Thursday Open Thread

|

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: Can Places of Public Accommodation Exclude People Based on Their Politics?

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

  1. Biden Executive Orders on Guns.

    We don’t know exactly what it will be, but there’s speculation that so-called “ghost guns” will be targeted, perhaps requiring background checks for parts purchases.

    So, legally, how can POTUS impose gun regulations on things that are not guns, like 80% lowers? Barrels, uppers, buttstocks, parts kits?

    At what point will people just ignore EOs? Will blue states take these EO to the bank, and pursue it’s citizens with them?

    Finally, what is the legality of EOs usurping state law regarding gun purchases, bearing arms, storing arms, etc.?

    1. It may well be a toothless Executive Action, like Obama’s memorandum reminding FFLs that they have to conduct background checks when they sell at gun shows, this may simply remind them to conduct background checks when transferring “ghost guns”

      I also expect a bumpstock-style EO directing the ATF to figure out a way to classify pistols with braces as SBRs

      1. The ATF was prepared to reclassify braces in December but walked back from it. I suspect they’ll do it again and perhaps just ignore the public comments this time.

        For enforcement the typical ATF thing to do is raid a business and seize all of their assets and customer records. Continue doing this until businesses get the memo and stop selling/doing the thing that the ATF doesn’t like.

        Then perhaps 5 years later a judge will rule the ATFs decisions and actions illegal, but no one in the industry will touch the offending item for fear of being “reclassified” as a felon overnight.

        Rinse and repeat until the ATF saves us from ourselves.

        1. Ok McVeigh, settle down with your kvetching

          1. Believe me, he has settled down, emphasis on down.

        2. Personally, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to classify shoulderable pistol braces as a rifle stock, making pistols using them SBRs.

          Personally, I don’t think it would be all that difficult for pistol brace manufacturers to go back and re-design them in a way that makes them not useable as a shoulder stock.

          1. What’s unreasonable is the length of the gun mattering in the first place.

            If you can own pistols, what rational basis do they have for caring that a rifle is short? Because rifles are designed to be more accurate?

            Do they really have an excuse for banning a short gun because it might be accurate?

            If rational basis actually had anything to do with rationality, the ban on short rifles wouldn’t survive a moment.

            1. I am not for additional gun control without a new constitutional amendment.

              That being said, the habit of conservatives (whom with I often agree) to reduce their opponents’ arguments to ridiculousness, feigning ignorance, and presenting false dichotomies is intolerable.

              A short barreled rifle has greater potential for causing a greater number of deadlier casualties in a short amount of time than a pistol, and is more concealable than a longer rifle.

              There is a reason delta operators conduct a raid with short barreled rifles, and not pistols or long rifles. Let’s not pretend there is no functional difference.

              1. Um, check your white privilege! Handgun violence is the scourge of the Black community in America but fragile white progressives never talk about banning handguns because they only see assault rifle violence affecting their lily white schools and communities.

              2. That being said, the habit of conservatives (whom with I often agree) to reduce their opponents’ arguments to ridiculousness, feigning ignorance, and presenting false dichotomies is intolerable.

                A short barreled rifle has greater potential for causing a greater number of deadlier casualties in a short amount of time than a pistol, and is more concealable than a longer rifle.

                SBRs are advantageous in urban combat situations (where your target is usually shooting back) because of the need to negotiate confined spaces like door and hallways, or as combat PD weapons in cases where their shorter length allows them to be stored in cramped quarters. But as weapons for mowing down defenseless civilians (often defenseless because state/local laws render them so) they offer little to no effective advantages compared with even pistols. In fact if you examine the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, the feature set that is unique to SBRs would have made virtually no difference to the casualty count or severity. In the case of the deadliest school shooting (VA Tech), it likely would have hampered the shooter, who used even lighter pistols with lighter ammo and magazines, allowing him to carry even more rounds/reloads even in standard-capacity mags. The fact that his victims were clustered in relatively confined spaces and defenseless was what made the difference.

                1. The issue with Virginia Tech, quite bluntly, is that those who followed the rules DIED while those who broke them either lived or (in one case) enabled others to live.

                  The people who smashed out windows, jumped out of windows, ripped apart the “caution” tape and escaped via restricted construction areas — all lived.

                  The people who did what they were supposed to, lined up in straight lines, and only attempted to go out the designated exits (which the perp had chained shut) ALL DIED!

                  As I understand it, at one point he ran out of ammo and they just stood there, waiting for him to change clips so they, too, could be shot. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?

                  Forget just throwing laptops — which thrown like a frisbee would be a fairly effective weapon — purses and shoes come to mind. As does trying to jam a pencil into the weapon itself, something like that was actually done at the Gabby Gifford shooting which is what stopped it. Even on an AK — which, designed to be “Ivan-proof” has notoriously wide clearances, if the clip can’t go straight into the weapon, the live round isn’t going to be chambered….

                  1. Nobody jammed a pencil in the weapon; the murderer was clubbed on the head with a folding chair, tackled by a 74 year-old, and then restrained by 3 people.

                  2. Oh c’mon, be fair, it takes a couple of massacres to iron out the best massacre survival strategies.

                2. The other thing to remember is that — as a general rule — the longer the barrel, the more lethal the weapon (with the same powder charge).

                  It’s simple physics — the longer the bullet contains the overpressure in the barrel — particularly with a progressively burning powder — the more energy will be transferred to the bullet before it leaves the barrel. Energy is also lost in a variety of ways but, in general, the longer the barrel the more lethal a bullet is.

                  Short barrels may be sexy, and there are a lot of advantages of, say, even +a carbine over a full length rifle — but compare the ballistics sometime…

                3. “SBRs are advantageous in urban combat situations (where your target is usually shooting back) because of the need to negotiate confined spaces like door and hallways, or as combat PD weapons in cases where their shorter length allows them to be stored in cramped quarters. But as weapons for mowing down defenseless civilians…”

                  I’m gonna stop you right there. Almost any aspect of a weapon that makes it more effective in combat will make it more effective at killing people, period. The short barrel and easier manueverability of an SBR that helps in urban combat helps in shooting innocent people in urban areas too.

                  This is exactly the behavior I’m complaining about. I don’t think you are doing it intentionally, but it is a knee jerk reaction from conservatives, who frankly need to argue from principle because their positions fail on test of pure utility.

                  SBR’s are more effective at getting shots on target in urban situations, indoors, and are easier to conceal and shoulder.

                  “In the case of the deadliest school shooting (VA Tech), it likely would have hampered the shooter, who used even lighter pistols with lighter ammo and magazines, allowing him to carry even more rounds/reloads even in standard-capacity mags. The fact that his victims were clustered in relatively confined spaces and defenseless was what made the difference.”

                  The VA shooting would have been much worse with an SBR. 5.56 wounding capability is many times greater than any auto pistol caliber. Many of the wounded would not have survived a rifle caliber hit. AR magazines carry up to 100 rounds each, and 30 round magazines are plenty large and are very fast to change. Again, there is a reason elite forces in CQB use SBR’s almost exclusively.

                  I can look up the papers on wounding data, etc. for you. But I have seen people shot and I have shot people. Maybe you have too, I don’t know. However, these arguments are simply ridiculous to me.

                  1. also pistol rounds are heavier, not lighter than 5.56. You can carry far more 5.56 per unit of volume or weight. Again, there is a reason US infantry, counter terrorists, and SWAT have been using AR15 type weapons systems for going on 60 years.

                    1. The AR15 is used by all those groups because [wait for it] DoD buys them by the bucketload. So there’s lots of manufacturing capability, the AR15 platform is easy to alter and customize, is easier to learn than many others, and is easier to shoot by smaller or weaker people.

                      . . . and there’s a reason your vaunted 5.56 is prohibited in most states for deer hunting. It’s a great varmint round (woodchucks, coyotes) but inadequate for larger game and extremely unsuitable for feral hogs, bear, elk, etc.

                    2. Ok buddy. And why do they have so many? And why do elite forces globally who practice cqb use nothing but sbr’s? And see someone take a hit from 5.56 within 200 yards, and tell me how it’s nothing but a varmint cartridge. Probably 100,000 dudes are taking dirt naps between Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan just from holes made by 5.56.

                      Bunch of fuds arguing from abject ignorance.

                  2. “5.56 wounding capability is many times greater than any auto pistol caliber”

                    That’s B.S. I would much rather take a 5.56 FMJ round (most likely projectile) to the chest than .45ACP, .40, or even 9mm from a pistol, which is more likely to be a lead bullet or a “defensive” hollow point.

                    1. Then you’re a fool. Look up the muzzle energy of 5.56, even with a 7″ barrel vs even a super hot .45 230 gr. At 1000 fps. The 5.56 still has 250 ft lb more energy. That is energy that goes into making a wound chanel. I encourage you to look this up. Any source will tell the same.

                  3. Here’s the thing, though. Those characteristics that make firearms effective for the military make them effective for everyone, including law-abiding citizens protecting themselves from assailants, or a totalitarian oppressor. Portability, handling, magazine capacity, everything. There should be no difference between what our 18 year old new recruits are issued and what a law abiding citizen may keep and bear. Period. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

                    1. Read my top comment again. I am saying that these weapons are effective. Just like you are. Argue with brett about that.

                      Got you to argue for gun rights on principle, not with absurdisms, though! Nice.

                    2. I’m not saying they’re ineffective.

                      I’m saying effectiveness is not a rational basis for banning guns.

              3. Not all SBRs are the same though. For example if I were to take a level-action rifle and cut down the stock and barrel I would have a firearm that is identical in configuration to a legal handgun such as the Rossi Ranch Hand, but mine would be illegal solely because it was “made from a rifle”

                1. Excellent point. I assumed DOL was speaking strictly about rifle-caliber semiauto SBRs like AR pistols, but your post illustrates the inherently irrational nature of the regulation in general.

            2. My comment was strictly about it being a reasonable interpretation of the language and definitions in the NFA. If you want to go back and see if the courts will let you start a new fight over the constitutionality of the NFA, feel free.

        3. Except that this time such an approach could backfire.

          It won’t work unless the ATF publicizes it, and in doing that they can’t keep it quiet. It will be viewed very much like Trump’s Muslim Ban.

          1. ” It will be viewed very much like Trump’s Muslim Ban.”

            As something that had to go through several iterations to find a lawful use of government power?

        4. Suddenly everyone who bought an SB Brace in the 5 years is a criminal, despite the ATF letter?

          There would no greater invitation to 5 conservative Justices that the NFA is too vague. The NFA borders on the absurd: its a criminal statute to enforce gun laws, thinly disguised as a tax. When is a tax not a tax? Ask Roberts. The ATF has never pushed the envelope too much, because they know its a house of cards. Heck, the AR-15 may not even meet the definition of a firearm under the law.

          People should be careful what they wish for, they might get it, with unintended consequences.

      2. It may well be a toothless Executive Action, like Obama’s memorandum reminding FFLs that they have to conduct background checks when they sell at gun shows, this may simply remind them to conduct background checks when transferring “ghost guns”

        Obama’s memo wasn’t toothless, it was legally irrelevant. It just reiterated that something the law already required was still required. Requiring that FFLs conduct background checks on items that do not currently require it is an attempt to create new law, not remind them of existing law.

    2. I think the most important part of Biden’s plan to cut down on gun violence is his advocacy for “red flag” laws. When a person is experiencing a mental health crisis, I want the police to intervene immediately. Police are well trained and have the necessary tools for dealing with a person who is mentally troubled.

      1. While I agree, I think this will get a lot of flack for lack of due process. I wonder if we could build in better due process. Maybe, removal at a judge’s order with a requirement for a hearing with 72 hours. Set benchmarks for the order and extending the order based on data.

        1. I was being facetious. Cops are well known for shooting the mentally ill when they are experiencing a crisis.

          1. Especially when the person is brandishing a weapon and threatening people.

            Sometimes mentally ill people are actually dangerous.

            1. Cool it with the transphobia or I’ll report your post to Eugene!

        2. The whole point of “red flag” laws is the lack of due process.

          The removal is where the rubber hits the road, it’s where the owner interacts with armed law enforcement in a potentially hostile situation, which can often lead to tragedy. THAT is the step that has to happen AFTER ‘due process’, not before.

        3. RabbiHarveyWeinstein: Police are well trained and have the necessary tools for dealing with a person who is mentally troubled.

          Moderation4ever: While I agree…

          {face-palm}

      2. I have seen this coming for 20 years — the defacto repeal of the 2nd Amendment via the mental health laws.

        Reality Check: EVERYONE is mentally ill — the definition of mental illness is now so vague and broad that absolutely everyone fits some category. And don’t forget how the Soviets were able to exploit such vague definitions back then to cover all dissidents.

        1. Reality Check: EVERYONE is mentally ill

          This is manifestly untrue, both legally and medically.

          1. Correct. Andrew “Poz Pig” Sullivan isn’t a mentally ill homosexual. He just has an alternative lifestyle and multiple strains of HIV.

        2. “I have seen this coming for 20 years — the defacto repeal of the 2nd Amendment via the mental health laws.”

          No wonder you’re so worried. You’re at serious risk of losing your toys.

          “Reality Check: EVERYONE is mentally ill”

          I’ll meet you halfway. YOU definitely are. This, of course, calls into question your ability to diagnose others.

          1. So much for civility and the Goldwater rule….

        3. Dr. Ed 2 : “I have seen this coming for 20 years….”

          Nostradamus Ed strikes again!
          (Though I don’t think it’s fair for him to backdate his psychic predictions)

      3. “Police are well trained and have the necessary tools for dealing with a person who is mentally troubled.”
        Maybe in NYC but that is about it. In Albuquerque, the police just shoot mentally ill people

        1. And in Albuquerque, they have the necessary tools for that, don’t they?

    3. I think it would be similar to Trump’s detestable move on bump stocks: The administration would simply issue a tendentious ‘interpretation’ of existing law, declaring anything that can be made into a gun to be a gun, essentially.

      Then it comes down to whether or not the Court has the spine to strike it down.

