains about decisions that judges make, a presidential trait that goes back to at least Jefferson, I would say the judges give at least as much abuse to Trump as they take, but of course he's hardly the first president they've given written or vocal vent to their feelings.

And if you want to blame Trump for violence and resentment towards women wouldn't you have to blame Bill Clinton even more?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Trump hardly seems the Incel type, nor does he seem to resent women, he seems to rather enjoy them. Sure some Incels may be jealous of his success, but that probably breeds as much hostility to him as admiration.

He brags about grabbing them by the pussy. He has credibly been accused of rape. There are also many other misogynistic aspects of his conduct. If sexual violence and misogyny is what you mean by enjoy, you are a kindred spirit with the Incels. His conduct and rhetoric tends to suggest a certain disdain for women and, yes, resentment towards them.

"Opposition to feminism and women's rights is commonplace, and some posters blame women's liberation for their inability to find a partner. Some incels believe that there was a golden age in which couples married early, were strictly monogamous, and adhered to traditional gender roles, and that looks played less of a role in romantic pairings and mens' "entitlement" to sex with women was never denied." - from Wikipedia.

That doesn't really sound like Clinton supporters. I mean, they are their own thing, certainly, but if they have to choose, they have a natural home in one of the two major parties.

[y81]

Compulsive womanizers, even of the forceful variety, like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton, are pretty much the opposite of incels.

[Ben of Houston]

As much as I loathe the man, you are deliberately misquoting him.

The key words in that brag were "They let you grab them". He was not bragging about assaulting women. He was bragging about the number of consenting women whom he has slept with. The man is a lecher, but if there was any provability to the allegations against him, I can say with confidence that the media would have plastered it all over instead of harping endlessly on a recorded joke.

If you have to lie to make your point, then you have already failed.

[Brett Bellmore]

"He was bragging about the number of consenting women whom he has slept with."

He wasn't even necessarily doing that. Really, he was just commenting on how wealth and fame made women willing. Is there somebody who thinks that isn't true of many women?

Maybe he took advantage of that quite often, maybe he didn't, but it was an assertion about the women, not his own practices.

We see this all the time: Any time he says something, his opponents put the worst possible spin on it, even if it requires ignoring context, even where the context might be part of the same sentence. He's subject to a presumption of guilt that's practically insurmountable.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

In the context of the Billy Bush incident, he was clearly bragging about his own success with women, and that it was due to his wealth and fame. And as to what we see all the time, it is much more evident to me that you automatically put the best possible spin on everything he says and does, even if it requires ignoring context. Indeed you are such a reflexive Trump defender that I find myself wondering about your motives. I'm sure I judge President Trump through my own prism of disagreement and dislike, but I at least try to be aware that I'm doing it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

he was clearly bragging about his own success with women, and that it was due to his wealth and fame

If you think that noting the fact that there are indeed many women who will allow themselves to be sexual playthings for famous, wealthy and powerful men is "bragging" then you don't understand what that word means. If you're doubting that the observation is true then I would say that you need to put down the bag of Cheetohs and get out of your parents' basement for a while.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Ben,

As much as I loathe the man, you are deliberately misquoting him.

I would have to purport to quote him to misquote him. Where did I do that?

Someone wise once said: If you have to lie to make your point, then you have already failed.

He was bragging about the number of consenting women whom he has slept with.

No, he was bragging that "You can do anything." and he used a specific example of what would normally be considered sexual assault but, because of your power and money, "they let you do it."

You interpret this, quite generously, as suggesting the interactions are consensual. Surely you can see that when Trump goes up to beautiful women and "just start[s] kissing them" or grabs them, they did not necessarily invite that and don't necessarily want him to do that. Or do you not interact with very many women? You should know, frequently complain about powerful people (their boss, police, supervisors, etc.) engaging in this sort of behavior. They don't like it, generally. Is that news to you?

The point conveyed by the language Trump used is not that he has seduced willing women. His brag doesn't make sense in that context.

The point most clearly made by the language he used is that, because of his power and fame, women won't object when he kisses or grabs them with no indication from them that they have any interest in that behavior. Being silent and then not objecting after an unwanted touching is not consent to unwanted touching. And he likes that he can do what he wants because of fame and power and that otherwise unwilling women won't resist him or press charges because of that power and fame and he thinks that's cool. That's what the words he used convey. He didn't say, women want him to grab them, but that they "let" him. Not that they agree to it, but that they don't object once it's done. Again, that isn't consent. He likes that he can do things without their consent and they feel powerless to object.

Or maybe he really just meant he has a lot of willing consensual affairs, but then he expressed that thought very poorly. Which I grant is certainly possible.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

He brags about grabbing them by the pussy.

No, he doesn't.

He has credibly been accused of rape.

No, he hasn't.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Wuz,

No, he doesn’t.

Yes, he does.

No, he hasn’t.

Yes, he has.

[David Bremer]

Sure some Incels may be jealous of his success, but that probably breeds as much hostility to him as admiration.

I don't see it ever creating hostility, only admiration at what they imagine him to be.

One of the things that I noticed back in 2016 was that Trump sounded like the guy at the bar who bragged about various conquests or how he would/could/did do this thing or another. Sometimes, those guys at the bar are big enough, charismatic enough, or have sufficient outward signs of success to be believable and they'll convince those around them of their prowess. If you challenge them for proof, they'll dodge, threaten, and boast. It's the Uncle Rico of Napoleon Dynamite move. But they are the alphas in the group and get a following; they only opposition comes from those out of the circle.

Trump always talked big because he didn't have to back it up. He could say he'd fight some protester in the crowd or talk about how he'd do one thing or another. If you challenged him, he dodges and attacks you. He's no different than the loud guy at the bar.

Incels don't hold anger at Trump; they want to be what they imagine Trump to be. They like to see themselves as having that power and sway. They're idolize him and blame the world around them from preventing their greatness from showing.

[SKofNJ]

One of the worst effects of Trump's presidency has been the inflamed rhetoric utilized by the left to attack him. Does a day go by when he isn't compared to Hitler?

[Brett Bellmore]

Literally, Truman compared Dewey to Hitler, the Democrats have compared EVERY Republican Presidential candidate or President to Hitler, since. It's the most over-used trope imaginable.

I'm guessing the only reason they didn't start doing it before Dewey is that people wouldn't have known who Hitler was. Well, maybe also because they kind of liked Hitler before WWII.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Truman also recognized the ridiculous trope of his opponents labeling everything with which they disagreed as socialism. I also find it amusing that for Trump's defenders, every candidate is responsible for their overblown campaign rhetoric with the exception of Trump himself.

