Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The District Court in United States v. Texas denied a motion to seal deposition testimony in granting the DOJ motion for preliminary injunction. Perhaps that will prompt this blog to acknowledge the pendency of that important lawsuit.

[Brett Bellmore]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION"

[Brett Bellmore]

"S.B. 8 imposes an almost outright ban on abortions performed after six weeks of pregnancy, as well as other anti-abortion measures meant to empower anti-abortion vigilantes and target those
who support abortion care in Texas. "

This may be a stretch, but I suspect the judge actually isn't impartial on this subject.

"S.B. 8 creates liability for anyone who performs an abortion in violation of the six-week ban and anyone who “knowingly” aids or abets the performance of an abortion performed at six weeks or later."

I've read S.B. 8. It says nothing about 6 weeks. But the judge keeps saying this. Deliberately, the judge even footnotes his reason for saying it.

Oh, and of course, the judge never refers to "women" except unavoidably in quotes. It's always "pregnant people." Of course...

[not guilty]

A six weeks ban is convenient shorthand for the prohibitions of SB8. Incidentally, that shorthand is more descriptive than the medically inaccurate ¨fetal heartbeat¨ designation. The Act´s prohibitions kick in before there is a fetus and before the embryo has a heart.

[Brett Bellmore]

That claim actually contradicts medical texts, you know...

[Brett Bellmore]

Fetal heart rate in the first and second trimester

"A normal fetal heart rate (FHR) usually ranges from 120 to 160 beats per minute (bpm) in the in utero period. It is measurable sonographically from around 6 weeks and the normal range varies during gestation, increasing to around 170 bpm at 10 weeks and decreasing from then to around 130 bpm at term."

[Nelson]

"By 5 weeks, two tubes that will become the heart have formed. The two tubes fuse together and blood flows through this tubular "heart" as it begins to beat."

The four chambers of the heart are formed at 9 weeks at the earliest.

So, no. It isn't a heart. A four chamber heart (you know, an actual heart) doesn't develop until well after the "heartbeat" that anti-abortionists keep trying to use a relevant benchmark. The fetus won't be capable of independent survival, biologically, until many more weeks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that they're calling it a "fetal heart beat" at 6 weeks.

[not guilty]

That indicates that the legislature cares little for truth or falsity. At six weeks it isn´t a fetus, and the embryo doesn´t have a beating heart.

[Nelson]

Yes, they are. Dishonest, isn't it?

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean that the medical references are calling it that at six weeks.

[Nelson]

No, the legislation is calling it a heartbeat. As are anti-abortionists. And from a propaganda standpoint "heartbeat" sounds better than "pulsing tube that will develop into a heart in about 4 or so weeks".

[BadLib]

So, no. It isn’t a heart. A four chamber heart (you know, an actual heart)

When does something become a heart? Is it not a heart if there is a valve defect that prevents the heart from pumping properly? What about something with an atrial septal defect connecting two chambers making the structure where the "four chamber" heart would be more like some sort of "three chamber mess"?

To be clear, I'm pro-choice. Society should set a point in time where "life" begins and "clump of cells" status ends. Before that time abortion is completely legal for any or no reason. After that time, abortion would only be legal to save the mother from serious harm or death.

A "non life" born before that time would not be provided any treatment with government funds and insurance would not be required to pay for care nor would any medical provider be obligated to treat it as anything but medical waste unless they have a contractual agreement with the parent(s) do do otherwise. As well, if a "non life" is born and survives, either biological parent can freely have it "humanely" terminated and disposed of before the designated point in time.

Perhaps that point in time is ~9 months after gestation, perhaps it's ~5 months, perhaps it's ~36 months after gestation (to give more flexibility in dealing with the "terrible twos").

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A “non life” born before that time

There is no "non life" at any point in this context. The organism(s) in question is/are "alive" in every biological sense at every stage, as are the sperm and ovum prior to their joining at conception. If you really mean something like "non-person" then say that. A policy debate based on inaccurate (and often dishonest) terminology is not a useful debate.

[Nelson]

That is an important distinction. Personhood is a legal definition, unconnected to biology. "Life" is a biological definition, unconnected to the law.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Which makes euphemisms like "potential life" and other scientifically ignorant arguments by activists all the more stupid/dishonest. Ditto the "pro-choice"/"pro-life" bullshit.

[not guilty]

How does a description of the practical effects of SB8 indicate a lack of impartiality?

