Thursday Open Thread

Better late than never.

Comments

[apedad]

Nice.

It was 6 a.m. when six German police officers came knocking on the door of a Twitter user in Hamburg. What sparked the investigation: a tweet he wrote in June calling a German official a crude term that refers to male genitalia.

The raid Wednesday came a little over three months after he replied to a tweet from Andy Grote, the interior and sports minister for the city of Hamburg, describing him as a “pimmel.”

The public prosecutor’s office in Hamburg told The Washington Post it was handling an investigation of an online “insult,” which can be punished under a section of the German criminal code.

But the police search unleashed a stream of outraged comments and sarcastic memes from Germans on social media, inspiring the hashtag #Pimmelgate which was trending Thursday on Twitter.

“My house was searched at 6:00 this morning. Six officers in the apartment,” wrote the suspect, who goes by the screen name “ZooStPauli” and has not otherwise identified himself. “They know there are two young children living in this household. Good morning Germany.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-german-politician-police-raid/

FYI, Pimmel is a slang word for penis, not really harsh and might be used by teasing 10 year old boys, e.g. HA, he banged his Pimmel on the toilet seat!

[ThePublius]

Well, you can defeat the Nazi party, but you can't take the Nazi out of German politicians.

[subpatre]

Well, you can defeat the Nazi party, but you can’t take the Nazi out of German career politicians.
... https://archive.ph/uQeiL
After all, they were bad for the The Body of The People.

[Jerry B.]

Democrats creaming in their pants at the idea of this much power.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Republicans are the repeated viewpoint-driven censors at this White, male blog.

Other than that, though. . . Great comment, clinger!

[DonP]

... and yet here you are, whining again, you pompous git.

[Jerry B.]

Come on, Rev. You know you had to change your underwear too, after reading that article.

[Krayt]

Next thing you know, they'll be demanding papers, please!

Oh. It's not funny any more.

[Seamus]

Andy Grote is a Pimmel.

I wrote that and posted it on the Internet with the knowledge that this site can be accessed in Germany, and with the intent (or at least the hope) that it be so accessed. So come and get me, Krautboy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is gonna be a very Blackman-like post, but whatever. This is who I would cast as SCOTUS if there were a movie about them made tomorrow:

Roberts: Greg Kinnear
Thomas: Andre Braugher
Breyer: Bob Balaban
Alito: Kevin Pollak
Sotomayor: Olga Merediz
Kagan: Eddie Falco
Gorsuch: George Clooney
Brett Kavanaugh: Steven Little
Amy Coney Barret: Nicole Kidman

Bonus:
Ginsburg: Linda Hunt
Kennedy: James Cromwell
Scalia: Danny Devito (Scalia was very short IRL)

[Ridgeway]

O'Connor: Sally Field

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes.

[Commenter_XY]

Agreed....Fields has the winsome, midwestern girl look.

[Don Nico]

Eddie Falco is definitely not agan

[LawTalkingGuy]

She was tough. What about Kate Mulgrew?

[Ridgeway]

More like Conchata Ferrell

[Don Nico]

Definitely better. I'll go for Kate

[Archibald Tuttle]

Breyer: Abe Vigoda

[IPLawyer]

The difference between you and Blackman is that you didn't offer this with an actual request that someone from hollywood contact you to make the film.

[Queen Amalthea]

Or make it a four part series.

[Ridgeway]

However, I suspect LTG received a substantial payment from Justice Gorsuch for the recommendation that George Clooney play him. Similar to when Billy Bean was able to get Brad Pitt to play him.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They have a similar facial structure. ACB getting Nicole Kidman is probably the real winner.

[apedad]

The number of people who identify as Native American or Alaska Native alone grew by 27.1% to 3.7 million people over the last decade, according to the U.S. Census.

https://www.axios.com/census-native-american-alaska-population-surges-1be8eef6-d09f-4249-86b0-7bf8cfbfc801.html

I wonder how the Fourteenth Amendment, which exclude "Indians not taxed" from the counts for apportioning direct taxes and representatives to Congress among the states affects these data - if at all since this is only census data.

Although the article goes on to state:

Yes, but: Tribal communities and Native Americans are spread out throughout congressional districts, making it difficult for Indigenous people to gain political power by electing Native Americans to Congress.

New voting restrictions in states like Arizona also could make it more difficult for Navajo Nation members to vote, diluting their power even more.

The Republican-dominated Kansas Legislature is poised to redraw a district currently held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids, a member of the Ho-Chunk Nation and one of two Native American women in Congress, that would oust her from office.

The Democratic-led New Mexico redistricting body could also redraw the district held by Republican U.S. Rep. Yvette Herrell, a member of the Cherokee Nation, that could also boot her from Congress.

[Don Nico]

Party transcends tribe.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The number of people who identify as Native American or Alaska Native alone grew by 27.1% to 3.7 million people over the last decade"

Yes, they see the benefits flowing from "identifying" as a victim.

[Queen Amalthea]

Yeah, those Native Americans have made out like bandits! Lucky ducks.

[Bob from Ohio]

Whatever happened to Indians prior to the 21st century is not really relevant.

People now see affirmative action, set asides, special programs etc. and want those benefits.

[Queen Amalthea]

Of course it's relevant, but hey, even today Native American's are generally riding the benefits gravy train to...disproportionate poverty and a bevy of other social ills...

I'll come in again...

[shawn_dude]

Well, yes and no. Native casinos have created a boon for some tribes and there are legal cases where tribes have attempted to narrow the requirements to be considered a member in order to reduce the population and increase profit share per member.

The numbers show the vast majority of them are still desperately poor, but increases in claims of tribal membership could be driven by more than one factor, including profit-sharing.

[Kleppe]

Huh, imagine having to face consequences for carrying on four centuries of warfare (or for anything else).

[MatthewSlyfield]

"I wonder how the Fourteenth Amendment, which exclude “Indians not taxed” from the counts for apportioning direct taxes and representatives to Congress among the states affects these data – if at all since this is only census data."

My understanding is that all Native Americans were granted US Citizenship by an act of Congress a long time ago, such that "Indians not taxed" is an empty set that has zero impact on the census.

[apedad]

Learned something new.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/431.html

[ThePublius]

“Why Did the State Department Want to Keep Private American Citizens From Leaving Afghanistan?”

Despicable if it’s all true. And, I have no reason yet to believe it isn’t.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/09/08/why-did-the-state-department-want-to-keep-private-american-citizens-from-leaving-afghanistan-n1476899

[Queen Amalthea]

"And, I have no reason yet to believe it isn’t."

Of course.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Of course not. Bigoted rubes -- birther-class clingers -- are as gullible as it gets.

[apedad]

Did you even read the article or just the headline?

The govt simply denied access to land at a US Air Base and given the degraded security situation there I don't blame them.

It's not the US Military's job to protect adventurous civilians - regardless of their intentions.

[Queen Amalthea]

If he didn't read further he would have no reason to believe it isn't as despicable as he'd like to find it to be!

It's so Publius.

[ThePublius]

Yews, you contrary morons Queenie and Apedad, I did read the article. Did you?

The DOS basically told these guys, who were rescuing Americans Biden stranded in Afghanistan, that they couldn't land anywhere, including the U.S., except maybe Saudi Arabia. That's despicable.

[Queen Amalthea]

Anything you read on 'PJmedia'* should be followed up with you checking out multiple more reputable journalistic sources to see if the facts check out, not by going 'hmmm, I agree with this and I've no reason to believe otherwise, so let's start circulating!'