[Jonny Scrum-half]

I’m curious what you think about the fact that Mike Huckabee, Rush Limbaugh, and Ben Carson all compared the Obama Administration to Nazi Germany.

[Brett Bellmore]

PRESIDENT LIKENS DEWEY TO HITLER AS FASCISTS' TOOL

[amyrohllof]

sasvsav

[aluchko]

Well there's a pretty drastic increase in attacks against judges that correspond with Trump's candidacy and eventual Presidency. Both of which were filled with a lot of rhetoric targeting members of the judiciary.

So yes, when people who share an ideological alignment with Trump commit attacks against judges then Trump bears some of the blame.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So yes, when people who share an ideological alignment with Trump commit attacks against judges then Trump bears some of the blame."

People recognize the stupidity of this position in other contexts: If a Muslims kills a bunch of people, other Muslims aren't to blame. If a BLM supporter kills a cop, other BLM supporters aren't to blame. Why do people suddenly adopt it against people they disagree with?

[neurodoc]

“So yes, when people who share an ideological alignment with Trump commit attacks against judges then Trump bears some of the blame.”

People recognize the stupidity of this position in other contexts: If a Muslims kills a bunch of people, other Muslims aren’t to blame. If a BLM supporter kills a cop, other BLM supporters aren’t to blame. Why do people suddenly adopt it against people they disagree with?

So when terrorists kill thousands of innocents by any of their heinous means, then only they deserve all the blame, none of it attaches to their leaders, fellow "activists" and supporters, or the ideology they adhere to, fight for, and hope to advance? That is what you think? (I'm not clear what you think, in particular whether you do or don't think Trump blameworthy for some portion of what those he has aroused go and do? And same question when it comes to Islam and the murderous acts committed in its name by believers.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are there examples besides this incident that you have in mind as part of the "drastic increase"?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Attacks" was an unfortunate choice of words by aluchko. There was a drastic increase in the number of threats against federal judges, as documented by the link in the OP.

[TW]

As others have pointed out, in 2015 they were measuring “threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed, mitigated and deterred by the Marshals.” and then in 2016 they were measuring “threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed by the Marshals.” The "dramatic increase" in recorded "threats" started when they changed the criteria for what they measuring to a much looser and broader definition.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'll bet you also think that there has been an actual dramatic increase in the prevalence of autism over the past couple of decades, rather than a gradual redefinition of that term to include more and more conditions.

[Don Nico]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. ... QED

[SKofNJ]

Not only that, but since Trump was elected, there's been a lot more rain in my area and my summer vegetable garden has not been doing as well as it did before he became president.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's a bit of a stretch trying to pin this on Trump. The low point in threats towards federal judges seems to have been 2014, and by 2016, when Trump conspicuously wasn't President yet, nor had yet had any reason to publicly dis judges, had risen 3 fold from that low.

So, if there was a precipitating event, it was probably circa 2015. Maybe a change in recording criteria? I note that the numbers prior 2015 are listed as, "threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed, mitigated and deterred by the Marshals.", while in 2016, "threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed by the Marshals."

I would suggest that some time in late 2015 or early 2016 the recording criteria changed, rendering the numbers before and after unsuitable for comparison, apples to oranges.

[ah....Clem]

Not a stretch at all. Did you read the link?

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/his-own-words-presidents-attacks-courts

[Brett Bellmore]

I get the impression you didn't; Take a look at when those remarks were made; Are you proposing backwards causality?

You might be able to blame Trump for the increase from 2017 forward, at least it's not logically precluded. But the jump from 2014 to 2016 was larger, proportionately, and really does look like a change in recording critera.

[bernard11]

There was also a big jump from 2017 to 2018, which also suggests a change in how the data was recorded.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason I suggested a change in recording is because the numbers were described differently for 2015 and prior, compared to 2016 going forward. And there was a BIG jump that coincided with that change.

There might be a real trend there, too, but I really think you'd have to make sure the numbers do represent the same thing.

[Dr. Ed]

Perhaps there was an increase in asinine Federal rulings?!?

[y81]

Maybe it was when leftist law professors started to feel free to say things like "F--- Anthony Kennedy." (Not being a law professor, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to write the f-word the way they are.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Prof. Volokh can use the "n" word as frequently as he does, I doubt your use of the "f" word would precipitate a problem here -- well, not for you, at least. Your law school dean might spend some time apologizing for your conduct, but why should you care?

[apedad]

You can write fuck and nigger.

You just can't write G*d.

[librarian]

And he ranted about.... lack of tolerance on the left.
Is it safe to say this was an act of intolerance?

[librarian]

Just another episode of a violent attack in the name of self-defense.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Ah yes Trump is obviously the cause of violence here. Title might have well just read "Orange Man Bad" and nothing more.

I find it funny the left is all the sudden concerned about violence even though their voice is silent with the goings-on in Portland and other similar mob violence. We are supposed to believe that assaults on federal buildings and officers are just "peaceful protesters" but this attack on a judge is "orange man bad." Ok....

Also, why is it when one loon shoots up a church basement of minorities, it means we have to take down every single Confederate monument because obviously that is what motivated the shooter there. But, here, the guy seems to have a gripe with the extreme feminism that has pervaded our culture, but here the solution is to blame the President instead of maybe engaging in some introspection on the proper role of feminism in society. Nice double standard.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Let me guess: you also think the Christchurch shooter, the El Paso WalMart shooter, and Breviek raised some legit points.

[librarian]

Maybe Jimmy is right. The feminists should stand down because men are willing to get violent.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Maybe we should defund the police because the minorities are getting violent....

(See how that works?)

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. You should defund the police because they use aggressive and violent tactics in completely inappropriate situations.

[Jimmy the Dane]

And we shouldn't dial back violent feminism because it is disenfranchising men to the extent they are engaging in violence? I'm just using your logic to try to understand.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What would dialing back violent feminism (whatever that is) look like to you anyway?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You running for King of the Incels, Jimmy?

[AmosArch]

This trend of throwing around the label of incel for everybody who disagrees with feminism doesn't make sense. Disagreeing with extreme feminists and being willing to criticize them means you can't get laid?

Wouldn't it make more sense that the majority of guys who can't get sex would white knight for women at every opportunity to try to get on their good side? I mean since rape is illegal thats pretty much the only thing you can do if you're a loser who wants sex.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I'm sure some men disingenuously think being a feminist will get them laid.