The judge´s reasoning would have supported a temporary restraining order at an earlier stage of litigation. Instead, he ordered full briefing and an evidentiary hearing to more fully develop the record. That doesn´t suggest bias or partiality to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

The highlighted reference to "anti-abortion vigilantes" seems a bit less than impartial to me.

[Krychek_2]

It's an accurate description.

[Armchair Lawyer]

vigilante: "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, "

I haven't actually seen that.

[Brett Bellmore]

With SB8, they're obviously not "without legal authority", and therefore aren't "vigilantes", even if you want to call a lawsuit "undertaking law enforcement".

[not guilty]

An unconstitutional statute is void ab initio. For the reasons detailed in Judge Pitman´s order, SB8 confers no lawful right of action.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Seems a bit broad....

Imagine all of the law enforcement prior to McDonald v. City of Chicago, which prohibited people from owning guns.

Are all of those law enforcement actions now classified as "vigilante actions”?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"For the reasons detailed in Judge Pitman´s order, SB8 confers no lawful right of action."

No, but the petition clause confers the right to go to court and argue that it does, even if court it already bound by precedent to say otherwise. They can always appeal.

[Krychek_2]

This may be a fairly fine hair split, but I would say that if the legislature legalized lynch mobs, they would still be vigilantes despite the fact that they were now acting with the approval of the legal authorities. Any time you have roving bands of busybodies using force or coercion without being part of law enforcement, I would say vigilante is an accurate description.

I agree that the judge should not have used the word. But he's not wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess you can make a moral case that he's not wrong, but judges are supposed to make and respond to legal cases, and no, legally, the people bringing these lawsuits aren't "vigilantes". And use of the term brings the judge's objectivity into question.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, if the local sheriff was to deputize several of the civilians to act as a posse, via the legal authority of posse comitatus, they would be vigilantes?

[Krychek_2]

No. A legally constituted posse is not vigilantes. But I hope you're not getting ready to compare the SB8 plaintiffs to a posse.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nope. It is the ability to deputize themselves which makes them vigilantes. S.B. 8 seems to me a roundabout means to renewal of the practice of private prosecution of criminal offenses, which thoroughly discredited itself in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, except for the civil nature of the action, it would be a private criminal prosecution.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"It is the ability to deputize themselves"

So...like a citizen's arrest?

[Krychek_2]

Why would you think this is anything like a citizen's arrest? Seriously, what would make you think that?

A citizen's arrest involves a crime that the citizen witnessed, under circumstances in which a police officer isn't available to make the arrest. What about the Texas law even remotely resembles that?

This is more like a police officer telling a private citizen to go break into someone else's house to collect evidence since the private citizen isn't bound by the Fourth Amendment. The state is trying to get private citizens to do what the state isn't permitted to do on its own.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's what you said.

"but I would say that if the legislature legalized lynch mobs, they would still be vigilantes despite the fact that they were now acting with the approval of the legal authorities. Any time you have roving bands of busybodies using force or coercion without being part of law enforcement, I would say vigilante is an accurate description."

OK, now let's look at what a citizen's arrest is...

A citizen, who isn't law enforcement, uses force or coercion, to arrest someone for a crime, with the approval of the legal authorities.

Under your definition of "vigilantes", anyone who did a citizen's arrest would be one.

[Krychek_2]

Try again.

Did you notice the words "for a crime" in your definition of citizens arrest? The Texas statute is civil.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, let me get this straight...

If the government of Texas legalized lynch mobs "for a crime" they wouldn't not be vigilantes... because it's for a "crime"

But if the government of Texas allows someone to sue someone else in civil court for something against the law, the plaintiffs ARE "vigilantes"?

[Krychek_2]

I'm not sure if the double negative in your second paragraph was intentional. Assuming it is, and you intended to say "they would be vigilantes because it is for a crime," then the answer is no because vigilantism is not restricted to crimes. In the days of vigilance committees, there's a whole lot of conduct that wasn't criminal that would bring vigilantes to your doorstep, like interracial marriage for example. So the issue with vigilantism isn't that it is going after criminal behavior; it's that it's using coercion because it doesn't like what someone else is doing.

Which is why the Texas plaintiffs also classify as vigilantes. They may not be burning anyone's house down or hanging anyone from the nearest tree, but they're using coercive and thug like behavior to attack people whose conduct they disapprove of.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh...

1. Apologies. The double negative was unintentional. A single negative was intended.

2. "using coercive and thug like behavior to attack people whose conduct they disapprove of"

Doesn't that apply to a wide range of behavior? For example, those who would promote vaccination against the un-vaxxed? Or those who would use abusive tactics against politicians they disagree with...like following them into bathrooms?