* this would of course apply to less reputable left wing cites as well

[Life of Brian]

not by going ‘hmmm, I agree with this and I’ve no reason to believe otherwise, so let’s start circulating!’

Ah, so not the likes of Rolling Stone and Rachel Maddow, then. Glad that's settled.

[Seamus]

You didn't, by any chance, fall for that story about ivermectin overdoses being so numerous in rural Oklahama that ERs had to turn away gunshot victims?

No reason for asking. Just curious.

[apedad]

Reading comprehension not strong in the ol' Publius family tree I guess.

State DID NOT tell them they couldn't land anywhere but THEY DID give them a heads up.

“No independent charters are allowed to land at [Al Udeid Air Base], the military airbase you mentioned in your communication with Samantha Power. In fact, no charters are allowed to land at an [sic] DoD base and most if not all countries in the Middle Eastern region, with the exception of perhaps Saudi Arabia will allow charters to land,” the official wrote.

[shawn_dude]

WHAT?! Are you saying I cannot land my private jet at Nellis AFB?! Thanks Obama!

[Brett Bellmore]

It appears the NC state supreme court is preparing to force two of its justices to recuse from a case challenging the legitimacy of a couple of constitutional amendments. On the basis that they have a conflict of interest, having been members of the state legislature at the time.

Strangely enough, they're not proposing to force the recusal of a third justice, who was literally the plaintiff's counsel in the matter at an earlier stage in the case.

And the case is pretty weird, too: The NAACP is claiming that the state legislature is illegitimate due to having some of its seats gerrymandered. But only selectively illegitimate, because they're not challenging everything the state legislature did, just a couple of state amendments it put on the ballot, which passed handily. The rest of the amendments, and several years' statutes?

No, they're fine.

[Queen Amalthea]

"The latest scheme to overturn voters’ will "

I'm certain an article with that sub-headline is totes carefully fair.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're literally trying to invalidate a couple of constitutional amendments that the voters ratified. How is that not overturning the voters' will?

But only two of them, they're being very selective in their application of this legal principle they're proposing, which would on its face appear to invalidate everything the state legislature did for years.

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm saying you might not be fully informed on that issue by that article.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fine, demonstrate where I'm falling short. I posted it in the hope of a discussion, after all.

Do you know something about the matter?

[Queen Amalthea]

The key here is *you* don't much about the matter, you just have a hyperbolic op-ed written by a professional hack whose partisan leanings you agree with. And yet you're all worked up about it and willing to post it. Maybe stop being such a perfect mark for these people, Brett! Maybe the issue is as he says, but start by being very doubtful of hyperbolic hack pieces, they're so very often not very careful.

[Don Nico]

QA,
Everyone you doubt is a hack. It is your usual knee-jerk reaction.
The world is not like that. Read the editorial in the Charlotte Observer and you'll see that your hack reported the facts accurately.

[Queen Amalthea]

No, Don, I looked it up, the author is a paid hack for a conservative activist group.

And it's not even about facts, it's about selectivity, framing, etc.,. One should be wary of extremely partisan (hack) sources.

[Brett Bellmore]

You judge whether or not people are hacks by whether they agree with you, or are affiliated with somebody you disagree with. You don't even pretend otherwise, you're proud of it.

This is epistemic closure that isn't even ashamed, it thinks everybody should be closed to arguments and evidence they don't already agree with.

[Seamus]

For crying out loud, tell us how the article is misleading.

[Don Nico]

I doubt it. But have a look at this editorial.
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article253965133.html

Note the the editorial does not comment on the other appearance of conflict

[Kazinski]

Well it’s long been a principle on recusals that when an official is sued in their official capacity then friends and relatives on the bench have to cause to recuse.

This came up after Dick Cheney was sued in his official capacity, and Scalia who was a long time friend refused to recuse himself. So even if one of the justices fathers is sued in his official capacity, he won’t be liable for any personal damages thus there is no possibility for personal financial benefit or loss.

And with the former legislator, maybe if she authored the legislation that would be one thing, but she isn’t even ruling on its legality, she would be ruling on the legitimacy of the legislators that voted for the bill, a completely different legal question, and a frivolous one at that, that already lost in a lower court.

[Greg J]

One of the Democrat "judges" on the Court, who is NOT being asked to recuse himself, was one of the attorneys on the case in the lower courts

SCOTUS members recuse themselves on cases that they heard as a judge on a lower court, but this Democrat doesn't have to recuse himself on a case where he was one of the attorneys on the case?

There's principles, and then there's Democrats

And the two never meet

[Seamus]

Just on the face of it, it seems pretty reasonable that a justice who in a previous life voted for a piece of legislation should recuse himself from a case challenging the constitutionality of that legislation. But calling for recusal of a justice because his father is a nominal defendant (because of his position as an officer of the legislature) is bullshit.

By the same token, a judge who was counsel in the same case clearly needs to recuse himself.

On the merits, however, this lawsuit should be a clear loser. (I say "should" because I know better than to expect courts to rule in accord with clear reason.) The argument is that, because the legislature was racially gerrymandered in violation of the law, it could not validly submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum. But if that were true, the legislature would lack power to validly take *any* legislative action, meaning that all the statutes it passed during the session it passed the constitutional amendments would also be legal nullities.

[Greg J]

Actually, you're saying YOU are completely uninformed.

Because if you did have a clue, you'd either tell us "what's missing", or STFU.

But you rarely have a clue

[buckleup]

Cite? lol

[Queen Amalthea]

Poor buckie, he really can't fathom why one might want to check their sources. 'My hero and imaginary dad Don just says whatever, why shouldn't everyone!'

[Brett Bellmore]

It's an opinion piece, but it's extensively documenting its claims.

You might ask why the 4 members of the 7 member state supreme court need to force anybody to recuse. It seems one of their number is up for reelection next year, and would likely fare badly if he struck down a couple popular ballot proposals.

So if they take the court down to 5 members, they can let him vote to uphold them, and still win the vote.

[Queen Amalthea]

There are three GOPers on the Court iirc, if it was this naked political coup d-etat why didn't they ask the 3rd be removed?

[Don Nico]

Because they don't need to

[Queen Amalthea]

That dog doesn't hunt because they don't *need to* recuse the other two.

Occams razor here is that they really think being the son of a defendant and a former member of the defendant body is worth recusal. I don't know whether that's legally on weak or strong ground, but that's the point, I'm going to be hesitant to jump to hyperbolic conclusions if I don't.

[Brett Bellmore]

They do, and that's already been explained.

[Don Nico]

"a former member of the defendant body is worth recusal."
Sorry, but the Duke law professor disagrees. It is partisan BS and you KNOW it. Fess up.

[Greg J]

4 vs (3 - 2) = 4 vs 1 = The 4 win, even if one of them votes the other way

It must suck to be so stupid you can't add and subtract 1 digit numbers from each other

[apedad]

"You might ask why the 4 members of the 7 member state supreme court need to force anybody to recuse."

No, I would ask if they're constitutionally or by statute authorized to remove fellow justices.

Either they are or they aren't.

A quick look at the NC Constitution shows:

Sec. 17. Removal of Judges, Magistrates and Clerks.

(2) Additional method of removal of Judges. The General Assembly shall prescribe a procedure. . . for the censure and removal of a Justice or Judge of the General Court of Justice for. . . conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.

So I guess we'd have to see if there is a procedure that authorizes the removal.

[Queen Amalthea]

Exactly. There's likely quite a bit of extensive legal background to really understand what's going on. Not having such, you and I post questions about the matter upon coming across a hyperbolic hack piece on the topic. Brett just bites down on the hook, the worm of 'Democrats Nefarious Plot to Undo Democracy' just too enticing, after all.