      1. How would Biden’s EO affect this? I thought it was a joke, but maybe not; a “0% lower,” a.k.a., a block of aluminum.

        https://www.gunbroker.com/item/896032064

        1. No, they are a standard thing.

          There are ‘20%’ lowers as well, which are a raw forging. They aren’t any easier to turn into a finished lower than a ‘0%’.

          0% Shotgun kits are available in the plumbing aisle at Home Depot (OK, that’s a joke, it’s really the electrical aisle … the plumbing pipe usually has welding flash on the inside that’s hard to remove; rigid electrical conduit has the flash removed so you can pull wires).

        2. So far we have a list of what they intend to achieve, but no actual details.

          I suspect they mean to go after products like “Ghost gunner”, and change the rules on 80% lowers to, yeah, require that no work have been done on them at all.

          1. Nebulous platitudes and ambiguous executive orders to resolve a fictional problem? I’m glad I voted for President Biden!

            1. The glorious, big, beautiful wall will keep the scary guns out!

          2. I don’t understand how they can “go after” the Ghost Gunner any more than they can go after 3D printers and CNC mills.

            1. I think they can by arguing that intent matters. If you buy a CNC mill with the intent of making guns, if you buy a 3D printer with the intent of making guns, etc., etc. They may just try to cancel one’s right to make a gun altogether, by EO.

              1. Sure. Look at “structured transactions”. Two perfectly legal transactions can be construed to be a crime if the government asserts you did them separately, not as one transaction, to avoid reporting requirements.

                1. Just because so many people DO conduct their transactions to avoid reporting requirements is no reason to assume that anyone ever does…

            2. Their answer to that would be to go after 3D printers and CNC mills, you do realize that, right?

              1. Ever wonder why counterfeiters don’t just buy commercial color copiers to make fake money?

                1. So, you’re suggesting an alternative would be to coercepersuade manufacturers of 3D printers and CNC mills to introduce firmware that prints/engraves serial numbers automatically into everything that’s made?

                  Not so easy to do.

                  1. They did it with color copiers:

                    “A Machine Identification Code (MIC), also known as printer steganography, yellow dots, tracking dots or secret dots, is a digital watermark which certain color laser printers and copiers leave on every single printed page, allowing identification of the device with which a document was printed and giving clues to the originator. Developed by Xerox and Canon in the mid-1980s, its existence became public only in 2004.”

                2. The same reason they don’t buy construction paper and crayons to make fake money; no one would be fooled by a counterfeit bill printed on a color copier

                  Not sure how this can be at all attributable to the firearm question at hand though

                  1. *applicable. Need edit button!

          3. What’s sad is … I get the argument that you want guns to have serial numbers. I put them on my DIY guns, and I think most hobbyists do. It would be easy to just say ‘if you make a gun, put a serial number on it’. But most of the ‘ghost gun’ laws I have seen don’t say that; they say you can’t possess a gun that doesn’t have a serial number that was engraved by someone with a manufacturer’s FFL, i.e. no hobby gunmaking at all.

            So that completely eliminates my hobby. But it doesn’t change, at all, the fact that guns aren’t all that hard to make, and will have exactly zero effect on crooks that are willing to make their own, or make them for illicit profits.

            It’s like saying ‘you have to put a batch number on any meth you make at home’. That’s going to be really effective at stopping drug abuse.

            1. What do you think about a compromise like this: if you don’t take steps to make a gun fairly traceable then a culpability falls on you if it is misued? Or a requirement that someone the government approves do whatever to make the hobby guns you make traceable at no charge to you? Just thinking out loud. I’d like guns to be traceable but I also don’t want anyone’s hobby busted up.

              1. A free government ID for a firearm is no different than a free ID card for voting. It is an onerous regulation that infringes upon my civil liberties. Plus, I’m too stupid and black to know where to get a government ID.

                1. How about a free government firearm that has the bearer’s image on in and can be used as an ID for voting?

                  How’s that for a compromise?

                  1. My penis is already large enough. I don’t need the government to issue me a penis extension.

                    1. Does Eugene need to have an online forum? If he was a real man, he could use his big boy voice! Why do losers who lack self confidence always want to exercise their “rights and liberties”?

              2. What is the point of tracing a firearm? That is done after the fact, after a crime has been committed. There is no national registry (forbidden by law) and serial numbers are easily ground off with a $20 rotary tool. Have traceable firearms reduced the rate felonies involving a firearm?

                1. What is the point of investigating crimes? It is done after the fact, after a crime has been committed. Have police investigations reduced the rate of crimes?

                  1. Advocating for the policing of the Black community is advocating for white supremacy. #StopLawEnforcement

                  2. The point of investigating crimes is that a crime has actually taken place, which actually gives you a basis for doing something.

                    This is “pre-crime”. It’s infringing rights and restricting behavior BEFORE anybody has been harmed, so that everybody impacted is technically “innocent”.

                    1. So, is driver licensing and vehicle registration also “pre-crime”? I’d love to hear more about your wacky theory.

                    2. You only need a driver’s license and vehicle registration to drive on the government’s own roads. You need neither to own cars, or to drive around on private property.

                      It isn’t permission to own or use, just a requirement for doing so on government property.

                  3. The point is to identify who is guilty and punish them to the full extent of the law. Does a serial number play a crucial role in determining guilt?

                    I’m speaking of the real world, not network TV crime dramas.

                    1. Typically only in a tiny minority of cases.

                      Canada actually implemented a gun registry in 1995, supposedly to solve crimes. Then they abolished it in 2011 because they’d had to admit it wasn’t actually solving crimes, just wasting money.

                      Of course, the difference is that you had an administration in Canada that actually cared about that, because they didn’t view it as just a way to harass gun owners.

                    2. Typically only in a tiny minority of cases.

                      Do you have stats on that, Brett?

                    3. Why have facts or statistics when you can have strongly-held opinions instead. Brett has lots o’ those…

                    4. Ignoring, of course, that Apedad conveniently linked to evidence.

                    5. Why have facts or statistics when you can have strongly-held opinions instead. Brett has lots o’ those…

                      You mean…the facts and statistics that were posted over an hour before you idiotic response above, and that your idiotic response immediately followed?

                    6. Did any of y’all read apedad’s link? Because

                      1) It is not statistics of anything more than opinion
                      2) Even the opinions are a mixed bag

                2. Do you want to argue that no crimes have been solved by tracing back a firearm from identifiable information on it?

                  1. Giving guns identification is just stupid. The bullet is the object committing the crime so why not just assign MAC hardware addresses to ammunition?

                    1. ” The bullet is the object committing the crime ”

                      Except when it isn’t. The usual modus operandi is to show the victim that you have a weapon, then demand compliance. Shooting first is a much less-preferred method.

                  2. Do you want to argue that no crimes would be solved by requiring everyone to wear GPS tracking collars at all times?

                    I’ll gladly argue that very few crimes have been solved by tracing back a firearm from identifiable information on it.

                    First, it requires that a firearm that can be associated with a crime actually be found. That eliminates most crimes with firearms from consideration.

                    Second, it requires that the firearm actually have identifiable information. That the serial number not have been deliberately ground off, for instance, or that it not be black market manufacture without a serial number. (Which criminals will continue to do even though it’s illegal, because they’re criminals!)

                    Third, if the firearm actually IS traceable, the usual thing is that you end up tracing it to a burglary victim or somebody who sold the firearm several transactions back, not to the actual perpetrator.

                    Forth, in most cases where the firearm can be traced to the actual perpetrator, you already had the perpetrator dead to rights, and the trace contributed nothing to convicting them.

                    In some tiny residue of cases, it actually makes some contribution. Are you familiar with the concept of “cost/benefit” analysis?

                    Well, you’re probably engaged in what is more common for gun control advocates, “benefit/benefit” analysis, where there is nothing recognized to be a “cost”, because imposing costs on gun owners is, itself, viewed as a benefit.

                    1. I think the utility would mostly come from the civil courts, not the criminal, as victims of gun crimes were able to identify the defendants who should be served with papers.

                    2. Can’t do that if it doesn’t enable you to identify somebody in the first place.

                      Or are you suggesting civil plaintiffs should be able to sue prior owners of the gun, just like the way that, if you get run over while crossing the road, you sue the dealership or auto manufacturer?

                    3. I’m talking about cases in which a perp ditches a gun in the hopes the police won’t find it. I don’t imagine that would be insignificant.

                      “you’re probably engaged in what is more common for gun control advocates, “benefit/benefit” analysis, where there is nothing recognized to be a “cost”, because imposing costs on gun owners is, itself, viewed as a benefit.”

                      No, as I noted in my initial comment I’d like to see a compromise where gun owners hobbies and interests are protected as well. What is the ‘cost’ here?

                    4. I’m talking about cases in which a perp ditches a gun in the hopes the police won’t find it. I don’t imagine that would be insignificant.

                      On what…other than your imagination…would that assumption be based?

                    5. Common sense (why not throw a gun away if you just committed a crime with it? What have you got to lose?) and experience (the two gun crimes I was at the scene for the offender ran off and threw the gun away, it was found later), two things I imagine might be a stretch for ya.

                    6. Common sense

                      Ah, yes…the go-to refuge of the “I’m completely ignorant of the facts, so I’ll just substitute what I assume to be true whether or not it actually is” crowd.

                      (why not throw a gun away if you just committed a crime with it? What have you got to lose?)

                      The gun you’re likely going to want to continue committing crimes with, being a criminal and all. We’re talking about every day real-world criminals here, not Michael in the Italian restaurant hit scene from The Godfather.

                      and experience (the two gun crimes I was at the scene for the offender ran off and threw the gun away, it was found later), two things I imagine might be a stretch for ya.

                      Yes, it would never occur to me to try to get away with using personal anecdotes as being statistically representative of anything.

                    7. So in those cases where the gun was found, was it able to be traced back to your perp using the serial number?

                      It seems more likely the criminal was worried they could be caught right then and there with the literal smoking gun in their hands, not that someone would pull the form 4473 he used to legally purchase the firearm he just committed a crime with

                    8. “the go-to refuge of the “I’m completely ignorant of the facts, so I’ll just substitute what I assume to be true whether or not it actually is” crowd.”

                      Wait, have you really not heard of common sense, oh, wait, it’s Wuzzie. Yeah, maybe not.

                      “The gun you’re likely going to want to continue committing crimes with, being a criminal and all.”

                      Lol! Yes, you need to keep *this* gun, the one with your fingerprints and the ballistics match! Because criminals are James Bond-esque rogues, and efficient at that!

                      No wonder you mocked common sense above!

                    9. “I’m talking about cases in which a perp ditches a gun in the hopes the police won’t find it. I don’t imagine that would be insignificant.”

                      Perps will typically ditch a gun when they anticipate shortly being caught, and don’t want the gun to be connected to them. Which “connected to them” is accomplished by bullet matching, not serial numbers.

                      If they think they can get away, they’ll keep the gun on them, and just dirty up some ammo and fire it repeatedly, which would end any chance of doing bullet tracing, which only works if you can examine the gun within a few shots of the bullet you’re comparing it to.

              3. “What do you think about a compromise like this: if you don’t take steps to make a gun fairly traceable then a culpability falls on you if it is misued? Or a requirement that someone the government approves do whatever to make the hobby guns you make traceable at no charge to you? Just thinking out loud. I’d like guns to be traceable but I also don’t want anyone’s hobby busted up.”

                That’s a fairly imprecise policy proposal, so I’ll do some general pontification :-).

                For one example, I have no objection to a requirement that ‘every gun made by a hobbyist after mmddyy shall have a serial number applied’. That’s not much of an imposition – if you have the ability to make the gun, you probably have the ability to mark it.

                But I think it’s worth backing up and being a little more precise about what we are trying to accomplish.

                As I said earlier, I think most hobbyists already put on serial numbers. Why? For me, anyway, it’s so that if a burglar gets past the alarm and torches open the safe I can give the police the serial number, and they can send it out to local pawn shops etc. That’s a lot easier than giving them a photo or something and expecting the pawn shop to compare the photo to the gun someone is trying to pawn.

                So, that’s the advantage to me. But what is the advantage to society? To be honest, I don’t see a huge advantage. It doesn’t really help prosecute the burglar – I can always go to court and say ‘yep, that’s the gun I made all right’.

                My sense is that the folks advocating for ‘tracing’ envision catching Fred Felon with a gun, checking the serial number, and then going back to the guy who made it and saying ‘you’re busted for selling Fred the gun’. I don’t think that is going to make as much difference as people think.

                If you can get Fred to testify he bought if from George Illicit-Gunmaker, you don’t need a serial number. If Fred won’t testify, then you need to prove George made it. But George isn’t likely to be registering the illicit guns he is making, for obvious reasons. And, sure, not doing that is a separate law broken, but so what? If you want to send George away for 10 years, just do so; you don’t need to give him 5 years for being an illicit gun dealer and 5 for not serializing the guns.

                The US doesn’t have a lot of illicit gun manufacturing, which makes sense – mass production in a big factory is cheaper than craft building. But there are countries where there is more illicit manufacture than here, and the illicit manufacturers seem to take one of three approaches:
                1)don’t put on serial numbers. This is common if it isn’t a clone of a commercial gun
                2)do put on a serial number so it looks like a commercial gun, but use the same serial number for all of them
                3)actually give them unique serial numbers. This kind of raises the question ‘why?’. Are they planning to do recalls for quality control problems?

                So you’re a cop. You just found a gun – it’s an AR lower. It has a)no serial number or b)fake Colt markings and serial number. Is your investigation a lot easier in case b?

                Some years ago my state came up with the idea of tax stamps for dope – it was a crime to possess a baggie of dope without an affixed serialized tax stamp (and of course, it was still a crime to have the baggie even with the stamp). Was this an effective crime fighting tool? Why or why not? And guns are different because….?

                Having said all that, again, I don’t particularly object to serial number requirements … but I don’t really get why people think it will affect crime.

                1. ” To be honest, I don’t see a huge advantage. It doesn’t really help prosecute the burglar – I can always go to court and say ‘yep, that’s the gun I made all right’.”

                  This is true for immortals like yourself. But other people sometimes shuffle off this mortal coil, and aren’t always available to testify in court wherever their handcrafts project winds up.