[Krychek_2]

"Doesn't that apply . . ." possibly, yes, but it's likely to be a whole lot more nuanced than that. You have this knack for finding two things that share a similarity -- sometimes just a tangential one -- and ignoring their many differences. Hitler and Queen Elizabeth II both love/loved dogs, but there the similarities end, and the fact that that one similarity exists between them doesn't mean that they compare in any meaningful way.

You can't just say that everyone who practices coercion is acting badly, or can be compared to anyone else practicing coercion. Some forms of coercion are necessary to maintain the social order. So a more nuanced approach is necessary.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"You have this knack for finding two things that share a similarity"

The issue is, you're defining the similarity, and using it to define a word with negative connotations.

To use your example, you would say "Dog lovers are evil mass murderers, like Hitler"...and I would point out "Well, what about Queen Victoria?" and then you would say "Well, it's more nuanced than that".

The truth is, simply "using coercive and thug like behavior to attack people whose conduct they disapprove of" doesn't make someone a vigilante....or else the word is far to broadly defined.

I find the actual definition of vigilante "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate" to be more adequate. And using that definition, it excludes 95% of what you would say are vigilantes.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It’s an accurate description.

You also asserted that "trespasser" is an accurate description of a fetus, so....

[Krychek_2]

It's an accurate legal description, whether it sounds nice or not.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It’s an accurate legal description, whether it sounds nice or not.

I've never seen someone who whines about being told that he's stupid go so far out of his way to deserve it.

[Krychek_2]

Hello Wuz:

You haven't explained why it's not an accurate legal description, but leave that be.

Your schtick has not changed in the twenty years we've been interacting. Only rarely do you offer anything of substance. You have this idea that dropping "you're an idiot" bombs qualifies as actual argument. And the worst part of it is that you know better. You're not someone with an 80 IQ; you're someone who actually understands the basics of making a persuasive presentation. You just choose not to, because I guess it's more fun being a professional troll than it is actually doing the hard work of engaging in substance.

Well, knock yourself out. I've known you long enough to know that you're not going to change; it's the way you've always been. (Have you noticed, by the way, that almost the only person here who ever responds to you is me; most of the time other people just ignore you? There's a reason for that. Maybe they're right and I should follow their example.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You haven’t explained why it’s not an accurate legal description, but leave that be.

There's been no need to, because most everyone else here isn't brain dead enough to require such an explanation, and you are so hopelessly brain dead that you will never benefit from one. But please, feel free to provide us with a generally accepted legal definition for "trespassing" that you think applies to a fetus while in its mother's womb.

You just choose not to

Not surprisingly, you're mistaking your inability to understand a valid argument with the lack of a valid argument.

(Have you noticed, by the way, that almost the only person here who ever responds to you is me; most of the time other people just ignore you? There’s a reason for that. Maybe they’re right and I should follow their example.)

Have you noticed that most responses here are by people challenging/correcting/ridiculing what they're responding to? You know, like the vast majority of the responses you get?

[Krychek_2]

Well, one definition of trespass is "encroachment," which an unwelcome fetus most certainly is doing. And there is no requirement that a trespass be intentional; people inadvertently encroach on other people's property all the time. So if the fetus is a person -- a proposition I reject but was nevertheless accepting for sake of argument -- then what possible argument is there that it isn't encroaching where it's not welcome? You may not like where that ends up, but it is a facially plausible argument that it's a trespass.

Not that any of that matters; if you had a valid contrary argument you'd have already made it.

As far as me not being able to understand a valid argument, God just emailed me to tell me that he sometimes has to read your posts multiple times to try to figure out what on earth you are talking about. He says that in the celestial drawing rooms, the wisest of the sages and angels routinely amuse themselves by reading your posts to each other and asking "Can you make any sense of that?" to which the response is "Nope. Me neither."

And finally, it's not surprising that most responses to anyone's postings here are disagreement; one is far more likely to register disagreement than to ring in on stuff one agrees with. That's human nature. But the difference between most of my other sparring partners and you is that they generally offer substantive comment. As I said earlier, I get that it's easier not to do the hard work of actually providing thoughtful comment, but please at least try. If I wanted a middle school playground brawl, I'd have found a different blog.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Well, one definition of trespass is “encroachment,”

Nice try, you dishonest hack. No, there is no legal definition of "trespass"...civil or criminal...that consists simply of "encroachment".