[Jimmy the Dane]

But Democrats ARE engaged in a nefarious plot to undo democracy and impose their cultural marxist views on this country.....

And apparently this dubious plot involves the DNC ordering lots of pizza, via email. (Just do a search for "pizza" through the DNC email archives available online if you doubt my assertion). Wonder why...?

[Queen Amalthea]

Typical nutty conspiracy thinking, though I like how you own it.

[Jimmy the Dane]

More and more the left calls things "conspiracy theory" because it is their current, convenient, hand waving tactic. but these things are accurate portrayals of what is going on and that should scare every American.

[Queen Amalthea]

No, they call more and more things that because there's more and more conspiracy thinking in the mainstream GOP. But yes, scaring people is at the heart of the latter.

[Queen Amalthea]

I mean, you're *literally* extolling a nation-wide conspiracy theory and then arguing 'people are unfairly trying to dismiss people like me as conspiracy theorists.' Some self-awareness, please Jimmy!

[Jimmy the Dane]

What "conspiracy theory" am I extolling? To many it does appear that a small group of elected and unelected Democrats are seeking to undo the very fabric of our Republic. Some are outright saying this. It is not a conspiracy, but political fact.

As for pizza, I don't know how they do it in DC but maybe you order pizza via email (I call or use an app) and the DNC just happens to get like 12 orders a day for various purposes. All I said was huh that is weird and if you want to see how often it is done just go search the online email archive for themselves.

[Queen Amalthea]

One more word on this, what's really galling about this is that you 100% don't need to engage in such John Birch Society level silliness. Just say 'Democrats say X is a good thing, but I think X really would have bad results. Democrats say Y is a bad thing, but I think Y would really be good' and explain why. There's no need to suppose your neighbors are secret lizard people who are part of an elaborate plot using secret code words and such to destroy all that is good in this nation.

[Queen Amalthea]

"What “conspiracy theory” am I extolling? To many it does appear that a small group of elected and unelected Democrats are seeking to undo the very fabric of our Republic. "

You can't make this up! Again, just a smidgeon of self-awareness would take you a large way.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You keep on making up words I did not use. When I saw Democrats are seeking to undo the concept of America, it is true and obvious to just about anyone who doesn't have on political blinders.

Defund Police = a radical concept designed to completely rework how public safety is conducted in the country.

"Racist" Nation = pushing an idea that nothing in this country has value because it is all the ill-begotten gains of racism and the only way to fix that is to throw out everything.

Tax the Rich = radical idea that we will be better off with heavily socialist policies funded by high income earners and companies.

Do I need to continue....?

[Queen Amalthea]

"Democrats ARE engaged in a nefarious plot to undo democracy and impose their cultural marxist views on this country…..

And apparently this dubious plot involves the DNC ordering lots of pizza"

Jimmy, again, you need to become self-aware to some small degree.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Maybe the effort to undo America requires much pizza for all those meetings.....

[Randal]

Oh ha Jimmy I thought you were joking at first. Are you serious? That's so sad-funny. Have fun feeding your paranoia addiction with Internet fear-porn for the rest of your life.

[Don Nico]

" to undo democracy"
Jimmy that is the typical BS line used by the Left.
I hear it every day about the CA recall that it is a R plan to destroy democracy.
No, if D's do not vote to keep Newsom, it is their fault. It was democrcy in action.

[Don Nico]

QA,
You just fall hook line and sinker for a naked political ploy because you hates Republicans.

[Queen Amalthea]

See, here's the problem and the difference between you and I: I fell hook line and sinker for *nothing.* I've not said the lawsuit is correct or even defensible. I don't know enough about it. What I've said is that one shouldn't fall hook, line and sinker from a hyperbolic hack piece on the issue (either way!).

[Don Nico]

The difference is that I checked an alternative source. And found the facts were accurately reported.

[Don Nico]

ANd you went on about conspiracy theories.
As I said hook, line and sinker. Yet you feign objectivity.

[Greg J]

Bzzt

You've provided no evidence that it's a "hyperbolic hack piece" other than that you don't like the sub-head

You didn't bother to find out if it was a true description of the situation, you just let your biases rule

[Don Nico]

'There’s likely quite a bit of extensive legal background to really understand what’s going on."
Actually not so much. There is a reasonable person sandard with respect to appearances of conflict. Any judge who represented the plaintiffs has such an appearance of conflict.

[Brett Bellmore]

And if there isn't, if the state AG, also a Democrat, cares.

[Don Nico]

But recusal is NOT removal. So this cite is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
But neither you nor QA noticed that

[Don Nico]

apedad and QA,
Your cite is off point as the matter is NOT removal of judges.
The correct document is the NC Code of Judicial Conduct:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiR46_S1_TyAhWUMX0KHbUjAfMQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nccourts.gov%2Fassets%2Finline-files%2FNC-Code-of-Judicial-Conduct.pdf%3FZjg7FIMDTZpoWqmY7qxsED4HVrFt7dRj&usg=AOvVaw1CobheKVshMOTXHvduWN8Q.

Under Canon 3.C.a, the impartiality for the two R judges may be in question, but under C.1.b. The impartiality of the D judge who previously represented the plaintiff is definitely in question. The standard is "impartiality may reasonably be questioned." There is no indication that the other Justices may disqualify the justice(s) in question. The Canon states that a Justice "should disqualify himself/herself"

[bernard11]

There are a number of problems with your comment.

First, this is an opinion piece, clearly labeled as such. And if it weren't you could tell by the reference to "the Democrat majority on the state Supreme Court."

The writer, Woodhouse, claims that the "plan" is already underway.

In a plan already underway, Democrats Anita Earls, Robin Hudson, and Mike Morgan would conspire to remove the justices while allowing Associate Justice Jimmy Ervin to vote AGAINST the move because he is the one Democrat currently on the court who will face re-election in 2022. This is not just an inside-baseball rumor. It is in motion.

That's hysterical. What has happened is that the NAACP has filed a motion asking the court to force two justices to recuse. That this is all a nefarious plan concocted by Democrats on the court is pure conjecture by Woodhouse. He offers no evidence of such a plot. He's just rabble-rousing.

And he roused you, of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, and if you think there are no back channel communications, I've got a bridge to sell you. (It's quite nice, by the way.)

[bernard11]

There may be back channel communications, or there may not be.

Of course you assume the worst, as usual, with zero evidence.

[Don Nico]

bernard,
Did you read the editorial in the Charlotte Observer? Please do.
This entire recusal move is just sleazy politics.
Otherwise the judge who previously had represented the plaintiff would offer hir (note the pronoun)recusal.

[bernard11]

Don,

I did read the editorial.

I didn't see anything to support the idea that this is some sort of plot involving Democratic justices, as Brett would have us believe.

Maybe you can point me to something I overlooked.

[Don Nico]

Raw political ambitions don't need a plot. The editorial said nothing about a plot but only about a curious set of coincidences.
I am genetically ill disposed to believe in coincidences especially when minds with similar agendas and biases run in the same gutter. I've see that on the Left and on the Right working on the Hill. There are plenty of honest folks in both camps and plenty of sleazes

[bernard11]

What coincidences? The NAACP filed a motion. That seems to be it.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
The hearing was abruptly postponed. There is the coincidence that I find fishy.
But in the end we shall see.
Why the motion? It is obvious: a 3-3 D-R split plus one doubtful D appointee.
As one of the judges represented the plaintiff previously, the motion has nothing to do with judicial ethics. It is a raw political power play.
But we shall see.