But people who throw around the words "white knight" or "virtue signal" are simply trying to de-legitimize the concept of doing good things or thinking good thoughts. It allows them to disregard morality and justify their own cynical world view and degenerate values. See, if everyone has an ulterior motive then there is no reason to be a good person in the first place.

So congrats on telling everyone your values suck.

[AmosArch]

I'm talking about the weird habit feminists have of labeling any disagreement as 'incel' regardless if the target is female or revealed anything about their sex lives. When the label is far more likely to apply to men blindly allying themselves with anything with a vagina.

It makes zero sense to criticize women if you're trying to sleep with them. What you said has zero to do with anything.

[Don Nico]

Virtue signaling is intellectually lazy and morally corrupt. But it does avoid one's being canceled.

[Sarcastr0]

Not the Violent Femmes!

[librarian]

I don't think the police should be defunded.

[bernard11]

There is reason to believe the RW press has exaggerated the problems in Portland. Not that there aren't any, but the city is hardly in flames.

[ThePublius]

It is EXACTLY in flames! What are you thinking?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/19/us/portland-police-federal-authorities/index.html

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, that's hardly Portland in flames.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Except for the police building, the statue, the fires in the street, but who is keeping track. It is obviously just all made up by the "right wing media" (if such a thing even exists.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

By clinger standards (as applied to Portland), Trump waged war against peaceful citizens when he and his friends violently cleared Lafayette Square.

I am not in favor of a war crimes trial for Trump and Barr; I am not a deplorable wingnut and I reject clinger standards.

[ThePublius]

Yea, "LOL," very funny. Burning federal buildings, etc. Big joke.

[Sarcastr0]

You wrote a check your ass can't cash.

I'm not saying it's cool, I'm saying that's not Portland in Flames, and it's pretty silly of you to say so.

[ThePublius]

How much has to burn before you can say "Portland in flames?" Five buildings? Fifty? How many cars? Over how many days? Don't be a dick, "protesters" are setting things on fire there, including buildings and cars, and are using accelerants.

This, from a month ago!:
"Arson investigators are asking the public to help identify those responsible for nearly 100 arson fires in Portland over the past two weeks.

"According to the list released by the Portland Police Bureau and Portland Fire & Rescue, most of the fires were set in and near downtown. Suspected causes include fireworks and Molotov cocktails. Targets range from offices to vehicles to portable toilets, piles of debris and dumpsters."

https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/470191-380568-nearly-100-arson-fires-in-portland-under-investigation

Just google "fires in Portland."

You can't just deny this, it's really happening, and it's serious and widespread.

Three days ago:

"Protesters broke into a building, set it on fire and started dumpster fires late Saturday night in Oregon's largest city, police said, as demonstrations that have been taking place since the death of George Floyd intensified for another night in Portland.

The fire at the Portland Police Association building was put out a short time later, Portland police said on Twitter. The department declared the gathering a riot, and began working to clear the downtown area."

Deny all you want, you're wrong.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Don’t be a dick

While you're at it, you should suggest to water that it cease being wet.

[AmosArch]

Its only a little fire!

Man do you realize how demented you look right now?

[Sarcastr0]

Don't strawman, Amos. I am not endorsing setting things on fire.

I'm mocking someone using that fire to argue Portland is in flames.

[ThePublius]

Hundreds of fires.

[Sarcastr0]

Really?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Don’t strawman, Amos. I am not endorsing setting things on fire.

I’m mocking someone using that fire to argue Portland is in flames."

Lol.

[VinniUSMC]

Sarcastr0 seems to be trying to out-stupid Artie. Choking on the libtard koolaid.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe I am wrong - it's been known to happen, even on this forum!

It would be more productive if you engaged with your criticism and didn't just insult me.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It would be more productive if you engaged with your criticism and didn’t just insult me.

Oh, stop it. You've been so utterly full of shit and so resistant to any pleas to get you to knock off your pathological dishonesty for so long that I could scarcely imagine a bigger waste of time than continuing to engage you on anything. The time is long past that you became useful for nothing other than serving as a target of well-deserved disdain and ridicule.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Don’t strawman, Amos.

LOL!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you elaborate on the "double standard" you're seeing here? In both instances, isn't the reaction publicly repudiating the killer's professed ideology?

[Brett Bellmore]

Has anybody sorted those threats out according to which President nominated the judges being threatened?

It would be quite ironic if Manta turned out to be blaming Trump for left wing threats against his own nominees...

[damikesc]

I didn't see conservatives beating on the doors of the SCOTUS when a justice was getting sworn in.

[TW]

The first big increase was from 2015 to 2016 when they changed the definition of what they were measuring by removing the requirement that the "threat or inappropriate communication" needed to also be “deterred or mitigated by the Marshals” which meant they were now counting ones that weren’t previously counted.

The second big jump was from 2017 to 2018 which was also the year that a sitting federal judge was nominated to the Supreme Court and falsely accused of sexual assault and he reported that he had received multiple threats. I doubt that many of those came from Trump supporters.

[rsteinmetz]

That actual number of attacks does not seem to have increased. Perhaps in the current hyper partisan atmosphere people feel freer to threaten judges.

I also wonder, due to the change in wording, if the Marshal started counting all threats, and not just the ones deemed worthy of looking into.

[TW]

Yes, that change in definition seems to correlate with the "increase" in the number of recorded threats. In 2015, they recorded "926 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed, mitigated and deterred by the Marshals." In 2016, they recorded "2,357 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed by the Marshals." They nearly tripled the number the same year they removed the requirement that the "threat and inappropriate communication" have to be one that was "mitigated and deterred by the Marshals."

The other large increase was from 2017 to 2018 when the numbers went from 2,847 to 4,542 which was also the year that we saw a particularly contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh (who was also a sitting federal judge). It’s likely that a lot of the “threats and inappropriate communications” came from those who were opposed to his confirmation. I doubt that many of those were Trump supporters.

[LawTalkingGuy]

While acts of politically or culturally based violence don’t occur in a vacuum, I don’t think Trump’s comments on judges and courts had anything to do with his (alleged) acts.

The heart of this story is that it’s just so unsurprising to find out that a violent and insecure man who hated women also really liked Trump.

[damikesc]

Yet it's Hollywood that has the massive problem of cruel exploitation of women.

And the Right certainly isn't running the show there.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also Fox News.

[Kazinski]

And NBC, and ABC, and CBS. Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly shouldn't get a more prominent mention than Matt Lauer or Les Moonves.

[Ben of Houston]

Well, with a two-party system, there's a 50/50 chance that someone supports him. Then, you add the fact that he was running against a woman, that drastically increases the fact that women-haters would vote for him, even if the man was an angel or a department store mannequin.