                  1. But, again, what’s the utility to it?

                    Anyway, as he says, the objection isn’t primarily to the serial numbers, which you’re required to obtain and engrave on the gun anyway if you’re going to transfer it to somebody else.

                    The objection is to mandate that they have been engraved by a licensed firearms manufacturer, so as to simply make hobby gunmaking illegal by the back door.

                2. I think the logic is the same as why we have, say, dog licenses. If my dog gets loose and harasses or bites someone we can trace the dog back to me. Now, maybe I gave the dog to my cousin down the road years ago but then they can talk to me and find that out and go confront him.

                  1. That’s fine, and to repeat: I don’t think there is much objection to ‘anyone making a gun shall affix a serial number’.

                    But I submit that people who are law abiding enough to comply with that aren’t your problem, and the people who are your problem won’t affix a serial number anyway. It’s like saying every bag of drugs shall have a unique identifier attached so the police can trace back to whoever cooked the meth. Is a law like that likely to be a big help in the drug war?

                    Broadly speaking, I think there are likely to be two sources of illicit guns:
                    1)Fred Felon is handy with tools and is willing to go to the trouble of making his own.
                    2)Mike Machine-Shop-Owner is behind on the rent and is willing to crank out a batch on weekends and sell them to the local outlaw motorcycle gang
                    both of those types are just going to ignore serialization requirements – what they are doing, with or without serial numbers, is already a serious felony.

                    1. Absaroka, another source of illicit guns, a big one: previously licit guns. I read some research years back which tried to characterize the path of new guns through society during long time intervals following their purchase. One focus was on how long it took criminals to arm themselves with the latest and greatest new gun technology. I have to work from memory, I don’t have a link or a reference.

                      One finding was that it took a surprisingly long time for the less-wealthy part of the criminal underworld to switch from revolvers to semi-auto pistols. The steps involved reliable gun owners as first purchasers, years-long ownership by them, then trade-ins of some of the guns, then inheritance of some of the guns, then dispersal to used gun dealers when the first generation of owners began to die, or sell off gun collections in old age. One surprising addition to the flow was police departments upgrading their arsenals, and selling older guns with few controls, or trading them back to vendors in the exchange.

                      I suggest keeping that process in mind as a factor affecting multiple aspects of gun policy. For instance, comments about the minor crime role played by semi-auto long guns may be subject to future revision. Likewise, policies about serial numbers, or other gun tracing issues, may look different when our future society is adjusting to new patterns of ownership for the vast quantity of firearms—many equipped with more deadly technology—which burgeoning sales have newly delivered during more-recent years.

                    2. By that logic shouldn’t we scrap stop signs? Those who tend to obey traffic laws will still do so, those who don’t won’t even if there is a sign…

                      “illicit guns”

                      It’s not about the guns being illicit, it’s about being able to track them to owners who used them to do something bad.

                    3. “By that logic shouldn’t we scrap stop signs? Those who tend to obey traffic laws will still do so, those who don’t won’t even if there is a sign…”

                      I always thought stop signs were there to differentiate those intersections where you were required to stop regardless of whether there is other traffic, and those where you can proceed without stopping if there is no other traffic present.

                      “It’s not about the guns being illicit, it’s about being able to track them to owners who used them to do something bad.”

                      Perhaps we’re getting somewhere. I mentioned upthread that I wasn’t exactly sure what you are proposing. I sounds like you think that when, say, a running crook tosses a gun, the cops can grab it, see the serial number is ‘1234’, and now they know the guy they are chasing is Fred Smith of 4567 Maple Drive. But that doesn’t require merely that the gun has a serial number; it requires that you have a file that says ‘#1234 is currently owned by Fred Smith’. And it is easy to keep that information accurate for the law abiding, and virtually impossible to keep it accurate for crooks.

                      It does you no good when #1234 is listed as ‘stolen last year in a burglary’. It will do you a little good when the crooks girlfriend did a straw purchase … until word gets around that the girlfriend needs to report it stolen when she gives it to the boyfriend.

                      Are you aware that crooks can rent a gun for the afternoon, just long enough for a robbery? What kind of record keeping do you think the gangs renting out those guns are doing?

                  2. I think the logic is the same as why we have, say, dog licenses. If my dog gets loose and harasses or bites someone we can trace the dog back to me.

                    And that would make sense if there were an epidemic of people’s firearms escaping from their owners, running amok and shooting people.

                    1. “Now, maybe I gave the dog to my cousin down the road years ago but then they can talk to me and find that out and go confront him.”

                      You’re not what they call a ‘smart fella’ are you?

                    2. “Now, maybe I gave the dog to my cousin down the road years ago but then they can talk to me and find that out and go confront him.”

                      Now tell us how the license the dog wore while he was yours helps track him back to you when he’s no longer wearing it…because you gave him to your cousin years ago, and there’s no reason for him to keep that license on the collar if he’s inclined to let the dog run loose and menace/assault people. You know…kinda’ like the way a criminal would be inclined to grind down the serial number on a gun so that it can’t be traced back to him or whomever owned it before him.

                    3. “You know…kinda’ like the way a criminal would be inclined to grind down the serial number on a gun so that it can’t be traced back to him or whomever owned it before him.”

                      That’s an empirical question (too fancy for ya?) isn’t it Wuzzie? Got any data there?

                3. “Some years ago my state came up with the idea of tax stamps for dope”

                  When Maine did that, stamp collectors demanded the right to buy these stamps because they wanted them for their collections — and I’m not exactly sure how the state resolved that issue…

    4. Biden’s gun EO could become as incendiary as Trump’s “Moslem Ban” EO, which was not only immediately struck down with a national injunction but served to both unify the opposition and start the tradition of suing early & often.

      Biden hit with such venom now, combined with the very real crisis at the border and the related overloading of US hospitals with COVID patients could well knock over the house of cards which constitutes his administration.

      1. You mean the same people screaming that we needed a Muslim Ban to keep them safe are now screaming that gun control will make them unsafe? Same calculus, really.

      2. Except that President Biden is not really getting hit with venom, he actually seems to be more popular. President Biden has really been hitting on broadly popular issues. I think you will see that the new EOs. The people most likely to be incensed by gun EOs are unlikely to be a supporter. The former President lost support trying to impose a Moslem ban. President Biden is unlikely to get additional support but I think there will be no loss of support.

        1. ” he actually seems to be more popular. ”

          Well, of course everything he does is going to seem popular, as long as the media are on his team.

          It’s true that anti-gun EO’s aren’t likely to offend his core supporters. But the guy only won by 43,000 votes, he can’t afford to lose marginal supporters.

          1. Not sure of your math here. What states are you counting and what are you leaving out. He won PA and MI by big margins and those states carry a lot of EC votes.

            I would also suggest that the EOs he offer would have broader support than core voter. What group that he had, is he likely to lose?

            1. Wisconsin – 20,608, 10EC votes
              Arizona – 10,357, 11 EC votes
              Georgia — 11,799, 16 EC votes

              Between them, 37 EC votes.

              The election was 306-232. If those three states had gone the other way, it would have been a tie, to be resolved in the House, with each state having one vote cast according to the majority vote of it’s Representatives. With Republicans having a majority of state majorities.

              Total margin of victory: 42,764.

              Or you could substitute Pennsylvania for Wisconsin, and Trump gets a clear EC majority with only 62,434 votes changed. Biden didn’t win PA with a big margin, it was razor close.

          2. Well, of course everything he does is going to seem popular, as long as the media are on his team.

            Unfalsifiable, eh?

        2. “More popular”? I can think offhand of 75 million voters who disagree.

          But an entire press corp, that serve as daily fluffers and bootlicks, are right there with you.

      3. “Biden hit with such venom now, combined with the very real crisis at the border and the related overloading of US hospitals with COVID patients could well knock over the house of cards which constitutes his administration.”

        Your wishful thinking is showing.

  2. Today is Yom Ha’Shoah.

    Today reminds every Jew in the world what the price is when we do not have a haven like Israel to escape to.

    May the souls of those lost in the Shoah be bound up in the bonds of everlasting life. Baruch Dayan Ha’Emet.

    1. If anyone you know denies the holocaust, or says it wasn’t that bad, show them this:

      https://lidblog.com/yom-hashoah-holocaust-remembrance/

      1. Never forget the 6,000,000,000!
        Ha’tov ve’hametiv

        1. The 6 billion? Do you mean “Never forget the The Six Billion Dollar Man!”? I didn’t think that remake was so memorable.

    2. We all need to chip in, like Baruch Goldstein, and keep Israel pure!

  3. Supreme Court decided the Google v. Oracle copyright case this week. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_new_o7jp.pdf

    To put it mildly, the facts are complex and difficult. It remains to be seen how this will affect fair use analysis. Two initial thoughts:

    (1) Breyer places a great deal of emphasis on whether the purpoted fair use hinders or enhances creativity, which he views as the goal of the Copyright Act. That is something I do not remember from many fair use decisions.

    (2) Fair use remains a difficult doctrine to predict and apply. It is an equitable doctrine that looks to a variety of factors. Outside the statutory examples (“criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research”), it is very hard to advise a client whether their proposed use will be deemed fair. This opinion makes it no easier, and arguably harder.

    1. Eugene Volokh had a separate post about that decision: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/07/arabic-numerals-the-supreme-court-and-where-credit-is-due/

      I would guess that Breyer is pointing to the Constitution’s justification for granting Congress the power to establish copyrights and patent rights: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”.

      I haven’t tried to evaluate the opinion from a legal perspective, but from the perspective of software practice and profession, it is unquestionably right: API definitions are primarily functional descriptions of interfaces between software components that are intended to be treated as distinct works.

      The functional parts of the API are the bulk of the copied text: Type definitions, the list of functions (methods) available for each defined type, the number and type of parameters passed to a function, what type (if any) the function returns, and what exceptional conditions might be raised by each function. In an idea-expression analysis, this idea must be expressed exactly the same way under the rules of the Java language, and so there is no creative expression separate from the idea.

      The non-API parts of what Google copied are marginal items, perhaps exclusively the names of parameters. Those names are de minimis elements, and of marginal creative content, and so fair use is easier to establish. A typical example from Java’s current documentation, which is derived automatically from the source code, is: “int
      read​(byte[] b, int off, int len)”. This defines a function named “read” that returns a single integer. It takes an array of bytes called “b”, and two integer named “off” and “len” respectively. The name “read” is part of the API, but the names “b”, “off” and “len” are not. The last two are shorthand for “offset” and “length” (of what part of “b” should be written), and so do not reflect any real creativity.

      1. “I would guess that Breyer is pointing to the Constitution’s justification for granting Congress the power to establish copyrights and patent rights: ‘To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts’.”

        There’s also the challenge of reconciling copyright with the First Amendment.

        1. Not actually that much of a challenge, as they’re both in the Constitution, and amendments are not taken as overriding basic provisions of the Constitution unless they do so explicitly.

    2. Even if the only long-term effect of the decision is to erase the terrible Federal Circuit decision on APIs, it’s important and probably more meaningful to the functioning of the modern economy than most Supreme Court decisions.

      Totally agreed that it doesn’t really provide a lot more generalizable clarity around fair use, though, which seems badly needed these days given the way that content is passed around and re-shaped in the digital era. (Just see Professor Volokh’s post about Portland State University trying to use copyright to prevent criticism of one of its decisions yesterday.) This case was probably not the right vehicle for that discussion, though.

  4. What a lame aspiring dystopian society we’re stuck in. At least in traditional cult dystopias they have cool masks and mysterious rituals and sexy zealous brainwashed women. And what do we get?

    Ballbusting hairy loud fat feminists and bearded transgenders in tutus. Language policing and microaggressions. What a drag. Its like the dumbest most annoying sort of authoritarianism you could come up with.

    1. China will become the next superpower. They have all the same totalitarian controls but at least they keep the trains running on time. In America, the police just kneel while an obese Black transwoman blocks the street because some gang banger got shot.

      1. The authoritarian worship is strong with this one.

        1. Don’t interfere with my freedom to associate with my workplace. Get your fat black ass off the street and twerk for justice in the god damned park!

          1. You’re not shocking anyone with your bigotry, it’s a tired, predictable thing. Yawn.

            1. As long as it drives you up the wall, I will always come back to the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

              1. You give yourself too much credit, like a self dealing bank.

                Also, it’s a truly sad, sad sack whose pleasures come from their perception they are making people angry on the internet. That’s more sad than a guy whose sexual conquests have always been virtual.

                1. Now we have descended to the rhetorical level of calling each other virgins!?

                  1. Heavens forbid!

            2. You’re not shocking anyone with your bigotry, it’s a tired, predictable thing. Yawn.

              As is your child-like inability to recognize obvious parody.

              1. Yes, and a parody could never indicate bigotry on the part of a the parodist. That’s right up with the ‘general totally context specific canon’ rule (or is it really a rule?), amirite?

                1. Yes, and a parody could never indicate bigotry on the part of a the parodist.

                  You really do have the I.Q. of a rusty doorknob, don’t you?

                  1. I know that a parody could indicate bigotry on the part of the parodist (you do get that minstrel shows were often parodies, right? wait a minute, I forgot who I’m talking to, too many of the words in that were too fancy for you I’m betting).

                    1. Minstrel show performers weren’t parodying bigots. They were parodying black American by pretending to be them, which is what made their performances examples of racial bigotry. RHW is pretending to be a bigot (by saying bigoted things), which is where the “parody” part comes in.

                      Is this really that difficult for you?

                    2. Racist jokes are still racist, Wuz.

                      This is not hard.

                  2. It’s hard for Wuzzie, because he’s so determined to man the barricades for ‘his side.’ It’s all he knows.

                    Minstrel shows were parodies of black people, ya turd blossom. And guess what? They indicated racism on the parts of the parodists!

                    1. Do your work, Wuzzie. How is this not bigoted because the author is “pretending to be a bigot (by saying bigoted things), which is where the “parody” part comes in.”

                      “Don’t interfere with my freedom to associate with my workplace. Get your fat black ass off the street and twerk for justice in the god damned park!”

                      Note that this ‘parodist’ schtick is usually to pretend to be a liberal. Is that what a liberal would usually say?