[Greg J]

"What has happened is that the NAACP has filed a motion asking the court to force two justices to recuse. That this is all a nefarious plan concocted by Democrats on the court is pure conjecture by Woodhouse."

One of those Democrats on the Court previously was a plaintiff attorney on the case

If you're honest, and you're going to recuse people, that's where you start

But they're Democrats, so they're not honest, ethical, or principled in any way

Just like you

[bernard11]

Oh fuck you, Greg.

[Seamus]

"The lower court reasoned that the amendments were invalid because they were placed on the 2018 ballot by an illegally racially-gerrymandered General Assembly, which lacked 'popular sovereignty' and did not represent the people of North Carolina."

Maybe, but shouldn't that flaw have been cured by having the amendments approved *by* the people of North Carolina, who *do* have popular sovereignty?

[Aladdin's Carpet]

So, I was at a museum in the city of Lowell, MA and they had an exhibit on recent history and they specifically had a section discussing some recent litigation in 2018.

If you go around the city, you will see signs everywhere explaining how to vote. The reason for this is because they adopted an absurdly complicated system.

Originally, the just cycled the council, had a couple of people up for election every year, all races are scheduled to happen at the same time, and thats that. Some kind of proportional system picks however many council members need to be replaced. Now, they have 3 at large races, and then they divide the city into 8 subdistricts, run a race in every district.

Furthermore, the school election is separate, only 2 at large races and the subdistricts are changed somewhat.

Also the districts are weirdly shaped because the city has a dense center but a suburban outside, like most cities, but again, most cities don't have subdistricts and subsubdistricts.

This was prompted because people sued over the voting rights act against the first system.

Now, I understand the complaint. Lowell is ethnically diverse, so there are subgroups that want representation. But ... with all due respect, it seems to be that a popular vote is more fair overall. Furthermore, how can making the race more complicated to necessitate endless confusion as to where I am supposed to be voting make it more "fair". Not to mention the problems with defining the districts.

And this is my general issue with the way voting rights act stuff works. Sure, one can make a racial argument for whatever system you want. That doesn't make it a good system! Like if approval voting, which is universally regarded as the ideal from a mathematical perspective, could someone just say, well, for reasons black people won't win as often?

And doesn't this whole inquiry force people into voting, and even living, along racial lines anyway? How is that good?

And how can one argue the electoral college is bad, which intentionally discounts what people want vs individual local interests being elevated, but Lowells new system is good, in fact constitutionally and stautatorily required?

I get that in the 60s people made laws that intentionally made it harder for people to vote. But it seems the way the solution from then is applied today is, I didn't win using that voting system, even if it better represents the will of the people and therefore, its racist, so we must adopt this other system that is objectively worse along a different dimension (security, mandate, whatever).

[Jimmy the Dane]

Racism and disparate impact apparently do not go into the calculus for vaccine passports. Those things only matter when the left decides they matter....

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, you might want to re-read AC's comment more closely Jim.

[ducksalad]

"Like if approval voting, which is universally regarded as the ideal from a mathematical perspective"

I'd disagree with that. A mathematical formula has to optimize something and there isn't agreement on what that something is.

And more generally debates over different methods of redistricting, including well-intentioned non-partisan people, assume there is some "correct" result and then try to engineer the method to get that result. The disagreements over what result is correct are often unspoken differences in theory of representation.

Geographic first-past-the-post systems are based on the theory that members represent physical districts. Proportional representation systems are based on the theory that members represent parties. More bluntly, are you voting for the candidate, or for the candidate's party?

People demanding "fair" redistricting, with fair meaning the overall composition of a legislative body matches the citywide or statewide percentage for each party, are trying to get party representation results out of a geographic representation system. They are also assuming, without even thinking about it consciously, that voters who voted for a D/R candidate are supporting the D/R party and want to increase that party in the legislature, an assumption that's somewhat infuriating to those of us who are independents.

So there's an inherent conflict. The only reason they can even halfway successfully try to do "fair" redistricting is that we have significant geographic segregation by race/party. If every zip code and census block had the same mix of parties and races, *no* possible redistricting scheme could give them the result they think is fair.

If you want proportional representation by party, just bite the bullet and go to a party list system. It makes elections a whole lot simpler for the voter, you only make one choice, the party, and there are no districts.

[Nelson]

I would disagree with you a bit. We know that partisan gerrymandering works because the two parties use it whenever they can and, when allowed to happen, it makes a difference. Just look at the three seats in the US House that went from safely red to tossups when the GOP gerrymander was struck down. Texas, Maryland, and North Carolina are extreme gerrymandering states where packing and cracking have created optimized maps for one party or the other. So using party affiliation to gerrymander works, as evidenced by its success.

The assertion that "a mathematical formula has to optimize something and there isn’t agreement on what that something is" feels like a cop out. The goal of eliminating partisan gerrymandering is to make as many districts as possible as competitive as possible so that voters are choosing their representatives, not the other way around.

While special interest groups may want their interest to be amplified during redistricting, the best way to make politicians responsive to their constituents is to make them work as hard as possible for their seats.

If you know your district is +2.5% for your party, you suddenly care a lot more about what your constituents *actually* think, as opposed to if your district is +15% and you can care about your personal biases and your special interest allies without having to give too much consideration to whether you will win or not.

Especially now, when thinking the "other side" is evil and has no redeeming qualities or ideas is actively encouraged by the fringes of both parties.

[santamonica811]

"...I would disagree with you a bit. We know that partisan gerrymandering works because the two parties use it whenever they can ..."

I get your point in general. But what you wrote is obviously untrue. Here in California, Democrats are in control of all aspects of the statewide legislature and executive branch. California *could* gerrymander Republicans out of any meaningful representation. But the Democrats (and heavily-Democrat voters) made a conscious decision to make its redistricting commission non-partisan. Arizona (a much more conservative state) also made a decision to not gerrymander, and uses a similarly-balanced commission.

Gerrymandering is (IMO) one of the worst things in politics and results in safe seats. But it's not universal, as you allege.

[Greg J]

1: The CA redistricting system came abotu because of a Proposition voted on by the People, not from the Legislature
2: The Dems gamed the system well in 2011, and got a strong Democrat gerrymander. We'll see if they get away with the same thing this time around

3: The GOP IS gerrymandered out of any meaningful representation. The Dems control 2/3 + of the State senate and State Assembly, which is more than their % of the vote

[Nelson]

I didn't allege that it was universal. I said the two parties use it whenever they can.

[shawn_dude]

"the two parties use it whenever they can."
To me, the California example proves that wrong. California had the ability to use it and opted not to. Moreover, they opted to legislate away their ability to easily use it in the future.

I suppose this hinges on how people interpret "whenever they can." From where I'm sitting, this says it's done in any area with clear, single-party dominance. Sounds like "universal where the power imbalance makes it possible" or another way of saying "whenever they can."

[Greg J]

"The assertion that “a mathematical formula has to optimize something and there isn’t agreement on what that something is” feels like a cop out. The goal of eliminating partisan gerrymandering is to make as many districts as possible as competitive as possible so that voters are choosing their representatives, not the other way around."

Depends on how you do it.
If you are making compact districts that follow existing political and geographic dividing lines (rivers, freeways, city boundaries, county boundaries), then you get districts where people have common interests (city voters want different transit choices than suburban voters, for one obvious example), and "representatives" who are more likely to be actually representing far more than a bare majority of the voters.

Now, since Democrats are heavily over-represented in cities, that means you're going to get districts where the Democrat is always going to win, and the only competition is in the Primary

So the only way you can have a "non-partisan" gerrymander is to force together city and suburban and rural voters.