Still, not convincing.

[Paul Elliott]

This does not have anything to do with Trump or politics, except indirectly. This is the people that did business with Epstein saying to the entire Federal Judiciary "this could be you, you better rule in the 'right' way."

[librarian]

You're saying it was a conspiracy?

[Sarcastr0]

Do the Clinton Death List next.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now we're getting somewhere! What is really going on out there?

[steeltown lad]

Johnathan P Jackson, Marin County courthouse, August 1970, is why we have metal detectors at federal courthouses. Trump had nothing to do with that murder of a federal judge.

[ReaderY]

There is a big, big difference between disagreeing with a judge’s decisions with coarse language and attempting to kill a judge.

[Dr. Ed]

I don't think the perp was trying to kill the judge -- I think he was trying to hurt her by killing the men she cared about.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, that's okay then.

[Henry]

I think he was a rookie who expected her to answer the door, then panicked when she was the only one who didn't.

[ReaderY]

There is also a big, big difference between having various grievances — for example, thinking mothers have too much of an advantage in custody battles and fathers aren’t being treated fairly, or even thinking women have too much of an upper hand in dating and men aren’t getting enough of of a break - and killing judges.

Dismissing grievances by treating the most outrageous behavior of the most unhinged people sharing them as representative seems to be a common political tactic these days.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I think we as a society can easily dismiss the specific grievance of “women have the upper hand dating.” The way to deal with it, assuming this is a real problem, is to destigmatize therapy and mental health counseling so that extremely insecure men who think this is a real problem that affects them can work through it. Otherwise there’s not anything society can do about it.

[Dr. Ed]

Other than addressing the inequity?

[Sarcastr0]

Lets get some government dating regulations up in here!

[Dr. Ed]

The problem is that we already have them.

[Sarcastr0]

How is dating regulates...Do you mean laws against rape?

[Dr. Ed]

Yes, the Duke Lacross team rapists.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What

[LawTalkingGuy]

How do you propose to do that exactly?

[Illocust]

Personally I'm of the opinion the best way to go about this is to dismiss any non-ace woman's opinion on how men should pick up girls if she has never asked someone else out on a date first. Social pressure is a great way to make it a point of shame to demand other people take all the risks then dictate how they do it.

But what would I know. I'm just a woman.

[AmosArch]

Women have a huge advantage in the romance arena. That is not opinion that is fact embedded so deeply in our genes you can see it throughout the vast majority of the rest of the animal kingdom. Nobody (at least not any major group I know of) is seriously suggesting any quotas or legislation to 'fix' this. All MRAs generally want is actual equal rights in custody, punishments etc. an end to the flood of sexist freebies, and for government/authorities to stop promulgating the myth that men have it so much easier than women.

Now there are extremists in every faction. Suffragettes engaged in bombing campaigns yet I don't see Manta suggesting this delegitmizes women's suffrage.

Likewise trying to smear an entire movement with the actions of a few or outright lying and claiming MRAs want to establish some weird forced dating law doesn't speak to well of their opponents tactics.

[TWW]

Query whether you have any evidence suggesting that Trump is responsible for this tragedy?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

She doesn't like him. For the left, that's all the evidence that is required.

[CJColucci]

I litigated a case against Den Hollander in 2008. He was clearly nuts then, and seems to have gotten worse since.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What kind of case, if you don’t mind my asking?

[P. Henry]

He especially dislikes Latinas. You can’t get any crazier than that. They treat men well, yet are independent. And are passionate lovers that don’t mind taking control. Or so I’ve heard....

[Dr. Ed]

"Endangering judges imperils democracy as a whole."

ONLY when (a) everyone has equal access to the courts, and (b) judges are viewed as disinterested and neutral. Neither is the case here...

I fear attacks on governmental officials for other reasons, but democracy is already imperiled.

[Sarcastr0]

Tin pot revolutionary and drama queen Ed is once again afraid of violence breaking out because of all the people who agree with his radical worldview. No him, though. Just all the other people.

Remember when Ed was afraid of COVID resulting in a famine? Or about the anti-lockdown folks starting to assassinate tyrannical pro-lockdown government officials?

None of it came true of course. Ed certainly didn't predict the BLM protests, nor the feds occupying Portland.

What new drama will Ed be baselessly concerned that disagreeing with Ed will result in violence next?

[Leo Marvin]

Murderers presumptively own exclusive responsibility for their crimes. That doesn't mean one broken person or another can't be persuaded to unleash their rage at a desired target. It just means causality is so hard to prove that speculating about hypothetical brainwashing is so much more likely to be harmful than productive that such exercises are generally best avoided.

Besides, Trump's demagoguery doesn't need a nexus to a particular criminal outcome to be reprehensible. It reeks on its own merits.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This killer seems to have been a misogynist and disaffected kook long before Donald Trump arrived on the political scene.

[Sarcastr0]

Well said.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Violence to liberals:

Burning buildings, assaulting dissenters, engaging in conspiracy to deny others civil rights, arson, destruction of public property, etc. Yeah!!! These people have a legitimate grievance. We ought to listen to them and do what they want!

Guy has had enough with militant feminism. Booh! It is all Trump's fault!!!!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Maybe it’s because racism and police abuse is real and “militant feminism” is just something mediocre men whine about when they’re frustrated that most people don’t think the universe should cater to them? Just a thought.

[Jimmy the Dane]

And there is a sizable amount of the population who think racism and police abuse are just people complaining for political gain....

Who are we in this post-modern society moral relativist society where I can self identify as any gender to say whether either side is right?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well, one is historically supported and in the modern era on video. The other, again, is in the fever dreams of “nice guys” who typically turn out to be not all that nice.

[Illocust]

Yep, there is absolutely no sentencing gap for violent crimes between men and women. Hey did you know that black women are considered discriminated against because they are given sentence for violent crime that are shorter than those given to white men? Isn't that odd, how having better results than the most "privileged" demographic in society would be considered being discriminated again. Almost like reality doesn't fit your pat little narrative.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What do sexist assumptions about violent crime have to do with militant feminism?

[Illocust]

Hey did you know when California Domestic Abuse laws required the aggressor to be arrested, feminists protested until it was changed to have the bigger person arrested because they didn't like how many women were getting arrested for Domestic Abuse. Strange that, almost like they didn't actually care about victims.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Code section?