And there is no requirement that a trespass be intentional

There most certainly is, you ignorant clown.

So if the fetus is a person — a proposition I reject

If you reject that position then your assertion that the fetus is a trespasser is even more mind-numbingly stupid that it appeared at first.

Not that any of that matters; if you had a valid contrary argument you’d have already made it.

I have made it...multiple times, you simpering half-wit. There is no accepted legal definition of "trespasser" that even remotely applies to a fetus in it's mothers womb, and only a complete moron would unsarcastically claim that as an "accurate legal description" for a fetus.

[not guilty]

The anti-abortion movement has an active domestic terrorist wing. Vigilantes is a charitable characterization. The Texas legislature is pandering to radicals who flout constitutional guaranties, and DOJ and now Judge Pitman have called their bluff.

[Don Nico]

Still, "Vigilantes" is not in SB* and it is a value-laden tern

[not guilty]

Judges are permitted to draw reasonable inferences. What the legislature is doing is pretty transparent.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It was unwise of the judge to put this particular inference into an opinion. It doesn't help his opinion, but rather hurts it and gives potential grounds to support the appeal.

[not guilty]

In what manner does it support an appeal?

[Brett Bellmore]

It suggests that the judge was too personally involved, and should have recused.

[not guilty]

No party sought Judge Pitman´s recusal. That is not a matter that can be raised for the first time on appeal.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I would like to recuse the judge on the basis that my future self just visited from a couple months from now, to let me know his final decision would demonstrate animus against me."

[not guilty]

Brett, do you contend that recusal can be raised for the first time on appeal? Do you have any authority for that proposition?

[not guilty]

And a preliminary injunction ruling is not a final decision.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"In what manner does it support an appeal?"

Judicial bias from a judge who was not impartial.

Such cases can be overturned on appeal. For example...

https://www.callaborlaw.com/entry/appellate-court-reverses-verdict-based-on-judges-bias-and-improper-influence

[not guilty]

The linked article contains no indication that allegations of the trial court´s bias were raised for the first time on appeal. It´s too late at this juncture.

An accusation that the trial court is not impartial is not an ¨ace in the hole¨ that can be played only after waiting for a merits ruling.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No party sought Judge Pitman´s recusal.

Nobody said anyone did.

That is not a matter that can be raised for the first time on appeal.

Nobody said it could be.

Any other straw men you'd like to knock on their asses?

[IPLawyer]

Because it'd make you froth at the mouth? What wouldn't, really?

[Don Nico]

Of course they are and I agree that the legislature's move is transparent.
My only comment is that the gratuitous use of value-laden language detracts from the appearance of judicial impartiality.

[Brett Bellmore]

In that sense it could be regarded as truth in advertising; The appearance of judicial partiality being due to the reality of judicial partiality...

[Stephen Lathrop]

On the other hand, judicially neutral language during consideration of wild-ass-crazy subject matter detracts from the appearance of judicial sanity. I think EV's example from Justice Jackson hit the right note, by subtly comparing belief in the Easter Bunny to the notion of dispassionate judges.

[Don Nico]

"detracts from the appearance of judicial sanity"
SL,
That is plain sophistry. But what else is new?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Judges are permitted to draw reasonable inferences.

Referring to legal actions taken via the courts as "vigilantism" is a lot of things, but a "reasonable inference" isn't one of them...especially for a judge.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A judge who enforces vigilantism is just another vigilante.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A judge who enforces vigilantism is just another vigilante.

LOL! I was hoping you'd chime in on that. It reminds me of the first instance that I recall...years ago...of you demonstrating just what a pathologically dishonest piece of crap you are. I'm betting there are several others here who also recall your infamous attempt to not only declare self-defense as "vigilantism", but also your subsequent desperate attempt to lie about what you actually said.

[wreckinball]

Our judiciary is populated by a bunch of nut jobs

[not guilty]

Have you read Judge Pitman´s opinion and order? It is thorough, tied closely to the evidentiary record,and soundly reasoned.

[Life of Brian]

It is thorough, tied closely to the evidentiary record,and soundly reasoned.

If all that is true, it's a damn shame he chose to detract from the merits with the sort of gratuitious and value-laden language being discussed above, no?

[Sarcastr0]

Dissenting Opinions: Virginia State Board v. Virginia Consumer Council.