Which means you're going to have "representatives" who really do ignore the interests of a significant minority of the people in the district.

You may consider that an improvement. i don't

[Nelson]

Not at all. If the makeup of the district is designed to be competitive within a few percentage points, the representative will have to consider the needs of all of their constituents.

For example, assume you have a city whose urban center is largely Democratic, its suburbs are slightly Republican, and its rural surrounds are largely Republican. For reference, as someone who lives just over the border from Pennsylvania, I'm thinking of a city like Pittsburgh.

Minimizing the partisan lean has been shown to minimize the margin of victory. It means that, with the race intentionally tight, the candidate has to consider *all* of their constituents.

When 1-2% support can be the difference between victory and defeat, the candidate's self-interest lies in responding to their voters, not their donors or special interests. And, regardless of party, most politicians are incredibly self-interested people. We just need to shift the reward away from monied interests and towards voter concerns.

[Greg J]

Not at all. If the makeup of the district is designed to be competitive within a few percentage points, the representative will have to consider the needs of all of their constituents.

No, they wont

Any more than Joe Biden* is giving a damn about the interests of anyone outside of his base.

If the district is 52% city, 30% suburb, and the rest rural, the "representative" is going to care about "city", and not about suburb or rural.

So, mass transit yes, roads no. For one obvious example.

OTOH, a district that's 100% city, the representative is going to care abotu city interests. Because he or she can be voted out in the primary if he / she doesn't

A district that's 55 - 45 GOP - Dem, but all suburban, the 45% who are Democrats are still going to have a lot of the same interests as the 60% who are GOP: being able to drive places, good schools, keeping crime down.

So in that situation, it's not "partisan even", but you will get representatives who are more in tune with their voters

[Nelson]

"If the district is 52% city, 30% suburb, and the rest rural, the “representative” is going to care about “city”, and not about suburb or rural."

And that person would lose because, while the percentage of their district that is rural is only 18%, the tight margin of victory will require them to win at least *some* of that vote.

It eliminates the ability for a politician to only cater to one slice of their district or only care about issues the bare majority of their constituents support.

[Greg J]

Consider ObamaCare.

There were ~20 "moderate Democrats" in the House who voted to add a "no abortion funding" provision to the House Bill

the Senate stripped it out.

So enough "moderates" switched to pass it anyway.

Or take those 10 "moderate Democrats" in the House who were pretending to oppose the most recent massive Dem spending bill.

They played some kabuki, then they voted to pass it anyway.

There is no such thing as a "Moderate Democrat" at the national level (take a look at some of the kook Biden* appointees they voted for). "Works to appeal to all the voters"? Which Hosue Democrats are doing that right now?

There's a bunch of them who won tight races that could easily have gone the other way. Which ones have actually blocked the hard left Dem agenda?

You have some lovely fantasy hypothesis. What you don't have is any real world data to back them up

[Nelson]

"There were ~20 “moderate Democrats” in the House who voted to add a “no abortion funding” provision to the House Bill

the Senate stripped it out.

So enough “moderates” switched to pass it anyway."

So you're upset that moderate Dems didn't consider abortion the *only* important issue? Basically you just said, "moderate Dems don't have the same priorities as fringe GOPers".

No shit, Sherlock. Democrats aren't Republicans? Who knew?

[Greg J]

Jon Tester (D) won the Montana Senate race in 2018 50.3% to 46.8%

This would be a perfect test case for your hypothesis that "narrow victories make for people who represent all their constituents".

Montana vote for Trump by a 30% margin. It's a pretty solid GOP State.

So, what has Tester done to support his constituents against the Democrat Party? In what votes was he the deciding vote between victory and defeat for the Democrats?

Heck, Manchin voted for Kavanaugh, after Collins made it clear he was going to win anyway. What did Tester do? Which way did he vote? Did he vote the way his constituents wanted? Or the way the Democrat Party wanted?

[Nelson]

I don't know what John Tester did to convince that many Republicans to vote for him. I'm not from there and don't know what issues he advocates that resonated with voters.

But the fact that he outperformed the Presidential ticket by such a massive margin clearly indicates that he did a better job of addressing his constituents issues and needs than his opponent.

Which *exactly* supports my thesis that requiring a candidate to address the issues of their constituents in order to win is good. The fact that he didn't speak to *your* priorities doesn't mean that he didn't speak to *their* priorities. After all, he's been in office a while. It's not like they didn't know what they were getting.

The thing that pisses you off is that they wanted what he was offering and you don't.

[ducksalad]

I didn't say it doesn't work at all. I said it only works to the extent we have segregated neighborhoods (by party or factors like race and education level that are proxies for party affiliation).

You believe the "best" districts are maximally competitive. Keep in mind that's identical to maximizing the number of voters who have a representative they *did not want*. You are convinced that's a good thing, I'm not.

When you see a district that's won 90%-10%, you see "entrenched and unresponsive" and a problem that you want to address by forcing some of those voters in another district. I see "the people in that district really like their representative".

Allow me to make an unpleasant accusation: the entire premise of redistricting algorithms that try to engineer competitive districts is that most voters have no agency, and are fixed D/R "chess pieces" that can and should be placed in districts to meet the goal of some planner types who believe they know what election outcomes are best for society.

I guess if you're both cynical and elitist you could say yes, that's the case, and you're trying to maximize the influence of the few voters who aren't mindlessly punching the blue or red button. I'm not that far gone yet.

[Nelson]

So your position is that having someone who has an issue profile that reflects their constituents rather than the party they belong to is a bad thing? I'm at a loss to understand why responding to the local priorities of the voters as opposed to the national party's priorities is a bad thing.

Having a pro-choice Republican or a pro-life Democrat, if that reflects the preferences of their voters, is a good thing. Having a Democratic deficit hawk or a Republican deficit-spender if that's what their voters want is a good thing. Having a strong-borders Democrat or a immigration-supporting Republican is a good thing.

What the local voters want is the important part. If politicians think they can ignore voters and win, they will. If you create a system where that would make them lose, they will respond. Politicians are transactional and self-interested. Make that a detriment to winning instead of an advantage and locals will get better representation.

FYI, the voter that has an issue profile that exactly matches a national party is pretty much non-existent.

[ducksalad]

Great, we're in agreement that strict party alignment is not a good thing.

So then, if we're not classifying people by party - and let me stress, that is exactly what I want - how do you propose to engineer that 51-49 election result that you think is somehow optimum for making representatives responsive to their constituents?

I assume you don't believe that simply doing "party-blind" redistricting will magically result in competitive districts. That's the same fallacy as believing that eliminating racism from hiring or education decisions will result in proportional outcomes. Gerrymandering is not the only reason for non-competitive districts just like racist employers and educators are not the only reason for disparate outcomes.

[Nelson]

"Gerrymandering is not the only reason for non-competitive districts"

Correct. And I never said it was.

If you take the proven impact of partisan gerrymandering and neutralize it as much as possible, appealing to party can no longer win an election for you. You have to put together an issue profile that matches your constituents in order to win. Just putting an R or a D after your name won't cut it any more.

I don't think there should be "party-blind" districting. Exactly the opposite. You need to eliminate, as much as possible, party affiliation leading to a victory all by itself.

Will there still be lopsided districts? Absolutely. But if you maximize competitive districts, the influence of the bomb-throwers plummets because they no longer have enough allies to control the agenda.

If you're a liberal, wouldn't you love it if you didn't have to hear idiocy from Jim Jordan or Ron Johnson again? If you're a conservative, wouldn't you delight in having AOC or Bernie Sanders lose the power to spew nonsense about Democratic Socialism?