[Illocust]

California Penal Code Section 13701 requires the arrest of the "dominant" aggressor rather than the first aggressor. As there is no way for an on the spot officer to know who is historically the aggressor, the training has been pushed to go with the party able to do the most harm, a.k.a the man.

Before it was implemented there had been a historic rise in the arrest of women for domestic violence reaching all the way to 15% before something had to be done.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a stretch.

Dominant versus first is not sexist. And speculating on how officers will react is not the same as 'it was changed to have the bigger person arrested'. After all, how would they know who was the first aggressor?

In fact, it kinda sounds like you bought a false narrative.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Here is the text of the statute:

Peace officers shall make reasonable efforts to identify the dominant aggressor in any incident. The dominant aggressor is the person determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the dominant aggressor, an officer shall consider the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing abuse, the threats creating fear of physical injury, the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and whether either person acted in self-defense.

In addition to not requiring the arrest of anyone, it is difficult for me to see how that could be fairly described as equating the dominant aggressor with "the bigger person".

[Don Nico]

Have a read "The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data
Challenge Old Assumptions" June 2014, Vol 104, No. 6 | American Journal of Public Health

[Sarcastr0]

1. Looks like a solid paper.

2. This does not indicate anything about California domestic abuse laws requiring bigger person to be arrested.

3. I would not be surprised that there are systematic issues all men must face, but the He-Man Feminist-Haters Club up in here are not up to the job of finding them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Or are you saying that racism against black people disappeared in 1964?

[Illocust]

A black woman will be sentenced to a shorter sentence than a white man for the same crime. You can't claim she's suffering from racism without also admitting she's benefiting from sexism. Cest you are the one declaring that sexism against men only exists in people's head, you can concede you were talking out of your ass about a subject you never bothered to research.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don't see how this statistic:

1. Disproves that racism exists against black Americans.

2. Says anything about "militant feminism." Unless you think state trial judges across the country are somehow militant feminists?

[Jimmy the Dane]

And the guy who got passed up for a promotion because he has the wrong genitalia totally doesn't exist and if he did exist he should be happy to know the diversity gods have been pleased.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. Sorry you didn't get that promotion.

[Sarcastr0]

Men occupy most of the positions of power in just about every public or private profession.

Moreover, you've stepped back a lot from the violent part of violent feminists.

[AmosArch]

Slight clarification. A few men occupy the very pinnacles of power in most professions as figureheads although this too is shifting.

On average though while men are more likely to be the top dog they are also far more likely to be the outcast, there are far more homeless, ostracized, and locked up men. Women on the other hand benefit more from far superior networks and a society that looks after them more in general.

Personally of the people I know the men are on average living more insecure lives with worse jobs than the gals and I would wager this is more true in general than we would like to admit.

Men are given the risks of the dizzying highs and the lows, they win big or they lose. Women get the security of the middle. By no means could any objective person say women are disadvantaged on the whole. Modern Feminism basically demands that women be handed the best of both worlds without earning it.

Again you can look at the majority of the animal kingdom to see the same phenomenon in action.

[grb]

In 2018, a woman working full time earned 81.6 cents for every dollar a man working full time earns on average. Additionally, women's median annual earnings are $9,766 less than men's, according to data from the US Census Bureau.

1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men experience severe intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner contact sexual violence, and/or intimate partner stalking.

Of the companies that make up the 2019 Fortune 500 list, released, 33 had women CEOs.

As of November 2019, there were 101 women in the U.S. House of Representatives, making women 23.2% of the total of U.S. Representatives. As of January 2020, there are 26 women serving in the United States Senate, 17 Democrats and 9 Republicans.

As of October 2019, more than 73 percent of sitting federal judges were men

An "objective person" might find these numbers significant.....

[AmosArch]

>>>>>>>>
In 2018, a woman working full time earned 81.6 cents for every dollar a man working full time earns on average. Additionally, women’s median annual earnings are $9,766 less than men’s, according to data from the US Census Bureau.
>>>>>>>

Wage gap is a long debunked myth try again. men and women don't do the same work. Be it day to day or grubbing for a promotion. Even and especially when they technically hold the same position. Also couples effectively merge their assets and women typically control the day to day expenditures of their husbands money so the nonexistent difference becomes even more meaningless.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men experience severe intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner contact sexual violence, and/or intimate partner stalking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

According to another debunked survey

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of the companies that make up the 2019 Fortune 500 list, released, 33 had women CEOs.

As of November 2019, there were 101 women in the U.S. House of Representatives, making women 23.2% of the total of U.S. Representatives. As of January 2020, there are 26 women serving in the United States Senate, 17 Democrats and 9 Republicans.

As of October 2019, more than 73 percent of sitting federal judges were men
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Like I said you got a few guys as figureheads at the top and a lot of guys at the bottom and even thats changing due to Affirmative action. Should I feel privileged that the Emperor of the World is male if the vast majority of guys are cleaning out the gutters for the office working women?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An “objective person” might find these numbers significant…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

so much for your factcheck

[grb]

(1) What you don't wanna face you write-off as "debunked" Got it.

(2) Your theory men are all sunk in abject misery except for a handful of figureheads, while every woman happily nests in some merry middle is bizarrely silly. Can you really believe something so stupid? For the record, women have a higher rate of poverty than men, 13.6% vs 10.6% in 2017 from census data.

(3) I've been in my profession approaching 40 years and every boss I've had was male, in firms big and small. Were they all "figureheads" ?!?

(4) Even allowing your wacko blather re token "figureheads" at the top, women are still objectively disadvantaged in every category of political and socioeconomic power. Can you not see that?

(5) While I was hiking the AT a couple of times women hikers fell in with me - in large part because they had a legitimate concern about being assaulted or murdered if they hiked alone. Women deal with a whole lot of shit you'll never have to face. Are you so clueless you don't get that?

(6) The last time I faced snowflake male victimhood here was a thread on Pence's fear of being alone with a non-wife women. I saw comment after comment then by men weepy over the traumatic burden of being born male. Geez, it was pathetic....

[AmosArch]

@grb

1. Yes its debunked I can't post a link here but you can look up the forbes article 'Don't buy into the Gender Wage Gap Myth' for example if you dare. Its written by a woman btw

2. I never said every single woman is living better than every single man but yes from what I've seen imo women (on average) do better in basic resources and support than men. Now showing this would be a whole nother post so I'll just say in terms of evidence there is more to counter the popular notion that men have it better than women than to support it. If you think you've owned me with your 3% additional poverty based on income thresholds (which doesn't take into account all the support from government and elsewhere baby mama gets btw) let me raise you the homeless rate of which there are twice as many men as women.