UChicago law professor Genevieve Lakier to discuss what she likes about Virginia State Board v. Virginia Consumer Council as a First Amendment case, whether money is speech, and how we could regulate political speech and lies.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Background - the case and the perception of it
This is a 1976 case striking down a law preventing pharmacies from advertising drug prices. This is the first time the Court found purely commercial advertising was speech for 1A purposes. And that consumers have standing to bring the suit.
But the government can still prohibit false advertising, misleading advertising, and even compel disclosure where there is danger of confusion

Before this, the framework was a New Deal balance between courts protecting speech, and courts poking their nose in everywhere: Caroline Products and others made a distinction between commercial and noncommercial to attempt to balance these competing interests.

Little by little the Court been narrowing and narrowing what counted as an ad, but had never pulled the trigger on purely commercial speech being protected.

It is generally thought badly of, but Prof. Lakier likes it.

[Sarcastr0]

2. Criticism
Oftentimes decisions become part of the framework, and criticism dies down. Not so here.

Critics claim that commercial speech is not on the same level as political speech. This is stretching free speech doctrine beyond intent and utility. Rehnquist’s dissent compared this holding that renders null a lot of potential checks on capitalism to Lochner!
Like a dark twin to the Nazis in Skokie, protecting ads as speech opened the door to protecting all sorts of stuff from the government.

It's staying power is seeing it as the headwaters of this speech expansion protecting more and more institutions and actions from regulations as speech: corporations, money...the extended 1A as a protection of things used predominantly by the already powerful.
Another concern is that using the 1A like this tarnishes the 1A in our culture. Which doesn’t seem to have been borne out as of yet.

[Sarcastr0]

3. In favor: The commercial distinction isn't distinct.
The commercial non-commercial distinction is hard. Lots of speech is produced, disseminated, controlled by market forces. Early on after this distinction was made, Jehovah’s Witnesses selling their pamphlets was a tricky one. So the Court has to stick its nose in everywhere to answer whether something is speech.
Virginia State Board acknowledges that this distinction is difficult because it doesn't exist.

[Sarcastr0]

4. Is money speech?
Prof. Leiker believes money isn't speech. [yay! -Sarc]. But that doesn't mean the 1A doesn't apply - money facilitates speech. Which means regulations of money being used for speech implicate speech. Just as regulation of ink would. But no one would say ink is speech.

[Krayt]

Isn't this why there is also freedom of the press? The right to mass produce speech for distribition?

Tyrant kings of old could, would, and did control or outlaw printing presses as a manner of backdoor censorship.

Is it proper to push off government censorship to another level? You can speak. You can run a press. But we can stop you from using money to run a press?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm pretty sure that by the time of the Founding, press meant the mass media, not the actual physical printing press.

But while the 1A doesn't provide a direct textual protection for items required for speech, it'd be formalist in the extreme to argue regulations of such items don't require 1A scrutiny.

The only question is how such scrutiny would operate. It's clear you can't declare all items that could be used for speech now off limits for regulation, but you also can't say the government has free reign to regulate ink (or money). So there must be some line drawing.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I’m pretty sure that by the time of the Founding, press meant the mass media, not the actual physical printing press."

No, that's actually been discussed extensively here, and it was the physical printing press. Makes perfect sense, "freedom of speech, or of the press" would be a strange way to phrase things if one was an activity, and the other an industry. But it makes perfect sense if you mean by it freedom of speech and the recorded word.

The Freedom...of the Press, from 1791 to 1868 to Now - Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or the Press as a Technology?

[Sarcastr0]

That's...what I said?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's... exactly the opposite of what you said, so far as I can see.

[Sarcastr0]

I said the printing press, as in the tool was not what the 1A is pointing to, but rather the media.

You started talking about activities and industries. Both of which are what the media is, and what the physical tool was not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Printing is an activity, which may or may not be performed by the mass media.

And as Prof Volokh has clearly shown, "press" in the 1A refers to the tool, not the mass media.

[wreckinball]

Kf you're restricting speech and we all know what it is you are the bad guy. Searching for loopholes to restrict speech is what the communist does.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, I've got bad news for you about all of American history being communist.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I’m pretty sure that by the time of the Founding, press meant the mass media, not the actual physical printing press.

No, it didn't mean the physical press. But it also wasn't confined to "the mass media". From Brett's link (with footnote references removed):

II. EVIDENCE FROM THE FRAMING ERA, UNTIL 1840

A. A Right of ―Every Freeman

1. Cases, treatises, and constitutions

Early formulations of the freedom of the press spoke of it as a right of every ―freeman,‖ ―citizen,‖ or ―individual.‖ They often set forth narrow substantive views of ―the freedom of the press.‖ But, whatever the scope of the right, it belonged to everyone (or at least all free citizens).