      2. China has SERIOUS internal problems — what they had to suppress in Hong Kong is likely to erupt elsewhere, and they are terrified of their Muslim population.

        China also has a LOT of off-the-books public debt, mostly municipal loans in totally empty construction boondoggles although they are also playing games with their currency in ways that I don’t quite understand.

        With its military and its ICBMs (thank you Bill Clinton), China could become the next Soviet Union — feared because of its potential for lethality, but it’s economy is a house of cards with strong winds blowing…

        1. Ed,
          Tell yourself that before you go to bed every night. In the meanwhile advise your kids to study Mandarin.

        2. With every dead Uighur, they become less terrified about their Muslim population.

          But, yes, their position is precarious, which is what makes them so dangerous at the moment. They want to make gains now they strongly suspect they’ll no longer be in a position to make in the near future.

          1. And, as I understand it, the corruption is SO bad over there that it interferes with the functioning of the society. That’s the point where it becomes stifling to the economy and you wind up with a revolution on that basis alone…

            People paying a bribe for everything is one thing, but when your basic material standards break down because of bribery (remember the toxic cat food with plastic in it?), your whole system starts breaking down.

        3. “China has SERIOUS internal problems — what they had to suppress in Hong Kong is likely to erupt elsewhere, and they are terrified of their Muslim population.”

          Why can’t they be more like us, with our violence likely to erupt elsewhere and our terror of Muslims everywhere?

          1. Why can’t they be more like us

            Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

    2. The Church of the Easily and Perpetually Aggrieved.

      1. Are you talking about Unitarian Universalists or the Je*ov*ha’s Witnesses?

    3. The whine of the marginalized misogynist.

      1. Sounds more “incel” to me. And the wound seems fresh so he either got rejected again or he figures he would anyway so why bother.

        1. Didn’t want to have sex with her anyway. Her grapes are sour.

          1. The term you are looking for is “stale tits”.

    4. The Ballbusting hairy loud fat feminists are getting older and do not like the fact that men are looking at younger and more attractive women. What do you think the fuss about Matt Gaetz is really all about — do you honestly think that any 17-year-old he might have dated was a blushing virgin?

      Affordable and realistic sexbots are almost here — once they arrive, it will be the end of the feminist movement because no one is going to care what these feminazis think or say — and women tend to fare less well when the social order breaks down.

      1. They’ve got a controlling meme for that already – they should be illegalized because it treats women as sexual objects.

        If you let this happen, your destruction is complete, because the argument you cannot treat women as sexual objects for the purpose of sex will deprive you of pursuing your sexual desires, unlike all other sexual desires legalized the past few decades.

        “Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.” You will be the only sad people in America.

        1. Virgin Femoid Luster vs Chad Silicone Doll Daddy

      2. It’s only fair that after coming out for murdering abortion doctors Ed moves on to defending statutory rape.

          1. Thus “statutory”.

            But 17 isn’t even statutory rape in most states. The age of consent is 16 in 33 of the states, (And D.C.), and 17 in 6 more states. There are only 11 states where it would be statutory rape.

        1. And Amalthea has his/her/its head stuffed so far up his/her/its arse that he/she/it doesn’t know the difference.

          A: Statutory rape of a 17-year-old can’t exist in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is 16.

          B: These aren’t virgins — I once had a 14-year-old blurt out in Civics class that both she and her mother had been arrested for prostitution the prior weekend. I’ll bet you never realized that you could spend an entire 42 minute period discussing the nuances of the 3rd Amendment, but I did…

          (The 3rd Amendment was the only one that couldn’t possibly be relevant to this…)

      3. “The Ballbusting hairy loud fat feminists are getting older and do not like the fact that men are looking at younger and more attractive women”

        But they love, love, LOVE having an idiot, self-aggrandizing dickhead tell them what they feel.

        1. But they love, love, LOVE having an idiot, self-aggrandizing dickhead tell them what they feel.

          What are you telling them that they feel?

          1. You have to love that Wuzzie is so determined to be a conservative troll on this that he’s defending “The Ballbusting hairy loud fat feminists are getting older and do not like the fact that men are looking at younger and more attractive women.”

            This is what the conservative mind is used for these days!

          2. You have to love that Wuzzie is so determined to be a conservative troll on this that he’s defending “The Ballbusting hairy loud fat feminists are getting older and do not like the fact that men are looking at younger and more attractive women.”

            I didn’t defend any such thing. So, once again you’re outing yourself as either an illiterate imbecile or an unrepentant liar (or both).

            1. “The Ballbusting hairy loud fat feminists are getting older and do not like the fact that men are looking at younger and more attractive women”

              But they love, love, LOVE having an idiot, self-aggrandizing dickhead tell them what they feel.

              WuzYoungOnceToo
              April.8.2021 at 2:48 pm

              But they love, love, LOVE having an idiot, self-aggrandizing dickhead tell them what they feel.

              What are you telling them that they feel?

              1. So Wuzzie felt compelled to step in to rebut the person who posted “The Ballbusting hairy loud fat feminists are getting older and do not like the fact that men are looking at younger and more attractive women”

                But he’s not defending that guy, no, no, no. How could anyone think that? Lol! Keep rolling, Wuzzie!

                1. Rebut the person who attacked the person who posted, rather. My bad.

    5. Your evil oppressive enemy is simultaneously powerful enough to impose a dystopia but also somehow ridiculously weak, eh? Familiar formulation, that.

  5. Email I sent to all the counsels in Brackeen v. Haaland yesterday. Any input on my thesis as I am not a lawyer would be appreciated!

    In the 5th Circuit en banc case of Brackeen v. Haaland, Judge Ho’s recusal left the en banc court equally divided on several key questions that both the parties and the lawyers practicing in the 5th Circuit would benefit from resolution. Fortunately for the parties and the bar, Judge Ho’s recusal was inappropriate as a matter of law and in direct conflict with the statutory demands of the en banc court. This case is an ideal candidate for a request for rehearing en banc to resolve the remaining questions on which the court was equally divided.

    Key Statutory Argument:

    The federal statute 2012 USC 28 in Sections § 46 and 47 controls the use of disqualification and recusal and their effect on both composition of panels and the composition of the en banc court.

    For Composition of the Panels: § 46 (b), in discussing panel hearings, specifies “recused or disqualified” as a reason why “judges cannot sit” on panels. Disqualification is defined by § 47 and restricted to judge hearing an appeal from a case where they served as the trial judge. Judicial recusal is undefined in the statute and therefore deferred to the individual judge or the rules put in place by the Court of Appeals for panel assignment.

    For Composition of the En Banc Court: § 46 (c), in discussing a court en banc, the statute is specific that “a court in banc shall consist of all circuit judges in regular active service, or such number of judges as may be prescribed in accordance with section 6 of Public Law” with no exceptions for recusal or disqualification.

    The most natural reading of the statute is that Congress intended for the en banc court to be composed of all active judges, even if the judge was disqualified or rescued from hearing the case on the panel level.

    Other Arguments Are Not Persuasive:

    Rule 35 of Rules of Appellate Procedure appears to apply the statutory disqualification definition to the step of determining to take an en banc case. This should have no effect on the composition of the en banc court once the case has been taken as en banc.

    Common law understanding of required recusal and disqualification is best suited to district court judges who are serving as fact finders and making initial rulings on law. Moreover, the explicit statutory language overrules any common law applications at the en banc level.

    1. ‘Shea messaged the group that he wanted Atomwaffen members in different locations to place posters on their victims’ homes on the same night to catch journalists off guard and accomplish a “show of force.” The posters were delivered to victims in Tampa, Seattle, and Phoenix. Shea mailed posters to several victims, including a poster sent to an official at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that depicted a Grim Reaper-like figure wearing a skeleton mask holding a Molotov cocktail outside a residence, with the text “Our Patience Has Its Limits . . . You have been visited by your local Nazis.”’

      I dunno, I can see both sides, total grey area here.

      1. Atomwaffen is run by some 13 yo Estonian kid on 4chan’s /int/ board. They are literally an existential threat to our American democracy.

        1. Remind me, are you doing a bad parody of liberals or a spot-on parody of conservatives? It’s never entirely clear.

          1. It moves around, much like his principles I’m guessing.

            1. “It moves around, much like his principles I’m guessing.”

              That makes it a good parody of liberals.

              1. and an accurate portrayal of modern conservatives.

          2. I’m an earnest shitposter who earns every shekel but I’m interested in learning about law. Ever since I saw Judge Dredd with Sylvester Stallone as a child, I have always had a keen interest in the law and its application.

            1. I recommend the other Dredd film. Much better.

              1. Yeah, the Dredd remake was great and I would have loved to have seen it in 3D at the theater.

              2. Can’t beat Karl Urban.

                Though I am looking forward to Sly as King Shark.

              3. “I recommend the other Dredd film. Much better.”

                Read the original source material, instead.

                1. Check out this poster! He is a graphic novel connoisseur.

                2. Agreed there, fun stuff the comic.

                3. How very dare you, sir. Mega City Rules.

        2. Which he formed in 2015 when he was 7 years old?

          Matter of fact, that makes sense. “Conservatives” already follow adults who proudly proclaim their ideologies remain unchanged from their teen and younger years. Luntz was 13, iirc. Ryan was the most mature, standing at the keg in college. Big Baby says his outlook was cemented when he was somewhere between third and fifth grade. Following an actual child tracks.

          1. Show me where the GOP touched you…

    2. I should have added that, based on the info in this release only, I’m not 100% this should be a crime.

      Mailing/posting hateful messages shouldn’t be a crime.

      Of course if there there was some sort of imminent threat of violence, then that’s different.

      1. Was the message mailed or posted on the person’s home. Garbage mail is garbage but if you start placing items on my house, I’d argue that constitutes vandalism.

    3. “Placed on victims homes.”

      “Nazi symbols, masked figures with guns and Molotov cocktails, and threatening messages”

      A very specific, direct, threat. A cowardly threat for sure, hiding behind the mail, but these posters with threatening messages were not mass mailed, they were delivered to specific people.

      As always with a plea agreement… this was negotiated, and I wonder what other charges were dropped.

  6. “If Coke remains so intent on “cancelling” white Americans for the problems it sees in America’s history, then Americans should cancel Coke for the problems it overlooked in Nazi Germany’s.”

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/maybe_coke_should_be_cancelled_for_its_nazi_past.html

    1. White victimhood strikes again…

      1. Only subhumans drink that brown corn syrup. #WaterNiggas

      2. Do you care not for all of the deaths in the black community attributable to Woca-Cola consumption?

        Must be your privilege blinding you to all of the suffering that your black brothers and sisters have endured from swallowing all that dyabetus inducing sugar.

        1. Yawn again.

          1. Mike Bloomberg is going to save you people (i.e. blacks) from yourselves by limiting the size of soft drink containers. The scourge of diabetes in the BIPOC community must be addressed!

        2. Does this mean you’re in favour of regulating high-fructose foodstuffs and making insulin available for free?

          1. It means that the Queen is mean.

            1. Not as mean as unaffordable insulin.

              1. Why should I pay for some degenerate drug addicts “fix”? Just pull your blood sugar levels down with your own pancreas’ bootstraps!

                1. Yeah, it’s the Queen’s meanness that bothers our snowflake LM…

                  1. Toughen up, you snowballing snowflake!

                    1. Why is it always the laziest and weakest telling people to toughen up?

                2. I dunno, why do you pay billions for fighter jets that get scrapped without being used? I’d sooner support degenerate drug addicts.

                  1. We need those fighter jets to take out the Assad dictatorship and save Eastern Ukraine from Russian occupation!

                    1. You need those degenerate drug addicts to write your comments.

          2. “Does this mean you’re in favour of regulating high-fructose foodstuffs and making insulin available for free?”

            How bout we just stop subsidizing high-fructose foodstuffs?

            Seriously, the most effective thing the government could do for health care is to stop subsiding sugar and corn syrup. And the won’t do it. I don’t know why people want the government running a health care system when they can’t even do that.

            1. “Seriously, the most effective thing the government could do for health care is to stop subsiding sugar and corn syrup.”

              I agree with this 100%.

            2. Excellent suggestion.

            3. Actually the government controls the price of sugar to make sure US producers can make a profit. If that program were stopped then the price of sugar would actually fall because lower cost producers would flood the market.

              1. Better sugar than corn syrup.

                1. The corn lobby claims that corn syrup is indistinguishable, but taste tests prove otherwise. They’re both sweet, but sucrose sweetness is more abrupt.

                  I go with stevia, though: Less tendency to rot your teeth.

              2. “Actually the government controls the price of sugar to make sure US producers can make a profit. If that program were stopped then the price of sugar would actually fall because lower cost producers would flood the market.”

                And the lower quality probably wouldn’t even be noticed!

                “Hey boss! The soda fountain’s jammed up again!”

      3. Doesn’t negate the legitimacy of the argument.

        But for Stalin and the Cold War, it is interesting to speculate how much further the Nuremburg trials would have gone. That said, don’t forget where Fanta started…

        1. Ed wants to make sure we bring the focus back to a Godwin please.

          Classic Ed.

          1. Bayer (formerly part of IG Farben) is literally gassing BIPOC communities with their carcinogenic Roundup weed killer!

        2. Childish grievance != argument

          1. It’s close enough for the Conservatives!

    2. Republicans suddenly mad at corporations for their associations with Nazi Germany because they’re objecting to voter supression is hilarious, as are the utterly cringeworthy attempts to make whites the victims of the real racisms, but that advertisement is from some art show in the 2000s.

      1. Just pointing out their hypocrisy, Nige.

        It’s not voter suppression. That is a worn out false narrative. If you can but beer, get on a plane, etc., you can vote with ID. It’s not voter suppression to insist on fraud-free elections.

        You don’t think now that whites, especially white males, are victims of racism? I know it’s the case. I know of companies that blithely ignore the law and actively discriminate against white men in recruiting and hiring. It’s widespread, especially in high tech.

        1. Why are the Republicans fighting a battle that they have already lost for a war that never existed. Voting fraud is not an issue and voting restrictions result in a media dogpile against the GOP with a hefty serving of racism accusations thrown in too.

          1. Republicans should be trying hard to buy of the growing Hispanic population in America, but somehow they are blind to the obvious.