3. Yes for every successful bro out there there are a bunch of losers who are on average worse off than the equivalent women by percentile.

4. I don't agree with this at all. Feminists like to apply the great man fallacy to society where it benefits them. Hence the braindead notion that men had all the power in history and enslaved women (who were somehow still free enough to deserve 1/2 credit for all historical achievements across every single field of human endeavor according to libs)

There are more ways to exert power than to be the King and women especially historically tend to exert power in different ways then men do.

5. Thats because dumb people can't think for themselves and live in a fantasy world concocted for them by the media. You should tell your hiker friends that men are 5x more likely to be murdered. Not to say that men AND women shouldn't be careful and use common sense at all times which ironically is simultaneously discouraged.

6. If you dismiss the concerns of another's group why shouldn't I dismiss your concerns for your group?

[AmosArch]

whoops make that ~4x more likely to be murdered I'm sorry.

[grb]

(2-3) So it doesn't matter that women have a higher poverty rate than men? You're still convinced (anecdotally) they live the life of ease. Setting aside your own highly developed sense of grievance, that opinion is based on what exactly? As for your swipe at "baby mama", women are 80% of the single parents in this country. Unless you think a child is a money-making machine, that's a point for my side, not yours.

(4) You : "There are more ways to exert power than to be the King and women especially historically tend to exert power in different ways then men do"

I'm sure you realize that opinion isn't new. For millennia women were told they didn't have to make the laws, enforce the laws, earn money, or be responsible for the big decisions out in the broader world. As long as they were helpmates to a man - keeping him well-fed, satisfied & happy - they did their part. I'm sure you believe you're saying something less trite, but we won't know until you elaborate. Please do.

(5) But here are the facts : Women are a small minority of hikers on the Appalachian Trail, but have been murdered at nearly twice the rate of men. Why? Because getting killed on the AT is not violence connected with a criminal enterprise. I live in a city with a high murder rate, but a sizable percentage of that is connected to gangs and the drug trade, where men are much more heavily involved.

Men commit 89.5% of murders (conviction rate), 87.9% of the robberies, 85.0% of the burglaries, 83.0% of the arsons. Men are most likely to be victims of drug-related (90.5%) and gang-related homicides (94.6%).

On the other hand, women are most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7%) and sex-related homicides (81.7%). Like I said, they deal with a lot of shit.

[M L]

"Men commit 89.5% of murders (conviction rate), 87.9% of the robberies, 85.0% of the burglaries, 83.0% of the arsons."

Now do race.

[AmosArch]

(2-3) "So it doesn’t matter that women have a higher poverty rate than men? You’re still convinced (anecdotally) they live the life of ease. Setting aside your own highly developed sense of grievance, that opinion is based on what exactly? "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I told and you won't listen to me. Men are 60% of the homeless and 90% of the incarcerated. The true outcasts of society. You're side is the one that demands to maintain and gain additional privileges. Not mine. Your additional 3% based purely on direct income isn't very convincing when stacked up against information giving a fuller picture plus the fact that there is a lot more support these women are getting compared to the male homeless and incarcerated. Again I'm not ragging on women that actually have a hard time but as the one pushing the BS narrative that women are so much more persecuted than men you have the burden of proof and sorry but I'm not seeing it here with you simply ignoring my arguments.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m sure you realize that opinion isn’t new. For millennia women were told they didn’t have to make the laws, enforce the laws, earn money, or be responsible for the big decisions out in the broader world. As long as they were helpmates to a man – keeping him well-fed, satisfied & happy – they did their part. I’m sure you believe you’re saying something less trite, but we won’t know until you elaborate. Please do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Women didn't take the jobs of preindustrial chieftains and warriors and blacksmiths etc (with extremely rare exceptions) because they couldn't due to the direct rigors and the inherent dynamics of preindustrial societies. Simple as that. Its no coincidence women's lib began when the effects of industrialization became mainstream and why you find this pattern practically without exception through the entire world throughout all of history. If we reverted back to mad max then eventually women and men would naturally reassume the same roles. Theres no all powerful shadowy boys club dictating rules a priori that delusional feminists believe in.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(5) But here are the facts : Women are a small minority of hikers on the Appalachian Trail, but have been murdered at nearly twice the rate of men. Why? Because getting killed on the AT is not violence connected with a criminal enterprise. I live in a city with a high murder rate, but a sizable percentage of that is connected to gangs and the drug trade, where men are much more heavily involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Victim blaming are we now?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Men commit 89.5% of murders (conviction rate), 87.9% of the robberies, 85.0% of the burglaries, 83.0% of the arsons. Men are most likely to be victims of drug-related (90.5%) and gang-related homicides (94.6%).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Those men who died. They all deserve it!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On the other hand, women are most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7%) and sex-related homicides (81.7%). Like I said, they deal with a lot of shit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And who's to say they aren't at least partially at fault for these just like you say men are to blame for their own deaths?

[grb]

Four points :

(1) Your "there is a lot more support these women are getting compared to the male homeless and incarcerated" is pretty strange. Care to explain how the male poor aren't getting the same support over the homeless and incarcerated? Of course in your mind this "lot more support" seems to be some X-factor you add to any set of data to jigger the numbers - so women always emerge triumphant over male victimhood (data be damned).

(2) Also, it's sweetly liberal of you to have all those men incarcerated because of the oppression against their sex. Me? I thought they were there because they committed crimes....

(3) Which brings us to : Victim blaming are we now? Well, yeah - if you're so bleeding heart as to call it that. I'd bet much (if not all) of the numeric edge you tout on men as victims of crime is explained by parallel numbers on male criminality. Of course a soft-hearted type like yourself probably think those men are criminals only because they've been oppressed because of their maleness. Huh. I wonder if that reasoning works with race?

(4) Who knew women couldn't be ruler, or doctor, or legislator, or businessperson, or politician, or architect because of upper body strength, be it societies preindustrial, postindustrial, or postmodern? Hell, in Shakespeare's England or Tokugawa Japan they couldn't even be actors playing female roles. Upper body strength strikes again !!!

[AmosArch]

1) Your “there is a lot more support these women are getting compared to the male homeless and incarcerated” is pretty strange. Care to explain how the male poor aren’t getting the same support over the homeless and incarcerated? Of course in your mind this “lot more support” seems to be some X-factor you add to any set of data to jigger the numbers – so women always emerge triumphant over male victimhood (data be damned).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm sorry are you not going to be satisfied unless I produce a formal research dissertation that directly compares a mother pulling down SNAP and WIC and all the other programs out there for her with a guy lying half dead on the asphalt in skid row to prove which one has it worse?