Blackstone, for instance, wrote in 1765 that ―Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press . . . .‖18 Jean-Louis De Lolme, an author widely cited by 1780s American writers, wrote that ―Every subject in England has not only a right to present petitions, to the King, or the Houses of Parliament; but he has a right also to lay his complaints and observations before the Public, by the means of an open press.
State supreme courts in 1788 and 1781 likewise described the liberty of the press as ―permitting every man to publish his opinions, and as meaning that ―the citizen has a right to publish his sentiments upon all political, as well as moral and literary subjects. Justice Iredell described the liberty of the press in 1799 as meaning that ―Every freeman has an undoubted right to
lay what sentiments he pleases before the public. St.
George Tucker, in 1803, defined the ―freedom of the press‖ as meaning that, ―Every individual, certainly, has a right to speak, or publish, his sentiments on the measures of government./i>

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ink may have nothing to do with speech, but it is pretty critical to press freedom. Likewise paper, especially newsprint. Seems likely to me that if a government decided, for instance, to punish a hostile press by levying a prohibitively high tax on newsprint, a court would step in. Controlling newsprint has been a fairly common tactic among tinhorn dictators abroad, by the way.

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of people think, though, that if you just go one remove further, and regulate not the ink and newsprint, but instead money spent to buy it, you're golden.

[Sarcastr0]

Perhaps a lot of people think that, but neither I nor either of the people on the podcast think that.

[Sarcastr0]

5. Implicate speech? That's pretty nebulous. What's the analysis?
Whatever framework you use, it can't use the 1A to require a lassez-faire regulatory paradigm.

For instance, letting the market decide all questions of speech has some pretty anti-liberty effects.
- Power inequalities in the market. Amplification of wealthy voices.
- Minorities will have real difficulty in a pure market. So much for the 1A protecting minority speech.

Paternalism is not a good reason for speech regulation - i.e. people can't hear about this because they'll make bad choices. But power imbalances or deception are a different kettle of fish. Which is acknowledged by VA State Board!
When it comes to commercial-based speech, government can do to commercial speech - prohibit false advertising, misleading advertising, and compel disclosure where there is danger of confusion.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Whatever framework you use, it can’t use the 1A to require a lassez-faire regulatory paradigm."

Well, not if the courts are hostile to lassez-faire regulation, obviously. Otherwise I don't see why not.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you really trying to argue the First Amendment instantiates lassez-faire capitalism?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, but I'd certainly argue it instantiates lassez-faire regulation of speech and printed matter.

[Sarcastr0]

The Virginia State Board Court would disagree.

So would the Founders.

Indeed, we've never had an interpretation of free speech like that. That's a childlike view of how our Bill of Rights actually operates.

[Brett Bellmore]

Lassez-faire and "no law" seem pretty equivalent to me. Yeah, the founders didn't go there. They enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Logan act.

The Bill of Rights wasn't adopted to prevent purely hypothetical abuses, you know. It was there to prevent expected abuses.

[Sarcastr0]

The issue discussed in #5 is not to what extent regulation of speech is allowed, but what counts as speech. One could argue which car you choose to drive is a type of expression, meaning regulations of the auto industry are now under strict scrutiny.

That's the real issue - does the 1A instantiate lassez-faire capitalism in all sectors? That seems ridiculous on it's face.

But I cannot resist also taking issue with your point about speech itself. Your interpretation of the text has never been the suggested in any Constitutional practice in the history of our country. Nor of England, from which we took our model. And for good reasons - speech cases lay out how practicality sets the contours of our rights. (which apart from being positivistly true, also seems to be how the England-based understanding the Founding era public had of what a right is)

Your cherry-picked originalism seems extremely designed to instantiate your preferred policies. A common danger of originalism.

[Krayt]

For instance, letting the market decide all questions of speech has some pretty anti-liberty effects.
– Power inequalities in the market. Amplification of wealthy voices.
– Minorities will have real difficulty in a pure market. So much for the 1A protecting minority speech.

I assume people who subscribe to this as rationale for control of corporate speech are full-throated in favor of government ordering corporations like facebook to stop censoring?

[Sarcastr0]

No one talked about corporate speech here. It took me a bit to come around but I think CU is required by Buckley.

Also, I absolutely think Facebook can be regulated. Even if I have seen zero convincing evidence they're silencing conservatives.

And the conservative attempt to redefine censorship is pretty shameless.