            1. Those AOC deepfakes on 4chan’s /gif/ board convinced me to register and vote Democrat.

            2. They wouldn’t have to buy off many, many Hispanics would be open to much of the GOP message sans the ‘we don’t want any more Hispanics’ part.

              1. Why did Trump’s Latino voters increase though? Are the Latinx Americans assimilating to white supremacists culture?

        2. ” If you can but beer, get on a plane, etc., you can vote with ID.”

          Voting, unlike those other things is a right. You have to have a good reason to encumber a right. And unless you’re obtuse you have to know that any encumbrance will fall harder on people more likely to be in certain situations.

          “You don’t think now that whites, especially white males, are victims of racism?”

          You don’t think whites, especially white males, vastly over-exaggerate how much this goes on?

          1. Does this mean I don’t need to show ID when purchasing my AR-15 at the local gun store?

            1. Don’t be silly. You shouldn’t need an ID for that, because AR-15s should be completely illegal.

              1. And, date I ask, why is that, Nige?

                1. Because people walking around with them like they’re cos-playing a genocidal Eastern European conflict is fucking insane.

                  1. When you’ve shot an AK-47 while hammered on rakia while listening to Serbian turbofolk, you won’t want to go back to normal life

                    1. “When you’ve shot an AK-47”

                      Popguns. Come back when you’ve had an opportunity to sight in a GAU-8.

                  2. So because some people walk around with them, we should ban the most popular rifle in the U.S., a semi-automatic version of the standard rifle of the U.S. military. Got it. While you’re at it, ban free speech because some people lie on the internet.

                    1. Yes. People casually walking around with military weapons is fucking crazy.

                    2. “People casually walking around with military weapons is fucking crazy.”

                      No.

                    3. “People casually walking around with military weapons is fucking crazy.”

                      Meh. Not if they’re actually IN the military. Well, sometimes if they are. USAF basic training included exactly 4 hours of rifle training and 50 rounds of .22 ammunition expended on the shooting range, then they take the rifles away and never give them back for about 85% of the recruits. But they DO give the USAF 2/3 of the US nuclear triad.

                    4. The military walking around your streets fully armed isn’t great either, usually. In short, this pathological need to make public spaces look like a war zone is mental.

            2. Like Volokh I don’t think buying an AR-15 is a right, but to the extent it were so there’d be that whole balancing thing I discussed. Y’know, in the post you replied to here?

              If you put 1/4 of the effort you put into trying to be cute here into making a smarter comment you’d increase the intelligence of your comments by about 10 IQ points (or 50%).

              1. “but to the extent it were so there’d be that whole balancing thing I discussed”

                You discussed a balancing thing? Are you referring to “You have to have a good reason to encumber a right”?

                Buying an AR-15 is not a right. Keeping and bearing arms is a right. AR-15s are arms. If you can’t buy arms, you can’t keep or bear them. Therefore, buying AR-15s is a right (even if it is not specifically AR-15s, plenty of other rifles are similar platforms, and most lefty morons would call them AR-15s).

                What is your good reason to keep me from buying an AR-15? Because it’s scary looking? Because a similar rifle is used in the military? Because you’re jealous of Rabbi’s 20 IQ?

                1. Queen wishes he had a double digit IQ!

                  1. Or possibly wishes you did.

                2. Similar reasoning would say that you can ban books and not violate the 1st amendment, so long as you left one or two books legal to own.

                  1. The 1A says “Congress shall make no law…” which of course has been interpreted as meaning “OK, Congress can make SOME laws…” The 2A has that pre-amble about militias.
                    Because they’re written differently, it’s no wonder they’re not treated identically.

                  2. Or maybe books and guns are really different things requiring different balancing acts (neither can possibly mean the language is to be taken literally and absolutely)?

                3. “Keeping and bearing arms is a right. AR-15s are arms. If you can’t buy arms, you can’t keep or bear them.”

                  It doesn’t say you have a right to own whatever firearms you want, no matter how you squint at the 2A.

                4. You should read Professor Volokh’s analysis of why certain ‘assault weapons’ bans likely pass constitutional muster. He says it better than I.

          2. It’s only a right for those eligible to vote. Determining that one is eligible is a very reasonable encumbrance. It’s not at all unlike a firearms permit/license.

            1. ” Determining that one is eligible is a very reasonable encumbrance.”

              Like any encumberance it will fall on people in certain situations more heavily. Some people fail to take this into account (and actually some people are of course counting on this).

              If ID requirement measures were coupled with vigorous efforts to get everyone an ID that would work for that I’d have little complaints (other than that it’s mostly a waste of time).

              1. “it will fall on people in certain situations more heavily.”

                What people?

                1. Did you not read the rest of the sentence you quoted?

                  1. Yes, I did! You never defined who “people in certain situations” might be.

                    1. Queen isn’t sure what sentences are. Or what they posted earlier. Or what “discussed” means.

                      Queen thinks 20 IQ is a lofty goal that they might someday be capable of achieving.

                    2. It used to be standard libertarian fare that any regulation will fall on people in certain situations more (people who are less able to navigate bureaucracy [for several reasons, cultural capital, i.e., they may be unfamiliar with bureaucracies, economic, i.e., they may work jobs that don’t leave many openings to go to agencies when they are open, physical, i.e., they are shut-ins, etc., etc.,]). When did that change?

                    3. “What people?”
                      “Did you not read the rest of the sentence you quoted?”
                      “Yes, I did! You never defined who “people in certain situations” might be.”

                      20 IQ. Lofty goal.

              2. “Some people fail to take this into account (and actually some people are of course counting on this).”

                Because Black politicians are too stupid to hold voter registration drives — and too lazy to do constituent services.

                Do you realize how racist you are being?

                1. It’s the fault of those mugged because they were too stupid and lazy to take karate.

                    1. Here you go conservatives, your fellow.

                  1. “It’s the fault of those mugged because they were too stupid and lazy to take karate.

                    If no one bothers to call the authorities to report that ALL of the streetlights in a certain area are out, and then someone gets mugged (or raped) there — yes, I think that those who failed to do their civic duty to report these lights being out bear *moral* responsibility.

                2. “Because Black politicians are too stupid to hold voter registration drives — and too lazy to do constituent services.”

                  No… because they do, but they don’t tend to vote Republican.

        3. Pointing out the hypocrisy of a massive corporations? Look at you, going all adbusters. Next thing you’ll be trying to limit corporate donations to politicians and demanding complete transparency on all such funding! Crazytown.

          I think white males think it’s racist against them to hire a person that isn’t a white male instead of them. It is not, however, actually racist to hire non-white people. I make no defence of corporate training programs, they could all be completely awful and counterproductive for all I know and I wouldn;t be surprised, but neither do I believe breathless right-wing outrage about them, either.

          Fraud-free elections? What fraud are you talking about? Surely this is an exercise in quality over quantity? Fewer but better voters? Keeping out the riffraff like ‘uninformed’ ‘woke’ college voters? Those aren’t me reading in subtext, by the way, those are the things that are being said.

          1. Yeah, can’t wait for the coming ‘Occupy Wall Street II: The Right Wing Says Us Too.’ Those drum circles playing Pat Boone and Ted Nugent are going to be awesome.

          2. A bunch of straw men having nothing to do with what I said. You say there’s not voting fraud? I disagree. What’s wrong with taking precautions, the same we take to prevent all kinds of other fraud or deception? Buying booze, getting on airplanes, taking money out of the bank, taking out a library book, etc., etc.

            Regarding the discrimination against while male candidates, I can only relate my own experiences in this regard, as a manager in several big corporations, and extrapolate those generally, knowing that they are all of an ilk. And no, its not as you characterize my position. It’s blatant, intentional violations of Title VII. One example is managers being told to recruit and hire only at minority outreach events.

            1. Why fix a problem that doesn;t exist? Seems a bit Big Government to me.

              It sucks that racist hiring policies have left coporations so white they have to do stuff like that. Must have been rough for all the qualiified black people.

              1. That’s an awful lie to promulgate, Nige. The fact that STEM is dominated by white men is not the result of racism on anyone’s part, it’s a matter of choices that people make, and culture. Believe me, even 40 years ago, the presentation of a black or female engineering candidate resulted in bidding wars for them.

                1. Talk to some scientists who are women or minorities.

                  They face some serious nonsense that you and I don’t even realize is a thing.

                  The idea that this is just choices is nonsense.

                  1. Did an ugly or awkward guy ask them out for a date? When is Biden going to round up the incels and put them in a camp?

                    1. You probably won’t have to worry for a while, he’s focused on infrastructure or what not right now.

                  2. “Talk to some scientists who are women or minorities. ”

                    If they do they would just talk down to them.

                2. Deny it all you like, that’s okay. It’s more real than your voter fraud.

            2. You say there’s not voting fraud? I disagree. What’s wrong with taking precautions,

              You disagree? Who cares if you disagree. Your “disagreement” is based on no evidence whatsoever. It’s based on the the words of habitual liars like Trump, Giuliani, Powell, etc., which you are gullible enough to believe.

              Besides, the GA law is about a lot more than “taking precautions.” How does stopping people from handing out water prevent fraud?

              1. bernard, why don’t you take similar umbrage with Nige’s similarly unsubstantiated assertions? Because you agree with them?

                There is much evidence of voter fraud, especially in Georgia. Just because you choose to ignore it or to dismiss it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. How about those suitcases of ballots that emerged after Republican poll watchers were told to go home, caught on video?

                Handing out water is not prohibited. Poll officers may do so. Giving voters anything of value as they wait to vote IS prohibited, as it is in many, many other states. Stop lying about it.

                1. “There is much evidence of voter fraud, especially in Georgia. ”

                  No, there’s not.

            3. ” You say there’s not voting fraud? I disagree.”

              Donald Trump asked his supporters to try voting twice in North Carolina, and then he went on to “win” the state.

              1. And he votes by mail all the time himself.

        4. “You don’t think now that whites, especially white males, are victims of racism? I know it’s the case. I know of companies that blithely ignore the law and actively discriminate against white men in recruiting and hiring. It’s widespread, especially in high tech.”

          That is some wildly ineffective discrimination if you look at the demographic distribution of people working in high tech.

          1. I’m talking about the present, not 10, 20, 50 years ago.

            1. Yep, me too! Look at the year-over-year (lack of) changes in the demographics at tech companies, since most of them publish annual reports. The people they hired last year look basically like the people the year before.

          2. “That is some wildly ineffective discrimination if you look at the demographic distribution of people working in high tech.”

            What they discriminate against mostly is people who are more than 50 years old. Microsoft even let Bill Gates go!

        5. ThePublius : It’s not voter suppression. That is a worn out false narrative.

          For political reasons the Right has created hysteria about voting security, even though they’ve spent decades trying to find more fraud than can be counted on fingers & toes – and failed every time. But for political reasons they’ve created a phony narrative to excuse their voter harassment.

          But now they’re upset no one takes their schlock seriously. Now they wail it’s unfair people & corporations take the Democrat’s politics more seriously than theirs, when their laws were empty political stunts (at best). It’s laughable to see ThePublius talk about the other side’s “false narrative”. Everything from the Right on “voter fraud” is a crude lie.

      2. Check this, Nige – Coke calling Nazi Germany the “Good Old Times:”

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAJXHPaWUWw&t=8s

        1. They’re not the only ones.

      3. Only wanting living persons to vote is voter suppression?
        Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

        1. Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have a legal right to vote until a court of law says otherwise!

        2. Lying about fraud to justify voter suppression is voter suppression?
          Fanta. Orange. Nazi.

    3. Coming out against corporate speech? Except for donations, I would imagine!

      Also calling oppositions to easy voting a war on white Americans is rather tipping your hand, no?

      1. I missed the part where Pub said that they shouldn’t be allowed to speak. There’s nothing wrong with people using their freedom of association to decide whether to engage in commerce with companies that espouse speech that is hypocritical (assuming the Coke advertising thing wasn’t fake, and the Fanta thing wasn’t misrepresented). Now you’re against boycotts for company speech?

        Opposing easy voting is a war on white Americans? I thought the white Americans (well, the wrong white Americans) were the ones opposed to easy voting. When will the re-definitions stop?

        You really need to proofread your strawpersons.

        1. “You really need to proofread your strawpersons.”

          Or you need to read more carefully. Definitely one or the other one.

          1. “Or you need to read more carefully. Definitely one or the other one.”

            Oh goody, thanks for clarifying.

            Care to provide any more proof of your wicked smarts?

            1. Either boycotting based on speech is good, in which case cancel culture must be as well.

              Or it is bad, in which case Publius’ linked article is a full-on partisan double standard.

              Also, of course, easy voting a war on whites…

  7. He was guilty the moment he became a neo-Nazi. Some thoughts should be criminal to hold.

  8. I’m enjoying the Falcon and the Winter Soldier (except for the kind of ham-fisted but also token-esque angle with Sam being denied the loan-the strange thing about that is they give a 100% non-racial reason why he would be [those gone in the ‘blip’ and those who work as ‘heroes’ have no income to report for years]). I’m glad to see the MCU addressing the repercussions of the ‘blip’ but I really think they are underselling this: if half of all life on Earth disappeared and then five years later reappeared the dislocations would cause nearly apocalyptic conditions imho…

    1. Not really feeling it myself. Not sure why; I guess it’s just not doing anything new, and the chemistry is good but not enough to carry the thing.

      Just saw a preview for Loki and they’re doing a cosmic beurocracy bit. I’m absolutely there for that.

      1. Yeah, really looking forward to that one myself.

      2. The chemistry is everything. My only issue with the show is the portion that addresses race leads to all manners of hot takes as if race is the pivotal driver of the show. It’s important, of course. Mostly I’m dreading when Sam finally takes up the shield and all these poor aggrieved white fans eye-roll and spitter at the accurate depiction of half the country losing its mind over a black Captain America, which is exactly what would happen in real life and what did happen in the comics.

        1. “Important… but not the principal focus”

        2. Agree with pretty much all of this.

        3. It’s a show based on comic books. Get over it, nerds.

          1. Graphic novels if you please!

    2. That seemed like such an odd thing to shove in. If Sam needed a loan, he could call up Pepper and she’d write him a check. The whole idea of “heroes aren’t paid” is just silly when you start looking at it in any detail.