I want equality. Your side wants discrimination allegedly to make up for discrimination. The difference is I can open a twitter page to see your side boasting about the first type of discrimination while the latter has to be inferred. Since you want government to take an active role into continuing to strongarm people into giving women their 'fair share' the burden of proof is on you. I've directly answered you and provided specific information and statistics that cast doubt on the conclusions you've drawn from your data. The only thing you can do is vaguely dismiss my data.

I must commend you however for giving up on defending the silly wage gap and 1/4 myth. You are starting to see how shaky this belief system is.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(2) Also, it’s sweetly liberal of you to have all those men incarcerated because of the oppression against their sex. Me? I thought they were there because they committed crimes….

(3) Which brings us to : Victim blaming are we now? Well, yeah – if you’re so bleeding heart as to call it that. I’d bet much (if not all) of the numeric edge you tout on men as victims of crime is explained by parallel numbers on male criminality. Of course a soft-hearted type like yourself probably think those men are criminals only because they’ve been oppressed because of their maleness. Huh. I wonder if that reasoning works with race?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

Everything you argue here I can turn around on women. Its their fault that xyz happens more to them for xyz reasons.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(4) Who knew women couldn’t be ruler, or doctor, or legislator, or businessperson, or politician, or architect because of upper body strength, be it societies preindustrial, postindustrial, or postmodern? Hell, in Shakespeare’s England or Tokugawa Japan they couldn’t even be actors playing female roles. Upper body strength strikes again !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Theres a lot more to differences between men and women than upper body strength. I'm also obviously arguing that biological and technological factors are the ultimate cause behind gender roles as opposed to some silly conspiracy. Not that there is a magical rule which specifically prevents women from doing any aspect of a male job. You're just making yourself look ignorant.

I enjoy breaking down your brainwashing. I know its difficult after years of being built up by propaganda from all directions with no opposition but we're trucking along fine I wager.

[grb]

Back to the top : Of the Fortune 500 companies, 33 had women CEOs. In the Senate & House, about 25% are women. Of sitting federal judges, 73% were men.

I show you this, and you say it's irrelevant. You sneer at the numbers, even though you must know there's tons more statistical data available that show women underrepresented in every category of political and socioeconomic power. But YOU want equality. Up is down. Black is white.

Also, there were "biological and technological factors" that prevented women from acting women's roles in Elizabethan England? Huh. That would have never occurred to me without your input. Insights like that are what makes debating you a barrel of laughs...

[Sarcastr0]

Figureheads? Haha. Prove it, or GTFO.

Personally of the people I know the men are on average living more insecure lives with worse jobs than the gals and I would wager this is more true in general than we would like to admit.
That's not proving anything. In the agency I work at, I see the opposite. Just as meaningless.

Women get the security of the middle
Even if true, this still admits glass ceilings exist. American culture isn't about seeking the 'security of the middle'

[AmosArch]

Men aren't asking for handouts, feminists are. Its your job to offer a compelling case not ours.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not handouts. The playing field is tilted towards men, so it's an easy trick to call call any change to the status quo a handout.

Viagra is covered by health insurance. So is baldness medication.
Birth control? NEVAR!

[AmosArch]

I'm cool with removing all nonessential stuff from being required by law like that even though Viagra and baldness treatments are probably vastly more expensive. Btw can you link me to any government mandates of the same geographic breadth as birth control mandates requiring that insurers cover Viagra ? I'm sure an upstanding fellow like yourself is above making such misleading false equivalences but I'm having a little trouble so maybe you can help me out.

[Leo Marvin]

What I am comfortable saying without fear of tarring any innocents, is that those here, on other threads and across social media gleefully wishcasting bloody retribution on liberals -- and yes, that's overwhelmingly a right wing phenomenon -- are garbage people.

[Jimmy the Dane]

What about liberals who were sending around memes about guillotines (and if you search Twitter still plenty of them going around?)

[LawTalkingGuy]

They suck too.

[Leo Marvin]

As LTG said, those are terrible people too. They're also a barely discernible drop in the ocean next to the prominent RW personae-led movement of civil war wishcasters.

[VinniUSMC]

In the fever dreams of the lefty nutcases, sure.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you want fever dreams: read Kurt Schlicter and then ask yourself why he has significant appeal among the right.

[Sarcastr0]

So...what are your thoughts about civil war breaking out?

[Illocust]

If my twitter feed wasn't filled with liberals sharing videos of men punching actually peaceful pro-life female protesters. You might have a point, but your five years late to the party to claim this is a conservative problem. Leftist young adults and kids have glorified actual violence against actual people for years without comment. Just because CNN doesn't want to report on it, doesn't make it magically disappear.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That makes sense to someone who is rationale. And as far as the Left is concerned rationality turned out the lights when it exited the office c. 2008.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Link?

[Illocust]

I'm not linking you to my twitter feed. I'm not stupid enough to invite you to stalk me.

But here is the video I was referencing, and note, I only know about it because the liberals on my twitter feed liked to share it: https://globalnews.ca/video/4514464/man-roundhouse-kicks-pro-life-advocate-at-toronto-anti-abortion-protest

[Illocust]

The other favorite I always see is support for punching "Nazis" followed by declaring every single member of the Republican party is a Nazi. Sorry the calls for violence and justification for violence has been going on for ages on the left. It just gets ignored because most news channels are 90% liberal reporters and confirmation bias means that it doesn't spread (this is excluding the actual malice that has developed over the last two years).

For a quick example of how this works with reporter. Imagine you have a liberal reporter. They see two tweets, one involves a republican behaving badly, one involves a democrat behaving badly. Which one do they retweet? Now which one do they make ten follow up tweets about? Which one do they make a hashtag about? Now multiply that by a hundred reporters all doing the same thing. Human don't like talking about things that make their tribe look bad, and when most reporters are part of one tribe, that means those stories get buried just by the nature of how humans work.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Thanks. Glad he was arrested. Although you shouldn't have used the plural "men" when it was a single man.

But you can't also pretend that the right doesn't also glorify violence. I mean you have Kurt Schlicter writing and selling the Turner Diaries-light, people saying Pinochet did nothing wrong, people saying the Christchurch shooter did nothing wrong, people saying Breivik did nothing wrong, and just the everyday mundane making excuses for the most gross examples of police violence.

And trust me. I don't want to follow your feed.

[Jimmy the Dane]

And of course there was the guy who shot up a Congressional Republican ballgame. The left was just all crickets there too.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Were they? If I recall correctly they called for gun control to reduce gun violence and then conservatives got mad about that.