[apedad]

What do you think should be regulated?

Yes, they have to follow all laws (monopoly, SEC stuff, taxes, incorporation, etc.).

But what else?

Surely not their internal rules about what they allow to be posted on their website!

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know; I'm just saying Facebook is reachable by regulation.

[wreckinball]

Corporations are groups of people so there you go with the 1A loopholes.

[Sarcastr0]

Can you read?

"I think CU is required by Buckley."

[wreckinball]

CU was a good ruling. Groups of people whether they be unions, corporation, knitting groups, whatever have 1A protection as a group or as individuals. Whether they have a lot of money or a little all have 1A protection. Ironically grouping together for a common cause is way of financing speech for those who are not so wealthy.

1A is pretty absolute and was meant that way.

[Sarcastr0]

1A is pretty absolute and was meant that way.

Something you think ought to be is not the same as it is true.

There is lots of evidence otherwise. From the laws the Founders' Congress passed, to the way rights operated in England at the time, to early freedom of religion cases.

Don't just say stuff, do some research.

[wreckinball]

Ditto

[wreckinball]

SCOTUS has ruled that restrictions to free speech "fighting words" have to present significant and imminent harm to be restricted speech. There is no "fire in the theater" thing either. We need baseball rules here, 3 strikes and you're out

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think any of those decisions have a holding that the 1A is absolute and was meant that way?

[bernard11]

CU is required by Buckley.

I don't know if it is or isn't, but CU would be plainly correct if it were restricted to the kind of organization CU is - essentially a non-profit private undertaking supported by contributions, or dues, from members.

Extending it to large public corporations was foolish and, IMO, partisan. Just because two entities are both "corporations" doesn't mean they have to be treated alike, any more than we have to treat bicycles and airliners alike because both are transportation vehicles.

[Sarcastr0]

The reasoning is that the people within the corporate form still have the rights that attach to them as individuals.

Is there any reason that a person or people speaking via the corporate form would somehow not count as speech?

I toyed with the idea that there was some waiver of speech attached to the protections we extend to corporations, but until that's explicit, I don't think the Court should read that in.

But I think Buckley is wrong, so...

[bernard11]

Is there any reason that a person or people speaking via the corporate form would somehow not count as speech?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Here is my view, based on principal-agent considerations. Please bear in mind I'm talking about publicly traded corporations.

1. Corporations have lots of shareholders - lots. They have even more when you consider those who hold shares indirectly - through mutual funds or pension plans for example.

2. When a corporation supports a candidate it is spending those shareholders' money, despite the fact that a sizeable percentage of those people oppose that candidate.

3. Management should not be allowed to spend my money to support a candidate I oppose. Period. (And yes, I think that should apply to unions spending money on candidates as well.)

What are the arguments against this?

1. The corporation is a "voluntary association." Bullshit. What kind of "voluntary association" changes its membership every second? Besides, voluntary associations have limited purposes. I don't want my condo association backing candidates.

2. You can sell your shares. Bullshit again. First, a huge number of shareholders actually can't sell their shares, or don't even know they own them, since they hold them indirectly. And why should those who hold them directly have to go the trouble and expense of selling because management is spending their money to support candidates they oppose?

3. It interferes with freedom of speech. Bullshit yet again. Barring corporations from spending corporate funds does not prevent any individual from spending their own money, or speaking, in support of a candidate. Nor does it prevent anyone from joining with others, a la CU, to pool funds for political purposes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Management should not be allowed to spend my money to support a candidate I oppose. Period."

Sounds like a corporate governance issue. If you don't want management spending your money on a candidate you oppose, don't buy stock in a corporation whose charter permits this.

Of course, if you invest in, say, a coal company, one of the things the managers need to do is lobby the government for coal-friendly regulation, and support candidates who will help them mine coal. And you have a constitutional right to associate with those managers for that purpose.

[Sarcastr0]

Come on, dude.

I'm not sure I agree with bernard, but you're hiding behind formalist pretext that has nothing to do with how things actually operate.

Deal with the world as it is.

And your last paragraph has accidentally read all lobbying regulations out of existence. Luckily, you're wrong about why people buy shares in a coal company so it's not a big deal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’m not sure I agree with bernard, but you’re hiding behind formalist pretext that has nothing to do with how things actually operate."

What the fuck are you talking about? You don't think coal companies lobby the government for coal-friendly regulations, and support coal-friendly politicians?

" Luckily, you’re wrong about why people buy shares in a coal company so it’s not a big deal."