      1. And, anyway, he’s an Avenger, and the Avengers absolutely were getting paid, in addition to, if you wanted it, free room and board. As I recall, quite nicely, too.

        1. The Fantastic Four aren’t paid, and that’s why Spider-Man didn’t join up with them in 1963.
          It’s not clear that Stark Industries circa Iron Man 3 is in a position to be paying anyone. They stopped making weapons systems, which was their big money-maker, and there’s sure to be piles of civil liability for whatever the Iron Legion did under the influence of Ultron.

    3. We have to remember this is after endgame, which saw the suddenly halved population of the earth double in an instant. The elation of having loved ones return is over and we’re exploring the issues associated with that. One of those issues is a “new baby in the house” vibe where those who didn’t disappear resent the attention and resources directed at the ones who did. I find it fascinating and am loving the early stages of this next phase of the MCU.

      1. I saw that ending, and my reaction was horror.

        You halve the population of the Earth, of every inhabited planet in the entire universe. Society regroups, adapts, goes on.

        Years later, the missing half of the population reappear. Yay!

        No, not “Yay!” Did more crops appear in the fields at the same time? More food in storehouses? Did medication stocks double at the same time?

        No. Mass famine and death ensue.

        Now, in the comics, the missing population were restored within days, maybe at worst a few weeks, so this wasn’t an issue.

        1. Yeah, I think those people re-appearing would be a disaster, for the reasons you gave and more (think of the interpersonal issues where many people would have ‘moved on’ to different partners, spouses, jobs, etc.,).

      2. There’s the question of rightful occupancy of people who owned property when they blipped, vs. people who bought vacant property.

        Who gets to live in the apartment… the guy who paid all the rent until he dissolved into dust, or the guy who moved in and paid all the rent afterwards?

  9. I thought it was interesting that the police said they could not or would not charge Tiger Woods but also took the time to have a press conference to say he was driving recklessly when he crashed. When did James Comey start with that department?

    1. Best headline ever:
      “Tiger goes limp after two holes”

      1. Now there’s a funny

    2. “they could not or would not charge Tiger Woods”

      Is there a nuance in California law? Some states mandate observing a vehicle for a specified distance and if CA law does, then the instant recordings from the event data recorder chip wouldn’t stand up in court. And if that is the case, give the cops credit for being honest.

      1. Did ‘t see the conf but I would think mentioning this would help defray accusations of famous person favoritism.

      2. “Is there a nuance in California law? Some states mandate observing a vehicle for a specified distance and if CA law does”

        Yes, under California law there needs to be a human witness to speed or reckless driving.

        Note that Woods also had to give permission for them to discuss the details of the accident.

        1. Interesting, thanks for the info.

        2. Then the cops deserve credit for not bringing bogus charges that would make them look good.

    3. Perhaps someone feels that his very serious injuries are punishment enough. My understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that no one else was injured, except maybe the tree.

      1. I don’t want the guy charged, just honestly wondering what the policy was they were pointing to for not, and if they didn’t feel he could be proven legally guilty about reckless driving then maybe don’t hold a press conference and tell the world he was.

      2. That actually is “old school”, when cops were allowed to make moral judgments. Often, if the vehicle was totaled, they wouldn’t charge OUI figuring that the loss of the vehicle, particularly when the person only had liability and hence was out the value of the vehicle, was enough…

  10. Aaron Rodgers has been killing it on Jeopardy.

    Still think Ken Jennings needs to be the final permanent host when it’s all over.

    1. For a guy who claims that he “really, really like women”, I have my doubts about that guy’s sexuality.

      1. I’ve no doubts that Aaron Rodgers has gotten more pussy than you have ever dreamed about.

        And that was probably before he turned old enough to buy beer.

        1. I was born poor, ugly, and Jewish but one day I will be rich and then I can buy all the best pusy I want.

          1. You forgot dumb.

      2. Wow — of all the things you could choose to comment about Aaron Rodgers — his impressive football record, his intelligence, his business accomplishments — the first thing you go to is whether he might be gay. It hardly needs to be said that your comment tells us far more about you than it does about him.

        1. Sorry Krtek, I learned it by reading the Torah.

          1. And where does the Torah mention Aaron Rodgers? I can quote large sections of it from memory and I don’t recall seeing his name there.

            1. I think it’s in the Book of (Vikings and Bears) Lamentations.

              1. Ok….that was pretty funny = Lamentations wisecrack.

    2. I would like to see LeVar Burton get a shot at hosting. Don’t know if he can do it but he has the background and should get a try.

      1. Definitely.

    3. Aaron seems pretty flat. I agree that Ken has been the best guest host by far.

      1. Eh, one man’s flat is another’s laid back.

        1. I think they should give the job to IBM Watson.

    4. Legion are the great sports players who went into broadcasting then quickly exited when the novelty wore off on the listeners.

      1. Terry Bradshaw is still working, and his shtick is pretty one-note.

  11. I am handling an estate matter in which it has been driven home just how awful our legal system is. It should have been a simple, straightforward probate matter in which approximately 25k in proceeds from the sale of a condominium — the decedent’s only asset — goes to her granddaughter. Instead, because of two screw-ups at the time the decedent took title, most of the money is now going to lawyers.

    I get that the title insurance underwriting people need to be sure that title is valid before they insure the sale, and I can’t really fault them for minimizing their risk. But still.

    1. It’s a pity that those responsible for the screwups aren’t held accountable.

      1. In theory, one could hold them accountable, except the statute of limitations has long expired.

        1. Complaint to the bar disciplinary authority?

          1. >bar disciplinary authority
            AOC has levelled up though

    2. A colleague of mine was in a pretty mundane car wreck. Similar situation though, he had to get a lawyer to deal with the other insurance company that was, for whatever reason, dragging their feet on the claim. It wasn’t even a close call. Security cam on a corner store caught the entire accident and it was the other driver’s fault. What was probably a 10K claim if it had just been settled ballooned into a 125K judgement, most of which was the fee award. The judge admonished the insurance company in open court for wasting valuable judiciary resources. Took almost 4 years until they finally paid up.

    3. It should have been a simple, straightforward probate matter in which approximately 25k in proceeds from the sale of a condominium — the decedent’s only asset — goes to her granddaughter. Instead, because of two screw-ups at the time the decedent took title, most of the money is now going to lawyers.

      Where’s Behar’s rousing game when you need it.

      1. I do a fair amount of asset protection / estate planning / business succession work. Tell me more about the specifics of the screw-ups.

        1. I hope it’s now under control, but it’s an interesting (and cautionary) story, so here it is.

          Twenty years ago, decedent’s widowed mother deeded the property to decedent, and then died a few weeks later. Decedent, for reasons not clear, did not get around to recording the deed for ten years. No one cared because she made no attempt to sell the property during that time. However, she deeded the property to her granddaughter, she is now deceased, and it is on the basis of the second deed that the granddaughter is now trying to sell the property. The second deed was recorded the same day it was executed.

          State law is crystal clear that a deed is valid even if it’s not recorded. However, the title insurance underwriters view it as suspicious that the deed was not recorded for ten years, and are concerned that even at this late date, some heir or other might show up and challenge one or both of the deeds. I don’t see it as suspicious at all that a non-lawyer who doesn’t understand property law might not have recorded it, and I think that twenty years after the fact, if heirs were going to show up they’d have already done so.

          The underwriters initially suggested that we go back and probate the estate of the woman who died twenty years ago, which at this late date would probably require appointment of a conservator, which would eat up even more of the estate. I asked if they would agree to underwrite it if I got a court to rule that the twenty-year-old deed was a valid deed. They said they would.

          So, dec action has been filed, and a hearing is scheduled tomorrow morning on a motion for summary judgment on the question of whether a deed is valid despite not being recorded. Under state law, the answer is a clear yes, but of course one never knows what a judge is going to do. If I get summary judgment that the deed is valid and title passed from great-grandmother to grandmother to granddaughter, then hopefully that will be the end of it and we can close. If I lose the motion for summary judgment, then we may just have to go back and probate a twenty year old estate.

          1. “view it as suspicious that the deed was not recorded for ten years”

            A “desk deed” or “dresser drawer deed” situation. Lack of proof of delivery and acceptance before death. Kinda common.

            I thought you said the lawyer screwed up though?

            Too late now but getting quit claim deeds from the heirs of “decedent’s widowed mother” would be my first choice of how to cure. Of course that might have logistic problems after all these years. Who are the defendant(s) in your lawsuit?

          2. The facts of your case are not alien to me.

            In fact, I have encountered situations the facts of which rhyme with your case where it was an attorney’s office that had failed to record the deed.

            Title insurance companies (fill in appropriate expletive / pejorative). In my view, even acknowledging that I do not know all of the facts, it would appear that the title insurance company’s position is unreasonable.

            Nevertheless, let us more fully examine the facts. The decedent’s mother who conveyed the property to the decedent was widowed at the time she deeded the property, right? At the time she conveyed the property, the decedent’s mother owned the property, alone, in her individual capacity, right? In other words, she was not acting in a fiduciary capacity as a Personal Representative or as a Trustee, right?

            Assuming the answers to the above inquiries are “yes,” let us proceed to the next set of questions. Did her husband have children who were not her children? Did she remarry? Did she have other children?

            Let us assume that answer to the foregoing questions are “no.” If that was the case, who would have standing to raise a stink? Nobody. Thus, in my opinion, the title insurance company’s position would not be reasonable.

            A midwit might counter, “what about creditors of the mother?” Sorry, the SOLs for actions against an estate ran out long before the title insurance company’s intransigence manifested itself.

            However, I recognize your facts may differ from the assumptions I have posited.

            1. Bob, and Libertymike, thank you for your comments. Bob, I saw there had been two screw ups; not that they had been made by lawyers. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

              Yes, the title company is being completely unreasonable, but there’s no law that requires title companies to be reasonable. As far as I know there are no heirs — this seems to be a family in which nobody has more than one child, and granddaughter is the only one left standing. That doesn’t mean I might not find second, third or fourth cousins if I looked hard enough, but in my view that would basically be inviting people to show up and make trouble. So, since these phantom heirs are all unknown, and may not even exist, getting quit claim deeds from them wasn’t an option.

              Bob, in answer to your question about who is the defendant, there isn’t one. We have a statute that says that anyone who questions his rights under a deed may bring a dec action to resolve it, and the matter is captioned In The Matter of a Certain Condominium Located at __________, Jane Roe, Real Party in Interest.” (Yes, the clerk’s office looked at me funny too, but it’s not that different in principle from other lawsuits, such as guardianships or bankruptcies, styled “In the Matter of.” I’m not really sure who would be a proper defendant — the phantom and unknown heirs, to be served by publication? The title company for being asshats?

              Anyway, state law, as I said, is clear that not recording a deed doesn’t affect its validity, so hopefully the issue resolves tomorrow.

              1. Interesting statute. An in rem proceeding.

                “title company is being completely unreasonable”

                On the facts as stated, probably.

                But you are asking them to take a risk for how much premium for the policy? If a claim, however unlikely, would be asserted, that premium is probably not going to last long to pay claim counsel.

                Having said that, I’d probably insure it. You can get affidavits on family history from the grandaughter and look at obits to confirm possible heirs.

                Some title agents are more risk adverse than others. Always good to shop a problem transaction. Don’t let the realtor/broker direct the deal, it will be at a residential mill that has no full time lawyer and refers all problems to the underwriter.

                1. Implicit in the fact pattern is the proposition that the buyers are looking to a bank in order to finance the purchase and the lender is requiring title insurance to cover the amount of the loan.

                  Banks, of course, suck.

                2. Bob, here’s the statute:

                  http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0086/Sections/0086.021.html

                  I would imagine other states have similar statutes, but haven’t researched it.

          3. IANAL but it seems to me that if the law says A, and the title insurance company says B, the title insurance company ought to be somehow liable for saying B, if A is true.

            1. A title company is issuing a contract of insurance, it is not issuing a legal opinion.

    4. Why is any of this the fault of the legal system? Why weren’t the title defects discovered at the initial purchase?

      1. Does not sound like there was a purchase. Great-grandma deeded to grandma who deeded to granddaughter.

    5. It was always thus, even Dickens covered it.

  12. “most of the money is now going to lawyers”

    You write that as though it’s a bad thing.

    1. A shekel argued over is worth two shekels in attorney fees.

  13. I listened to a chunk of the oral argument of the recent NCAA case. It was interesting to see the justices kind of all over the place and not in their usual* ideological silos.

    * I know that’s actually not so much the case, most decisions are 9-0 and such, but in big hyped cases is what I’m talking about

    1. Even “big hyped” cases are not always political. The Google v. Oracle case was a very big deal for high-tech, but there was no ideological split. There are many other examples.

      That is one thing that most people don’t realize. There are many Supreme Court cases that you cannot predict where they will end up based on ideology.

      1. “Even “big hyped” cases are not always political. The Google v. Oracle case was a very big deal for high-tech, but there was no ideological split. There are many other examples.”

        Well, it turned out there kind of was since the two most conservative justices voted together against everyone else.

  14. THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

    This White, male, right-wing
    blog has operated for
    ZERO (0) DAYS
    without gratuitous publication
    of a vile racial slur and for
    713 DAYS
    without engaging in partisan,
    viewpoint-driven censorship
    (that we are aware of, at least).

    Carry on, clingers . . .

    1. I think Eugene Volokh is at fault for creating the forum rules that help maintain and propagate white supremacy. White supremacists ideology can’t be debated, it has to be silenced!

      1. Prof. Volokh has demonstrated — repeatedly — that he will censor when he wants to. With respect to vile racial slurs, however, he does not want to.

    2. THE Rev. Artie Kirkland

      This White, male, broken
      record has operated for
      ZERO (0) DAYS
      without gratuitous publication
      of meaningless copypasta and for
      ZERO (0) DAYS
      without engaging in partisan,
      viewpoint-driven stupidity
      (that we are aware of, at least).

      1. If you guys don’t learn to keep your gloves up, this culture war isn’t going to be much contest going forward. It must be tough, after a half-century of losing, to keep going, but you should try harder.