[Leo Marvin]

Lol. Yeah, sorry Jimmy but LTG's right again. Those crickets are in your head.

But thanks for bringing up the Scalise shooting, because it reminds me: Guess who Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, Jr. Kelly Conway, and others blamed for the shooting. Spoiler alert, it wasn't the Rotarians.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The Rotarians were the ones behind that shooting though.

[AmosArch]

You haven't been on Twitter have you?

"on liberals"

oh okay if you're going to limit it to that obviously there will be less Democrats but thats an essentially purposeless statement.

[Amazing Propagandist]

"The suspect seems to have had a particular distaste for Latina women"

There's no need to say Latina women; it is redundant.

[Ohio Lawyer]

Tell Sotomayor, the “wise Latina woman” now dispensing wisdom from the SCOTUS.

[Don Nico]

OL,
we know from spanish grammar that the a (in latina) is about gender;
so is woman about sex? genetics, dna, or redundancy?

[Sarcastr0]

I'd say its about the interface between languages. English doesn't have genders, so you need that pronoun or else it sounds weird, even if it's redundant.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Remember when some Senators filed a brief threatening the Supreme Court....

Again, the Left had nothing to say about that. If some Republicans had done that we would have never heard the end of it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Threatening violence, or proposing to play by the rules with respect to enlargement?

[Ohio Lawyer]

Democrats play by rules???

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[Henry]

If I were a political "extreme dirty tricks" specialist, and I had reason to eliminate a judge who had just been placed in charge of a court action involving Someone Dangerous To My Boss Who Didn't Kill Himself, I'd look for a patsy with a credible grudge (hey, five years isn't that long), fill his son's PC with kiddie porn, then tell dad that I wouldn't prosecute the kid if dad did me a little favor. You know, like the General Flynn thing. Of course, the guy is an amateur, and panics when the wrong person answers the door, but that's always one of the risks. Then it's the obligatory "suicide" in a remote, unwitnessed location, and a new plot to put together.

[Sarcastr0]

Did Q send you?

[Number 2]

My gut is telling me that there must be more to the story than what we have been told thus far. Why target one specific judge that he appeared in front of in a case once, and who allowed his case to proceed? Don’t tell me its because she was a woman - if he tried cases in New Jersey he inevitably appeared before female judges before, likely including numerous non-white female judges.

Let’s get the whole story before we start blaming Trumpian rhetoric or talking about incels being an ISIS-level terrorist threat - it’s not like we need to give the federal government another pretext for increasing the power of the national/homeland security complex.

[Jerry B.]

Interesting that this can get blamed on incels, but Antifa can't be blamed because it doesn't exist.

[Sarcastr0]

Uh, you think Antifa is behind this shooting?

This issue with Antifa is that the right blaming everything they can see on Antifa.
Compared to how much space it's taking in right-wing heads, it does indeed not exist.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, the numbers from 2012-2015 refer to one thing, and the numbers from 2016-2019 refer to something else. Is nobody else picking up on that?

"threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed, mitigated and deterred by the Marshals." vs "threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed by the Marshals."

When they changed from one to the other the numbers TRIPLED. That just stinks of apples and oranges.

[Number 2]

Hush Brett. Do you want to ruin a dramatic sub-headline with facts?

[M L]

Pretty strange that another "MRA" lawyer, Marc Angelucci, was just assassinated in the exact same way as the judge's family - assassin posing as a fedex driver. Except this attorney was in California, and by all accounts he was an exceptionally good and kind person.

This coincidence struck me immediately when the Judge Salas news came out because I had just read about the Angelucci murder, and a friend who posted about it appears to have been familiar with him. At that moment, there was nobody on the internet drawing this connection. But now, look here, it seems there may be something there: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/us/hollander-angelucci-judge-salas-shooting/index.html

Also, of course, sensationalists immediately pointed out Judge Salas is on a case relating to Epstein and his financial records. I've no reason to think that is anything but unfortunate coincidence.

[M L]

Did anyone see this story?

Rioters Set Portland Police Association On Fire, Attempt to Lock Officers Inside

Comment system won't let me link.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I remember when you tried to blame Bernie Sanders when one of his fans shot up a congressional softball game. Oh, wait...no I don't.

[neurodoc]

With the topic here that of murdering federal judges, an alarming business, I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned Woody Harrelson's father. He served life in a federal maximum prison after conviction for that crime.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sure. There are lots of gross, evil, and sexist democratic men. But I don’t think anyone serves as an avatar of values for the insecure and mediocre man quite like Trump. I mean his whole schtick has always been designed to appeal to them.

[Dr. Ed]

There are plenty of evil women, too.....

[DJK]

I dunno. Bernie Sanders seems like a great avatar for insecurity and mediocrity. After all, those are the highest ideals of democratic socialism. Wow, engaging in ad hominems is easy. Maybe try to rise above it and make substantive points instead.

[Kazinski]

Almost like the Kennedy's blueprint and early Clinton, but nowhere near as depraved as Weinstein, Epstein and later Clinton.

It's really hard after our cultural and political elites defended Roman Polanski drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl as "not rape-rape", and ignored Joe Biden's grope rape of a staffer for them to tut-tut Trump's mostly empty braggadocio.

Sure wheel out the criticism when it's topical but nobody takes it seriously except a few of the victims, some like Tara Reade who have no illusions about how seriously others take it.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not going to cast blame on the President, but you know what doesn't matter? How or why a judge is threatened.

Don't threaten judges.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bluster and threats are just about all the clingers have left.

Well, that and six months.

[Commenter_XY]

I am in complete agreement with you on this, Sarcastr0.

You do not, do not, do not ever threaten a Federal judge. Period.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just ask any incel . . .

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Manta's concerns about incels would be easier to take seriously if she had not joined a blog that cultivates an audience loaded with incels.

[Dr. Ed]

Or STUAF

[VinniUSMC]

I almost want to vote for Trump just to watch morons like you drown in your tears when he is re-elected. Almost.

[VinniUSMC]

What is special about Federal judges that they should never be threatened? How about not threatening anybody without good cause?

[Sarcastr0]

What's special is that they're in positions where they are threatened a lot more than random schmoes. And targeted more often by actual crazy people.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" What is special about Federal judges that they should never be threatened? "

This relegates you to the inconsequential, objectionable fringe of American society.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fake?

I'm as real as the half-century of reason-based American progress shaped against your wishes and efforts . . . with plenty more on the way.

You are not required to acknowledge or like it. But you will comply.