[Jimmy the Dane]

I had to look up the etymology for the word "chuck" last week because of....reasons.....I figured it was more modern slang, but alas, that is not true. It has been around, in some part, since the 1600's. Some sources say its current recognized definition entered the more modern lexicon around the 60's or 70's, but it has been used in all kinds of literature dating back to at least the 1700's. What is the expression used in social media? "TIL..."?

[Archibald Tuttle]

So, how much wood could a wood chuck chuck in 1600?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Back then the definition was largely akin to taking a punch under the chin. So I think the answer would be zero.

[Armchair Lawyer]

An update on the political prisoners in the January 6th protest.

Real Clear Investigations has helpfully put a side by side example of the January 6th Protest versus the George Floyd protests and the discontinuity in the severity of the punishments for the January 6th protestors. Notable is the protestors treatment, and slow walking of trials.

Indeed, people are starting to plead guilty for the Jan 6th protests....because they've already served all the time they could be charged with. It's a hell of a way to get a guilty verdict. "We've kept you in prison for 6 months without a trial...plead guilty and we'll let you go for time served. Or...we can keep you in prison longer without a trial".

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/09/study_in_contrasts_rcis_new_dataset_on_jan_6_and_the_black_lives_matter_riots_791200.html

[Queen Amalthea]

"political prisoners in the January 6th protest"

Nonsense on stilts.

[bernard11]

Just A.L. trolling.

"Political prisoners." What a fucking joke.

[Jimmy the Dane]

RE: Political prisoners.

Hop on the federal bureau of prison's database and take a look at the number of prisoners being held without bail who are charged with misdemeanors only or non-violent offenses without more. There you will find your answer.

[Bob from Ohio]

The libs opposing the "carceral state" get real quiet when their opponents are involved.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed. Bernard should really take a look at the crimes and the prisoners being held without bail. Pretend for a moment they were BLM protestors....

[Seamus]

No, don't you understand? These insurrectionists are literally more dangerous to the Republic than terrorists being beheld in maximum security at Gitmo. Would you let them out on bail while awaiting trial? Then what makes you think the January criminals deserve better treatment? Why do you hate America?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Perhaps they can be released in exchange for an American who leaves their post, and is captured by the other side?

[Jimmy the Dane]

I was told by someone who does federal defense work in DC that the political prisoners who are being held pre-trial for an amount of time concurrent to the maximum prison sentence are being let go on decent plea bargains to avoid habeas and constitutional challenges. Apparently there is precedent that once you max out the sentence for a charge, but still have not been convicted, it (more or less) "moots" that charge. I'm not up-and-up on this precedent and its application (because it looks like from a quick review of case law it rarely happens, most people are not held without bail for minor offenses except when they are political prisoners like this situation), but that appears to be the motivation of prosecutors.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, prosecutors generally don't like to sully their win rates continuing to carry stuff like that.

[santamonica811]

Jimmy,
The squirrel who lives outside my bedroom told me that your alleged fed defense worker is full of shit.

Who's crazy now?!?

[Life of Brian]

Who’s crazy now?!?

Dunno about crazy, but I could buy you're a bit tipsy.

[apedad]

EPA to protect Alaska’s Bristol Bay, blocking major gold mine

Those damn, freaking, commie basta. . . oh. . . what:

But a coalition of Alaska Natives, environmentalists, fishing operators and recreational anglers — including some prominent Republicans such as Donald Trump Jr. — countered that it was too risky to start a hard-rock mine at the headwaters of a fishery. . . .

And while we're at it, "Lawmakers, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), have also raised the idea of passing legislation to put Bristol Bay off limits to development, in exchange for compensation the federal government would provide Alaska for potentially lost revenue."

Yeah, let's get paid for doing nothing.

[apedad]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/09/09/biden-bristol-bay-gold-mine/

[Queen Amalthea]

Tucker Carlson too.

[Queen Amalthea]

And this shouldn't be too surprising, lots of big conservation victories come from coalitions of hunters/fishers and environmentalists.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"Yeah, let’s get paid for doing nothing."

The left is of the general opinion that this ought to be public policy.

Fun story. Back when Jimmy was first starting his career I had an 89 day internship (more on that later) at a big company in town. My job got 2 10-minute breaks per day that you had to take in a big giant breakroom (that had smoking too!) During my first week I always noticed the same exact people were always in that breakroom seemingly in no hurry whatsoever. The rest of us had to and eat fast because by the time you got to the breakroom you had maybe 7 minutes left. Confused I asked my boss one day who all those people were. His answer "oh those are the union staff....they work a total of maybe 1-2 hours a day..."

The reason why my term of employment was 89 days, exactly was because that classified me as a temporary worker for purposes of the collective bargaining agreement and if I clicked to 90 days I would have had to join the union. Also the reason why everyone had to work so much is because those 10-12 people didn't do anything, but the company still had to pay them a full wage. "Union work....it is great if you can get it...." but that is a microcosm of how the left thinks America ought to operate.

[Nelson]

Wow, who did you have representing you in your labor negotiations with the company? I would be pissed at that person. They allowed the company to work you harder while intentionally depriving you of better compensation by ending your employment right before the better terms and benefits would kick in for you.

What I'm confused about is why, when the people depriving you of better compensation told you exactly what they were doing, why they were doing it, and that they were making you work harder than someone else because they could get away with it, you thought that they were the good guys in that scenario.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I think you missed the point. There was a class of people who were "free riders" and because they did not do their fair share of work, but consumed resources within the system that meant in order to maintain the system others had to perform that work. This resulted in an imbalance in the system creating an ideal situation for a minority (the free riders) and left the others holding the bag. If the entire company tried to emulate the union practices then presumably it would have just folded.

At the end of the 89 days I would have had to join the union, but there were no union positions available (since the union tries to control the supply of labor to keep wages artificially high) so the only way the company could get around that was by offering employment that fit within the "loophole" of temporary worker. And from what I recall, even though my internship was mid-project on the end of day 89 I was thanked for my service and walked out the door because if it clicked up to 90 days the company would be in violation of the CBA.

I'm sure the union gig was a good one if you could get it. The problem though with free riders is someone else has to pay for the system. Here is was rank and file non-union employees that pulled extra hours. That is basically how Democrats view the world. They want to be the free rider, not pay tax or contribute in any meaningful way to production, and make the other guy do it.

[Ben_]

They always think someone will be there to produce for them, no matter how badly they treat everyone. And they never learn anything from events because there’s always a story to be believed whenever the genuine events don’t emotionally satisfy them.

[Nelson]

No, you missed the point. Your employer underpaid and overworked you because they could. They didn't do that to other workers because they couldn't.

If you want to get into a discussion of an organization whose mission is to protect workers and maximize their compensation blindly supporting one party over the other, being a huge problem, I'm pretty sure we would be arguing the same side. But if you want me to get angry at someone who is maximizing their income potential, I can't do it.

[Nelson]

Also, the most effective way to force unions to respond to their workers rather than focus on being political power players is not to keep them out, but to offer the exact same benefits to union and non-union employees. If your choice is between getting excellent benefits and pay with or without union dues, which would you choose?

[Archibald Tuttle]

Another legal reform I would like to see.

Before enforcing the law, government must post a declaration of what the law is (was) in language that a reasonable citizen can understand without hiring a lawyer.

If court decisions change how the law is interpreted, the revised text must be added to the posting.

If the law, or the interpretation changes, color coding of the text and/or hyperlinks in the text could reveal earlier versions of the law.