        1. I’m not losing anything. I’m happy with a vast majority of the past 30+ years.

          I’m just here to point out that you provide less value to society than a street covered in raw sewage.

  15. I dont think that David Chipman gets confirmed to the ATF. He seems like more of a showboat candidate, so the Biden admin can show that they are “doing something.” I don’t see the moderates voting for him

    Also, I welcome the ATF trying to reclassify pistol braces as stocks. It will put at least 5 conservative Justices on notice that the NFA and GCA is too vague (see also * below). Criminal statues are not entitled to Chevron deference. Like the residual clause of the ACCA, we will end up with a bunch of cases with the result being “too vague.” They should change the law legislatively. The harder that they push on these vague rules through rulemaking, the quicker they collapse.

    * Note that its not even clear that the AR-15 is truly a firearm under the law. https://nsjonline.com/article/2020/01/federal-rulings-could-redefine-what-constitutes-a-firearm/

    1. The result being “too vague,” or “ATF, I do not think those words ‘stock’ and ‘firearm’ mean what you think it means.”

      1. Good luck with that; There has long been a “but, guns!” exception to most constitutional doctrines and rights, and Heller and McDonald only started reversing that, with McDonald possibly the high tide mark if the Supremes go any longer boycotting 2nd amendment cases.

        1. We will find out very soon.

    2. David Chipman is an excellent candidate to led the ATF. He has never shot a dog that did not have it coming. Take your Black Labs Matter protest to some other forum.

  16. “Students are niggers. When you get that straight, our schools begin to make sense. It’s more important, though, to understand why they’re niggers. If we follow that question seriously enough, it will lead up past the zone of academic bullshit, where dedicated teachers pass their knowledge on to a new generation, and into the nitty-gritty of human needs and hangups. And from there we can go on to consider whether it might ever be possible for students to come up from slavery.”

    So wrote Jerry Farber back in 1969 — his classic essay entitled _The Student as Nigger_ can be found here: https://ry4an.org/readings/short/student/

    And as I look at the manner in which large universities such as NYU, NEU, and MCI-Amherst treat student, even before all of the current Wuhan Flu hysteria, I wonder how much longer it will be before students start saying “bleep it” and stop enrolling.

    Any decline will take years to show as (a) it largely will be freshmen not enrolling and (b) it appears later in census data on adults aged 25-29. But it is interesting to note that the percentage of males in this demographic with college degrees declined after 1974 and did not recover until about 1999 — when the higher percentage of Black males then attending college is factored in, there probably are fewer young White males with college degrees today than in 1974.

    Let me repeat that: As a percentage of the cadre, there are fewer White males graduating from college today than there were 50 years ago!

    So how much more of this crap can fascist administrators impose before the whole house of cards tumbles to the ground? The vast majority of majors aren’t going to get you a job and parents increasingly realize that. Nor are you as likely to find a spouse there anymore as the “freshman mixers” are no more while most student’s social connections are via social media. And as to fun, the fascists have behaved like the true fascists they are.

    It’s like the railroads circa 1965 — they never saw the trucking industry coming…

    1. You’re too focused on the traditional HS → college scenario.

      One of our nation’s greatest strengths is adult continuing education programs.

      1. “One of our nation’s greatest strengths is adult continuing education programs.”

        Who (a) will not put up with this bullshyte and (b) are being totally ignored by a lot of large public universities. UMass Amherst comes to mind — it can’t even deal with veterans being in their late 20’s…

    2. Why do so many people who frequent this blog — from at least one blogger to many commenters — engage in such strenuous gymnastics to use a vile racial slur.

      Other than the old-timey, right-wing, Republican, conservative bigotry, I mean.

      How you guys expect this silly insularity to make your conservative cause more popular in modern America is a mystery.

      1. I learned it listening to Eazy E and that vulgar rap music.

        1. What is the Conspirators’ excuse?

    3. “current Wuhan Flu hysteria”
      For 32 million Americans it was reality.

      1. Don Nico, does that include George Floyd?

        Because, yes, it does — anyone (a) who tests COVID positive during (b) autopsy is declared to have died from that — even if dismembered in a motorcycle crash.

        Now do you consider being dismembered in a motorcycle crash to be a more likely CAUSE of death?

    4. “As a percentage of the cadre, there are fewer White males graduating from college today than there were 50 years ago!”

      Gosh, it’s almost like they don’t have to hide from the draft in school anymore!

  17. Joe-Ka’s EO wants to eliminate “ghost” guns. Sure thing the folks who produce these guns will now certainly just stop because Joe-Ka says so.

    But I think we should apply similar security to protect the right to vote as we do to protect the right to own a fire arm.

    Boteh are explicit rights.

    So the “phantom” ballot loophole needs closed. That would be dead people and folks who have moved but still remain on the voting rolls.

    1. Prohibiting dead voters from voting is just another part of the GOP war on trans people and their Constitutional right to vote.

      1. And war on women. The Dems have binders full of dead women voters the GOP is trying to stop from voting.

    2. Someone needs to tell Biden building a firearm doesn’t work like that….

  18. The latest installment in our national horror story is now made up “ghost guns” and spectral evidence being entered in the trial of a cop who appears was doing his job as trained.

    1. Oh, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that police department trains to murder black guys.

      1. Today, you appear to be particularly oblivious, if not insensitive, to the sufferings of Afro-American victims, whether at the hands of Woka-Cola or 5-O.

        1. >Afro-Americans
          I think they prefer the term “Wakandan” now to describe their ethnicity. Alternatives include Basketball-Americans or Melanin-Americans.

          1. Okay, point taken.

            Nevertheless, the Queen is demonstrating that she is insufficiently woke anent the woes of the Wakanda.

          2. “I think they prefer the term “Wakandan” now to describe their ethnicity. ”

            That’s actually fairly popular right around here, but I think that’s due to Boseman being the local boy who made good.

      2. Yea, who needs trials, anyway.

        1. The prosecution is not doing very good. No lawyer is going to put that in writing, but I’ve heard many say it in private. This is the definition of “show trial”.

          1. There’s excellent commentary at Legal Insurrection. No, the prosecution isn’t doing well, at all. Their witnesses are turning out to be excellent witnesses for the defense.

    2. “spectral evidence being entered in the trial of a cop who appears was doing his job as trained.”

      No matter what all those police folk testify about how, exactly, officers are trained.

      1. It is one thing to say “no we didn’t train him to do that” and a completely different thing when the documents in evidence suggest that it was. People lie all the time.

        And do you really think anyone is going to go in front of the firing squad to say “sure that is how we train cops…” No one is that stupid.

        1. Jimmy, you seem very confident about this. Surely you have a cite to the part of the training manual where it says “kneel on neck for a while even after the person stops moving and definitely don’t flip them over once they’re compliant”? ‘Cause I feel like that piece of evidence is going to be really helpful to the defense and they don’t seem to have it at the moment.

        2. “People lie all the time.”

          People who are currently on trial are most noted for this.

  19. When reading analysis of judicial opinions, there seems to be a lot that revolves around precedent, common law, and occasionally even the federalist papers. What I don’t recall ever seeing, is reference to the preamble to the bill of rights and it’s explicit statement regarding “misconstruction or abuse of it’s powers”. If preambles state a purpose, I’m curious how the purpose got left behind in the context of the items that followed.

    1. If Republicans want to burn the coal, they will pay the toll during the midterms.

    2. The state Senate Energy, Industry and Mining Committee heard opposing perspectives at its meeting Thursday from coal industry and electric utility representatives on a bill it’s considering designed to keep West Virginia’s dwindling fleet of coal plants operating as long as possible by requiring in-state power producers to maintain 2019 coal consumption levels.

      1. We have to keep up with China or else the world won’t respect us. Although, I prefer Biden’s plan to build a high speed train from Honolulu to Los Angeles. Chairman Xi can’t beat American made Acela trains!

  20. OK, let me throw out this question – when is racial discrimination (by federal or state governments) OK and for what reasons?

    1. When the government works to promote racial equity, I think it is morally acceptable to discriminate against members of the oppressor racial caste.

      1. Just to be clear, do you agree that racial discrimination *ought* to be done in the situations covered by that case, or are you simply trying to summarize the precedents?

        1. I do.
          Because the meritocracy is not actually perfect, and is in fact racially tilted. Until that is fixed, tilting it back requires directly addressing the racial disparities relying on this imperfect meritocracy creates.

          It’s not as simple as just AA, of course, but that’s vital amelioration as you deal with the core issues.

          1. “meritocracy is not actually perfect, and is in fact racially tilted.”

            How is that? (It sounds as contradictory to me as saying it’s impossible for black to be racist.)

            1. Some people were bred to pick cotton and some other people were bred to perform usury (and all the mental tasks associated with that work, such as reading and drafting contracts, interest calculations and risk assessment). Guess which one ends up in prison and which one ends up at Harvard.

              1. As if going to Harvard precluded going to prison.

          2. So, just to be clear, “directly addressing the racial disparities” means engaging in racial discrimination?

            1. Found the fragile white person!
              Why you creepy ass crackas trying to keep the Blax people down?

            2. Should America’s leading educational institutions stop hiring the best candidates for faculty positions and, instead, emulate our shabbiest education institutions by hiring more conservatives?

              Affirmative action, Heterodox Academy-style, seems popular among conservatives — especially certain educated conservatives — when (and only when) clingers would benefit.

              1. Since you joined this discussion, let me ask you – when is racial discrimination (by federal or state governments) OK and for what reasons?

                Since you said that “America’s leading educational institutions…hir[e] the best candidates for faculty positions,” I presume you’re denying that they engage in racial discrimination?

                1. Because you joined, a question for you: Does the frequent use of vile racial slurs at this blog — and by the proprietor in particular — bother you? Or, instead, is the overt and diffuse bigotry part of what attracts you to this strikingly male, remarkably White blog?

                  1. So, you are aware of the racial discrimination, but try to shift gears by blaming me for doing what you yourself do, ie, being at this blog.

                    1. We are both aware of racial discrimination. You prefer to deny it exists and claim society is color-blind, either to appease bigoted right-wing in your electoral coalition or to satisfy your personal bigotry.

                      Let’s see how this sifts over the next 20 years or so, clingers. I expect the trajectory against bigots and bigotry to continue in America. If anyone expects White nationalism and general intolerance to turn the tide and become stronger in America . . . good luck with that.

                    2. “We are both aware of racial discrimination. You prefer to deny it exists”

                      Which technically is pretty much the exact opposite of what I believe, but never mind, you’re on a roll.

                    3. You believe racism has been conquered in America? In Mississippi? In Oklahoma? In Georgia? In Texas?

                      Does conservatism generate disingenuous losers, or merely attract them?

                    4. “Does conservatism generate disingenuous losers, or merely attract them?”

                      Conservatism must have attracted you, because you’re being quite disingenuous.

                      “You believe racism has been conquered in America?”

                      No, and what possible basis do you have for assuming I believe any such thing, you silly person?

              2. Don’t forget Prager University and Ben Shapiro’s Yeshiva of FACTS and LOGIC!

              3. If businesses aren’t allowed to hire the best, and schools aren’t allowed to admit the best, then why should universities be allowed to hire “the best”?

                Of course, the best, in Artie’s case, just means “follows the right dogma”.

            3. So, just to be clear, “directly addressing the racial disparities” means engaging in racial discrimination?

              I answered your question, and provided my argument.

              Your semantic game are just that.

              1. I see that you said “I do” to my question about whether you approved racial discrimination. All right, then, I’ll withdraw my extra question.

                Does that help?

                I’ve grown accustomed to euphemism in this area, but by agreeing with my question, you managed to avoid euphemism and say that racial discrimination ought to be done in certain circumstances.

                1. I reject political correctness and euphemisms. Bigots — conservative racists, right-wing gay-bashers, Republican misognyists, and others — should no longer be permitted to hide behind euphemisms such as “family values,” or “traditional values,” or “color-blind,” or “conservative values,” or “Republican.”

                  1. “I reject political correctness and euphemisms.”

                    You are the walking, talking embodiment of political correctness and lefty ignorance.

                2. Again, you’re game of “OMG! You just said it!” is dumb, and proves nothing except how facile your take is.

                  1. I think it’s important to penetrate beneath the levels of euphemism and Kirklandesque bluster and force “progressives” to admit, specifically, that they support racial discrimination. Then we can amuse ourselves by watching them bob and weave as they explain that racial discrimination isn’t necessarily racist, even though in other contexts their definition of racism is broad and comprehensive.

                    1. No, it’s actually not important. We all know what the policies at issue are, and if you think they’re immoral or bad for society you should engage with the actions on that level, not try and get lame owns about denotation versus connotation.

                    2. “I think it’s important to penetrate beneath the levels of euphemism and Kirklandesque bluster and force “progressives” to admit, specifically, that they support racial discrimination. ”

                      Indeed, if you can set the terms for the discussion, you can win debates that you can’t win with facts or logic.

                    3. What’s amusing, Cal, is shoving progress — on treatment of gays, prayer in schools, treatment of women, abortion, treatment of Blacks, creationism, treatment of immigrants, the environment, Obamacare, and dozens of other issues — down the throats of conservatives.

                      You wouldn’t understand. You’ve been so busy swallowing your betters’ preferences that you have barely had enough time to act on your bigotry lately, let alone try to imagine what it would be like to win the American culture war.

                      It is nice that clingers have a spot like this where they can huddle together for warmth, but don’t let it fool you into thinking that mainstream America and mainstream academia do not continue to find movement conservatism — and many conservatives — disgusting.

                    4. Like I said, the next step is to watch you bob and weave as you try to explain why racism has a very broad meaning which somehow doesn’t include actual racial discrimination.

                    5. Why do you side with the vestigial racists, the superstitious gay-bashers, the selfish xenophobes, the old-timey misogynists, and other intolerant and ignorant holdouts in our society’s cultural debates and political activities, Cal Cetin? Does it bother you that your side features the race-targeting vote suppressors, the ‘fine, the perverts don’t get arrested any more, but you must let us be bigots and treat gays like dirt’ clingers, the ’75 percent male and 85 percent White sounds great for judicial nominees’ bigots?