If the legal meaning of a word differs from the common meaning, that shall be indicated by color coding and/or hypertext and/or pop-ups.

Citizens are responsible only for the version of the law so posted.

In other words, bring the law into the 21st century.

[Moderation4ever]

While your wish may seem simple it also overlooks the fact that the world is complicated and the laws we have are reflect this fact. Look at speed limits as some of the most straight forward laws we have yet they are not really as fixed as we think. If the highway speed limit is 70 mph most people will be going that speed plus or minus a few mph. That speed is assumed for ideal conditions and doesn't apply in a snow storm.

Some laws deal with things that most people never deal with in their entire life and really have little interest in knowing. If you never drive a car do you care about the speed limit? Other laws have influence and may affect any number of areas in the law. In this case when a law is changed all references have to be changed. If the Federal government changes the interstate speed then state and locals have to change their laws to be in compliance.

The truth is if a law affects you and you are interested in knowing why you should take the time to understand the law and its implications. There are often common interpretations of the available. You can also ask your representative, national, state and local for a better understanding.

[Leaf's Chauffeur]

In other words, make useless laws.
Check out the creative commons license. A nice one pager, absolutely clear. But wait, there's a disclaimer saying this is just a TL;DR but there's an actual license lurking somewhere. Because sometimes there's actually too much complexity to fit in one page.

[ducksalad]

Well, at least where I live (TX) the whole criminal code is posted online, and the language itself is maybe at the 10th grade level. And they do have hyperlinks, and there are notes giving the dates of various changes.

And yet it's still a mess that would not satisfy you.

The problem isn't the wording, the problem is that the law itself really is very complicated, with huge numbers of exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, and so on.

And lots of conduct is illegal in multiple overlapping ways, because each new legislature needs to express public outrage by making some particular thing even more illegal than it was before. There's a law on assault, then another one on assaulting public servant, then another one on assaulting a public servant who was doing something especially noble and public, etc.

It's going to be hard no matter how you write it.

[dwb68]

If the federal government does not have the power to mandate people get vaccines, I don't see how the department labor has the power To make employers force employees to get mandates

[dwb68]

force employees to get the vaccine, lol

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Watch and learn, grasshopper. Maybe don't spend so much time in the clingerverse, too.

[ducksalad]

Was this a rhetorical question? You know the answer is the interstate commerce clause. We're still fighting the battle over whether individual non-conduct, like declining to go get a vaccine, is interstate commerce.

But an employer, regardless of size of line of business? That was water under the bridge almost 100 years ago.

[ducksalad]

size OR line of business

[Brett Bellmore]

Time to pump it back, I say.

[Seamus]

Sure, Congress could mandate the vaccine as a regulation of interstate commerce (defined roughly as: "everything"). But where does the President get the authority to mandate it? I wasn't aware that the January 6 led Congress to pass an Enabling Act authorizing the Cabinet to pass decrees with force of law.

[ducksalad]

You know, of course, that technically it will be OSHA issuing the employer mandate, and the authority will be one of those everything clauses authorizing "necessary" regulations to address "safety".

We probably agree that its bullshit top to bottom: the BS interpretation of the commerce clause by the courts, the BS decision by Congress to give agencies like OSH emergency powers with only vague subjective limits, and the BS decision by the POTUS's staff to exploit those emergency powers. But as I said, most of it is water under the bridge. I agree with Brett that we need to pump some back but it's going to be a multi-generation project.

[shawn_dude]

Well, it does in some instances:
1) Employees who work for the federal government, including military members. In 2020, there were over 2.1 Million civilian employees alone.
2) Contractors seeking to work for the government, including vendors seeking space on federal property like military bases, schools, and other facilities

[diWhite Knightoxide]

How Does Premier Biden's Vax Mandate not run afoul of SUPERPRECEDENTS Griswold and Roe?
Discuss amongst yourselves

[dwb68]

"How do bans on recreational use of pot and heroin not run afoul of SUPERPRECEDENTS Griswold and Roe?
Discuss amongst yourselves"

unfortunately it does not work like that

[diWhite Knightoxide]

Um, that smoke isnt emanating from a penumbra, Cheech

[Jimmy the Dane]

Something, something, believe in science!!!, something, something....

[bc15]

Does the President have the power to compel companies to require that their employees eat broccoli? Asking for a friend.

[Jerry B.]

Depends on how much the Broccoli Trust contributed to his campaign.

[Michael P]

The lack of MSM reporting on the attack on Larry Elder tells us all we need to know about how seriously big companies take racism in the United States.

[Jimmy the Dane]

How many Democrat politicians are still in power yet they were pictured wearing blackface?

How many Democrat politicians were active Klan members yet enjoyed long political careers?

What major media outlet published an op-ed equating Elder to wearing blackface?

What is similar to all of your answers?

[Ben_]

Just remember this next time they ever pretend to be outraged by anything. Everything they say is tactical. Emotions are tools they use tactically. They tolerate racism whenever it will cost them power not to tolerate it. There's no core to them at all.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some Democrats tolerate racism.

Most Republicans embrace racism, misogyny, gay-bashing, xenophobia, and/or Muslim-hating.

It cost you the culture war, dumbasses. All of your other preferences — guns, statist womb management, special privilege for superstitious yahoos, abusive policing — will suffer for it.

[Don Nico]

"What major media outlet published an op-ed equating Elder to wearing blackface?"
This one is charming. It is the same one that accused him of being the black face of white supremacy.
But I voted for Caitlin Jenner

[AtR]

My favorite line in Biden's latest COVID address was "My job as president is to protect all Americans."

[Michael P]

* Exceptions, exclusions, limitations, qualifications, prerogatives and provisos apply.

[Jerry B.]

Except the ones who wanted to take private charter flights out of Afghanistan, apparently.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Is ignorance a special skill of yours, or has it come naturally to you?

Do you need the charter plane situation detailed to you again?

[Bored Lawyer]

Well, well.

Biden Exempts Postal Service From Vaccine Mandate; Comes After Union That Endorsed Him Objected
https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-exempts-postal-service-from-vaccine-mandate-comes-after-union-that-endorsed-him-objected

Anyone who thinks this is based on science in any way is invited to view a bridge that I have for sale.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I also have some prime real estate that is a great price. Of course it doesn't have any pictures of a description of it, but the government taxes it at a pretty high value so it must be worth a lot. Why would you need something like pictures? Shouldn't you just trust the government?

[Ben_]

No one does. "Science" just means shut up and do what we say to progressives. Everything mean that to them, but they’re calling it "science" sometimes these last few years.

[apedad]

Well, well.

From your link:

[UPDATE]: The Washington Post reports that the White House is now claiming that U.S. Postal Service “workers are part of the federal vaccine mandate under OSHA jurisdiction, though technically not under the executive order.”

[Michael P]

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

[Nisiiko]

Leftists are the most hateful, bigoted people on the planet, which is why when they take over, they oppress everyone else. See Virginia abolishing the death penalty and removing confederate statues.

[Ben_]

Did you see where a progressive put on a gorilla mask and threw an egg at the black front runner for governor in California? Most racist thing that happened in 2021. Leftists are like that.

[Randal]

Omg I normally wouldn't reply to such a vapid post, except the part about the death penalty made me laugh. So you're feeling oppressed because not enough other people are being killed. I bet you're pro-life too. Baffling! And funny. But remember, I'm laughing at you, not with you.

[apedad]

“See Virginia abolishing the death penalty. . . .”

And yet Virginia is ranked:

4th in public education
7th in quality of life
8th in per capita income
47th in violent crime rate

Yeah, VA (especially the Great State of Northern Virginia), is doing just fine.