                    6. May I ask you a question?

                      What on earth are you babbling about?

          3. “Because the meritocracy is not actually perfect, and is in fact racially tilted. Until that is fixed, tilting it back…”

            Back? Has there ever been a time in history where skillsets and other traits were equally distributed across racial and ethnic groups?

            1. I can’t think of a period. But the racial tilt of skill set and knowledge were in the favor of Black people when they were building the pyramids in Egypt while wypipo was scratching a living in caves in Europe. Or that is what I have read from Al Sharpton.

            2. So, not a fan of the whole Reconstruction projects, huh? I mean, sure some libs could argue the newly freed slaves were at a severe socioeconomic disadvantage due to their newly ended slavery, but when was it ever not so?

              1. “So, not a fan of the whole Reconstruction projects, huh?”

                Not if you claim that they’re still necessary. Reconstruction ended a century and a half ago.

                1. OK, so you do get that the ‘ye shall always have inequality of skills with ye’ isn’t always a good rebuttal to the issue of some groups being disadvantaged. Now it’s on to when it would be and wouldn’t.

            3. ” Has there ever been a time in history where skillsets and other traits were equally distributed across racial and ethnic groups?”

              God distributes talents as He sees fit.

              1. Why is God systemically racist against Asians in the NBA?

                1. Ask Yao Ming.

                2. Funny thing is, it was once a controversial notion that black guys might be good at basketball, and thus was formed the Harlem Globetrotters.

            4. Has there ever been a time in history where skillsets and other traits were equally distributed across racial and ethnic groups?

              Has there ever not been? You have as much idea as I do.

              Don’t mix up a threshold question with an optimization question. At some point the merit between 2 candidates for a job (or school) are effectively identical, and the selection between them is arbitrary.

      2. “Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

        Only 3 years left, then its unconstitutional.

        1. Sorry, 7 years.

          Math, bah.

          1. The meritocracy at work.

        2. Until racial equity is achieved in America, Black people deserve respirations for slavery and Jim Crow.

          1. Well, at least until we can convince everybody that Jim Crow was bad policy.

    2. Perhaps when it is remedial.

      1. “Perhaps?” You’re not sure of your position?

        1. It’s complicated, and thus doesn’t lend itself to neat, bumper-sticker length statements of position.

          1. No Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA
            Black Lives Matter
            Love is love

            1. Yes, some things can be reduced to bumper stickers. This does not prove that ALL things can be.

              1. Would “Racial Discrimination is Wrong” work for a bumper sticker?

                1. Would you pay $5 to get one?

  21. Kentucky’s Republican-majority legislature deserves substantial credit for passing legislation that improves voting in Kentucky.

    1. I support universal background checks. We have an instant background check system that works 98+% of the time. No reason people should be able to vote without passing one. No more “ghost voters”.

      1. You are a bigot, Jimmy the Dane. A conservative, Republican, right-wing bigot. Your preferences with respect to elections will — much like your positions concerning guns, abortion, inclusiveness, modernity, religion, immigration, and most other issues — become increasingly irrelevant as improvement continues along its predictable arc in modern America.

        You — and the Volokh Conspiracy — will get to whine about all of this damned progress as much as you like however.

        Until replacement.

        1. So universal background checks are now bigoted?

          1. mostly just you, actually.

            1. Because I support universal background checks?

              1. Because you are a bigot.

                You can’t fool anyone — at least, not outside a Republican Committee meeting, ar Federalist Society event, or a Klan-Proud Boys-Oathkeepers rally. Why not embrace — and admit — who you are?

                1. What is your proof that I am a bigot if not my support for universal background checks?

                  1. I have observed you at this blog enough to recognize that you are a clinger.

                    Don’t worry about me . . . it’s your children hating you that you should worry about.

                    Unless they are deplorable right-wingers, too, in which case . . . they will be replaced, too.

                    1. I hope your children are decent, modern, educated people who reject their parent’s bigoted, obsolete, conservative thinking.

                    2. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the Rev truly wish for an edit button, but here we are. “Replacing” children. Wow. Just wow.

                    3. No thought of editing. All clingers will be replaced — and deservedly so — by better, younger people in the natural course. It likely would take longer for someone’s children, but those who prefer reason, science, inclusiveness, education, freedom, and modernity can afford to wait until every deplorable clinger is replaced.

                      I hope every clinger’s child rejects bigotry and backwardness and becomes a part of the modern mainstream.

                    4. You’re still desperately trying to recalibrate your initial unbelievably noxious construct of “replacing” children, which is exactly why you posted that sad little reply to yourself in the first place. Stop digging.

                  2. “What is your proof that I am a bigot”

                    You keep choosing to say bigoted things.

                    1. Like what?

                    2. You don’t keep track of what you say, either?

                    3. I know what I say and how you try to spin it for your own partisan reasons.

                    4. Poor Jimmy. People keep taking his bigoted statements and positions and try to twist them into a claim that he is a bigot.

                    5. “I know what I say and how you try to spin it for your own partisan reasons.”

                      The partisan reasons I get from not being a member of any party? Those the ones you’re objecting to?

                    6. Still haven’t provided any examples…..that is telling….

  22. It must mean something that Giffords gun control group got the nod today, Bloomberg didn’t.

    How toxic is he now?

    1. He made a woman feel uncomfortable by being a lecherous Jewish manlet. He’ll never be in politics again but the DNC will take his shekels. I’m just content with the knowledge that he wasted 1 BILLION of his own money to have resident Native American Senator, Elizabeth Warren, tear him a new asshole on stage during the primary debates.

    2. Did Bloomberg want to be head of the ATF?

  23. So, it appears New Mexico became the second state to put real restrictions on qualified immunity (Colorado did so last year).

    To the conservatives and conservative leaning libertarians here, what’s up with your Red states on this issue?

    1. There’s a bill in the Georgia senate right now requiring all police officers to shoot black joggers suspected of a crime. I would consider supporting it if some safeguards were included.

      1. What’s sad is even though this is funny and not real, these days who knows anymore? I feel like I’m my own private Truman Show.

        And Biden. Seriously. Can he project any less confidence and power?

        Me? I want to be a fly on the wall listening to Trudeau and Biden converse. The Pablum and Bibs Summit.

        The bibs are needed to catch the drool and drivel.

        1. “And Biden. Seriously. Can he project any less confidence and power? ”

          I suppose he COULD start calling himself a self-made billionaire.

          1. Guys like Rufus are impressed by a blowhard like Trump. They have never been around admirable, educated, accomplished people, so they confuse bluster with substance, brittleness with strength, inheritance with achievement, superstition with reality, and falsehood with fact.

    2. What’s up with the other 48 states on this?

    3. “what’s up with your Red states on this issue?”

      Maybe they know that QI is a federal court doctrine that applies to claims under federal civil rights law so state laws don’t matter.

  24. And Virginia is legalizing marijuana…Any conservatives and conservative leaning libertarians want to bet on when Red state bastions such as Alabama or Utah follow suit?

    I’m not sure the old libertarian-conservative fusion movement is doing much….

    1. North Carolina is also strongly considering MJ legalization.

    2. I prefer a natural medicine, like beer or gin, to that foul weed and its noxious odors. As my father always told me, “There’s a reason they call it ‘dope'”.

      1. Gin is more natural than marijuana?

        Your father was a loser.

        1. Although I’m a purple kush man myself and do not savor gin, I could hardly brand the Rabbi’s father a loser because he preferred gin.

          Don’t be a hater!

          Where is your love?

          Where is your tolerance?

          Where is your respect for diversity?

          1. He was a loser for (1) disparaging marijuana foolishly and (2) failed parenting.

            For starters.

    3. No one on the right really cares what you smoke and hasn’t since about the year 2000.

      1. Except those laws and cops in the states that haven’t legalized it. Other than that I guess.

        1. Are you new to American democracy? Part of the system is things don’t exactly happen in a smooth, orderly way. It is not a bug, but a feature to it all.

          1. Lots of states have legalized it, few of them are Red States. Those states that have just have a smoother, orderly way I guess?

            1. Republicans tend to be old-timey, authoritarian, disaffected prudes . . . at least when they aren’t revealed to be lying, cheating bigots, such as (most recently) John Merrill.

              1. Because Republicans are the ones going around enforcing Victorian speech codes everywhere….

                1. They haven’t been able to.
                  This does not establish that they wouldn’t if they could.

              2. How many federal officials has the Senate voted to convict and remove during impeachment trials since, oh, 1980 or so? Which party elected or appointed them?

      2. And yet, they keep voting that way.

        Curious.

      3. Check your polls again, Jimmy.

  25. Check out this online newspaper:
    https://www.newbritainjournal.com

  26. I’m not a lawyer and haven’t been following the Chauvin trial closely although I’ve read snippets of media coverage of the trial.

    I was surprised that prosecution witnesses seem to be allowed to make statements on how they felt, after the fact, in response to the incident.

    For example, the cashier Christopher Martin at Cup Foods who took the counterfeit bill and reported it to his supervisor testified that, upon seeing the police ultimately restrain Floyd, he felt guilt at having reported the bad bill. Martin’s guilt over reporting the bad bill seems completely irrelevant to Chauvin’s guilt or innocence but seem prejudicial so I don’t understand why it would be allowed.

    What am I missing here? Is the judge giving the prosecution too much leeway and the defense is objecting in chambers setting up for an appeal? Or, would such testimony normally be allowed?

    1. I thought the overall level of heartthrob testimony was fairly telling as to the prosecution’s feelings about the overall strength of their case, but wasn’t really surprised the judge didn’t shut it down.

      Most decisions like that happen pretrial, and are usually limited to areas of testimony that are more likely to prejudice the jury than give them any useful information about the case. That’s a subjective balancing test, so judges have a wide level of discretion what they’ll let in vs. keep out.

      Outside those broad-stroke pretrial determinations, the prosecution has a lot of discretion how much “color” they bring in around the edges — the defense can object to specific things in real time, but that doesn’t look good and often just creates a Streisand effect with the jury so usually better just to let it go unless it’s something really over the top.

  27. Here’s a weird election law in my newly adopted state of North Carolina. If you cast a ballot during early voting, but then have the bad grace to die before Election Day, your vote is erased! Sacre bleu! So on each paper ballot cast during early voting, we had to write the identifying number from the voter authorization form, actually identifying the name of the voter that cast that ballot. Then if the county board of elections received a death notice for that voter, they would track down the paper ballot that had been fed into the optical scanner, and subtract each vote from the total. Craziest thing I ever saw! Surprisingly few voters complained as we hand wrote a bunch of numbers and letters on their ballot. I know this isn’t the law in Maryland, I wonder about other states with early voting.

    1. That does seem a bit odd. Written on the detachable part of the ballot, I hope?

  28. Meanwhile, the woke country of Iran is contributing to world enlightenment.

    A candidate for the presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ali Motahari, . . . said during a Clubhouse telephone video discussion that “right now they have problems in Europe. Men are not aroused and women are resorting to African men.”

    He termed “freedom of dress” for women an “animal right.” The Islamic Republic imposes a compulsory hijab system on women. Motahari, who is slated to run as a presidential candidate in the June 2021 presidential election, added: “If somebody is not aroused on the beach, then he is sick. God wants us to get aroused. Men must be aroused. It is good that a young man is aroused by seeing the hand of a woman.”

    And then there is this gem:

    Separately, security forces for Iran’s regime on Wednesday arrested family members of victims of the regime’s 2019 mass murder of protesters against regime corruption. According to social media posts, the regime’s forces in Isfahan arrested at least 30 family members who sought to commemorate the memory of their murdered family members. A Reuters investigation determined that Iran’s regime murdered roughly 1,500 of its own people during the 2019 nation-wide protests.

    https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-pres-candidate-gives-racistsexist-rant-women-resort-to-african-men-664562

    I am so glad the Biden Administration is falling all over itself to take off sanctions from Iran, so they can then get wads of cash to spread their great system around the world. And heck, they might even delay getting nukes by a few months.

    Helping a regime that is racist, misogynistic, executes gays and political dissidents and arrests families of the latter. What a way to promote American values! I mean it’s not like they are doing anything horrific there, like supporting Republicans.

    Keep it up, Joe!

    1. As opposed to, e.g., Saudi Arabia?

      1. Yes, thanks for that mindless tu quoque response.

        Saudi Arabia does not sponsor terrorism nor try to spread their backwards system around the world. And they are very slowly changing. No picnic, but not in the same class as Iran.

        1. “Saudi Arabia does not sponsor terrorism nor try to spread their backwards system around the world.”

          Except when they do.

        2. “Saudi Arabia does not sponsor terrorism”

          But they are the world’s most prolific sponsor of Salafist “freedom fighters.”

        3. That’s a very optimistic view of the Saudi regime. In fact, Saudi Arabia actively promotes Wahabism, and is probably the world’s #1 sponsor of terrorism. (See, e.g., https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/12/financing-terrorism-saudi-arabia-and-its-foreign-affairs/ )

    2. “I am so glad the Biden Administration is falling all over itself to take off sanctions from Iran”

      After The Donald told them it was OK with us if they wanted to develop nuclear weapons, keeping sanctions on seems pointless.

      1. Pretty sure, “We’re not going to continue pretending that you’re not developing nuclear weapons” isn’t quite the same as, “It’s OK with us if you develop nuclear weapons.”

        1. “We’re unilaterally repudiating the deal we made to keep you from developing nuclear weapons”, is, in fact, quite the same as “we’re OK with it if you want to start developing nuclear weapons.”

    3. Motahari is a curious combination. His views on culture, especially women’s dress, put hardliners to shame. At the same time his views on politics, free speech, and engagement with the West are (by Iranian standards anyway) quite progressive: He publicly criticized the government for suppressing dissent and supported impeachment of the Minister of the Interior for that 2019 massacre in a country where outspokenness can be dangerous. At least you can’t fault him for picking a side and tailoring his message to woo them.

      I don’t think we have to worry too much about him winning the presidency this year. In Iran candidates have to be vetted by the Guardian Council (something else to heartily criticize them for) and they disqualified Motahari last year from running in the parliamentary election so it’s a good bet they won’t let him into this one either.

Please to post comments