[Nisiiko]

The death penalty is not about quality of life, or education. It's about showing that you're civilized by exacting retribution against killers.

[apedad]

Check the list of countries that authorize DP and get back to us about what is “civilized.”

[Nisiiko]

Look at the decline in the modern West that coincided with abolishing the death penalty.

[apedad]

Decline of the modern West?!?

I suppose your limited Weltanschauungen would lead you to believe that.

Having lived and traveled throughout Europe and a little in Africa for over two decades, my direct experiences lead me to the opposite conclusion.

[Absaroka]

"Check the list of countries that authorize DP and get back to us about what is “civilized.”"

Do you put Japan in the 'civilized' or 'not civilized' category?

There are good arguments against the death penalty, but it's a bit shallow to e.g. say Norway would necessarily be uncivilized if it executed the guy who killed 77 people a few years ago, or that we are because we executed the Oklahoma City bomber. Or, for that matter that we extra-judicially killed Bin Laden. You may feel passionately that even those killings are uncivilized, but I'm not convinced.

[Aunt Teefah]

Oppression is when the state DOESN’T kill people. Truly a powerful brain at work.

[Nisiiko]

If the government workers in Fairfax and Loudoun wanted to ban the death penalty, why not just ban it in their own counties? Why impose that on the rest of the state?

[Aunt Teefah]

Because that's how statewide laws work? This is pretty basic stuff.

[Nisiiko]

You're begging the question.

[apedad]

Now do the abortion ban in Texas.

[Nisiiko]

I'm happy to let liberals in Travis County kill their babies.

[F.D. Wolf]

"The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927)

[Nisiiko]

They are very selective in their quoting of decisions aren't they.

[dwb68]

With 8 billion people on the planet, you will start seeing the environmental left push for decriminalizing murder. I mean why not. Its not like people get prosecuted for it in left run cities anyway. Bring on the purge.

[Enrique]

Here is my critique of Balkin's argument in his Journal of Free Speech Law paper: https://priorprobability.com/2021/09/10/jack-balkins-bait-and-switch/

See also: https://priorprobability.com/2021/09/09/professor-they-run-ads/

[Enrique]

Here is a further critique of Balkin's call for social media regulation: https://priorprobability.com/2021/09/11/balkins-big-blind-spot/

[Enrique]

See also: https://priorprobability.com/2021/09/11/jack-balkin-meet-edward-snowden/

[Brett Bellmore]

Latest research in England turned out to show that the Covid vaccine was about 6 times more dangerous, medically, than Covid itself, when it came to teenaged boys. Similarly aged girls were somewhat safer, but still more dangerous than the virus itself. (The absolute risk for either was extremely low, it's just that the virus was even less risky.)

So, the medical advisors told the government that they couldn't recommend vaccinating teens, it made no sense medically. The reply?

"However, Sajid Javid, the Health Secretary, said he wanted Prof Whitty and the chief medical officers from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to “consider the vaccination of 12- to 15-year-olds from a broader perspective”."

[Randal]

And here we see once again a right-winger blinded by selfishness and greed, practically to the point of sociopathy.

Like masks, a vaccine isn't just about protecting the individual. It's not like sunscreen. If you don't put on sunscreen and die of melanoma, well you're an idiot, but it doesn't have (significant health) impacts on others.

Vaccinations are practically not at all about the individual. Diseases spread exponentially (up to saturation). They also die off exponentially, when they can't spread fast enough. The water is either running downhill (spreading) or uphill (dying off). We have to tilt the playing field just enough, by vaccinations, masks, etc, to switch it from downhill to uphill. That's when Trump's "one day it'll just be gone" will finally come (mostly) true.

Each disease has its threshold of how much of a society needs to be vaccinated in order to prevent spread. For measles it's something like 95%. As long as 95% of the population gets vaccinated, the gov't couldn't give two shits about the other 5%. It's not about getting every individual vaccinated for their own sake. But if it dips below 95% and measles cases start picking up, that's then the vaccine mandates come back.

So it makes total sense to analyze vaccine programs in terms of their efficacy towards stopping the spread of the disease, not their benefit to the individual. In fact the embarrassing thing is that a scientific study would get that wrong in the first place.

Individual impact should of course be considered. Civilized societies try as hard as they can to avoid sacrificing people for the greater good. But obviously the Health Secretary was right that a report about a vaccination program that doesn't look at how the program would affect the spread of the disease is totally missing the point.

[Nisiiko]

Ahh yes, so young people should be placed in harm's way to protect older people. Okay boomer!

[Randal]

If it's like, one teenager gets a mild cough in order to save a million lives, then sure. I have no idea what "6 times more dangerous" means -- six sore throats instead of one? (Even Brett said that whatever the risk is, it's "extremely low.") And nobody knows what the benefit would be, if the study didn't study that.

I expect that unless the conclusion was like, this program would cure covid for everybody, they're not going to go for it for the reasons I said. But it doesn't do any harm to finish the study.

[shawn_dude]

At some point in the past, the Republican ideal of freedoms with associated responsibilities just became "me me me." The whole "my body my choice" anti-mask/vaccination movement is about the freedom to spread a deadly disease to others without repercussions. I haven't seen a full-scale political middle-finger to the victims of a pandemic since Reagan and AIDS.

[Bob from Ohio]

"August wholesale prices rise 8.3% on an annual basis, biggest advance on record" 9/10/21

Thanks Joe!

[apedad]

So you'd be applauding if the statement was, “August wholesale prices sink 8.3% on an annual basis, biggest decline on record?”

[Nisiiko]

Yes. I love deflation.

[shawn_dude]

What?! Wholesale prices increase as demand increases and supply gets squeezed? And year-over-year from the middle of a nasty pandemic that shut down large swaths of businesses across the whole country? Shocked. Shocked, I say!

[Nisiiko]

It's not just year over year. Plus, the "base" wasn't nearly that low because of all of the unnecessary stimulus.

[apedad]

Right wingers doing their thang!

Janene Hoskovec was recorded coughing on people maskless at a grocery store in Lincoln, Nebraska. The German software company SAP, where Hoskovec worked, confirmed she is no longer employed there.

Mighty Hand Construction (a Christian organization), announced they 'immediately terminated' Logan Dorn after investigating the harassment charges. The claims came after a group of teenagers filmed the moment he approached them at a public beach at a Colorado lake to lecture them about their swimsuits and compare their bikinis to 'pornography' — all while they repeatedly asked him to leave them alone.

Erica Casher, the adult laughing at a young boy describing his grandmother's death from COVID, was fired from Cigna.

Three state troopers in Vermont resign after accusations they faked Covid vaccination cards.

Tripwire CEO John Gibson was fired his endorsement of the Texas anti-abortion law.

[Ben_]

Cool stories. Add a vampire next time.

Here’s a story with sources and witnesses and video:

"woman at a San Diego dog park is accused of pepper spraying a couple for not wearing masks"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-accused-pepper-spraying-couple-san-diego-park-not-wearing-n1235001

Leftists doing their thang! Like when they put on a gorilla mask and throw eggs at black politicians, which happened this week (but find it yourself because only one link is allowed in comments).

[apedad]

Ask and you shall receive!

Tom Brady’s Ex-Teammate Thinks He Might Be A Vampire

https://thespun.com/nfl/nfc-south/tampa-bay-buccaneers/tom-bradys-ex-teammate-thinks-he-might-be-a-vampire

[BrotherMovesOn]

mad_kalak you are in luck. Rollerball (1975) is streaming free on Amazon Prime.
See the future.