Huh? People buy shares in a coal company to make money.

[bernard11]

If you don’t want management spending your money on a candidate you oppose, don’t buy stock in a corporation whose charter permits this.

Oh come on. This is bullshit, as I said. Really. These arguments are crap.

I buy an index fund. I have zip control over the actions of management. (In fact, the mutual fund company will generally go along with management, for a variety of reasons.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Oh come on. This is bullshit, as I said. Really. These arguments are crap."

Then refute them.

"I buy an index fund. I have zip control over the actions of management."

So either accept the fact that you have zip control over the actions of management, or invest in a manner that gives you more control. What's the problem?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Oh come on. This is bullshit, as I said. Really. These arguments are crap.

And yet you offer no counter argument at all. Even a crap argument wins against that.

[Sarcastr0]

So there's a line-drawing continuum problem here. You're right that the largest corporations don't act a lot like individuals.

But that's not nearly all corporations. Some do act a lot like individuals (be cause that's what they are, except for legal liability). Some are in fact the media and talk all the time.

It's at least a hard line to draw.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I toyed with the idea that there was some waiver of speech attached to the protections we extend to corporations"

The problem with that approach is that the government itself is pushing people to use the corporate form, by making banding together without forming a corporation financially perilous. That's a product of the government's own courts and legal doctrines.

My position would be that the government can't essentially force you to form a corporation to do something, and then use your forming a corporation as an excuse to take your rights away.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not the government that makes a sole proprietorship a financial exposure.
One way you can tell is the popularity of incorporation from well before America was founded.

I agree with your thesis, but your argument is based on a misreading of history (and a misunderstand of from where legal exposure originates).

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I toyed with the idea that there was some waiver of speech attached to the protections we extend to corporations, but until that’s explicit, I don’t think the Court should read that in."

And if it was explicit, it would be an unconstitutional condition.

[Sarcastr0]

That doctrine allows plenty of justified conditions.

Federal employment agreements include that all the time, like an NDA or such.
And then there is the military. Or classified work.

See also public financing of elections.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Even if I have seen zero convincing evidence they’re silencing conservatives.

Keep trying. You'll get a gig at the Improv eventually, I'm sure.

[Sarcastr0]

6. Maybe extend Virginia State Board's deception-confusion thing to political speech.
So far it's been limited to commercial speech, as sort of an embarrassing line of cases. But why?
A lot of politics is like selling a product. 1A is implicated, but power imbalances, fraud, abuse, deception remain concerns.

Though it's not a direct analogy - Jeff Stone notes the different incentives in government regulating commercial speech compared to its own competition. There's a natural conflict in regulating political speech. But at least acknowledge the legitimacy of these power imbalance concerns in the 1A arena. Not paternalistic, but power imbalance correcting. (And allowed, not mandated)
The concerns in the commercial speech realm are all about untruths. Regulating truth in politics - is it even possible?

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0....This is where you lose me = Maybe extend Virginia State Board’s deception-confusion thing to political speech.

Sorry, but there is no universe where I want the federal government regulating political speech. That is a recipe for creeping totalitarianism. No way, no how.

[Sarcastr0]

As noted, there is a natural conflict of interest there, to be sure.
But political speech is not of a special extra-protected class. For one, it's a very hard to define class. For two, fraud in commerce seems no less invidious than fraud in politics, no? And we've regulated fraud in commerce for a century or so without becoming totalitarian.

[Commenter_XY]

No, I do not agree. Political speech was among the first freedoms the Founders protected. Sorry, 1A is a bulwark against government regulating political speech. And theoretically, free exercise of religion (though we saw what that actually meant last year).

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But political speech is not of a special extra-protected class.

SCOTUS says otherwise.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, in this universe I want the government regulating political speech, but not on the basis of regulating its contents. Specifically, I want political speech restricted to natural persons. One person one vote is an indispensable leveling principle of democracy. To maintain that demands an end to political activity from per-share voting corporations, where one-person-one-vote does not apply.

Corporations and non-profits organized on a one-person-one-vote principle are fine. Let them use their treasuries to take political positions all they want. But political influence proportionate to ownership influence is incompatible with that indispensable leveling principle of democracy.

Likewise, if a non-profit or other non-commercial corporation governs itself on the basis of an elite class of board members, who are given more policy-making institutional power than the rank and file member gets, treat those organizations like per-share voting corporations. I suspect that would alter alike both the ACLU and the NRA, and improve both of them politically.

It is more than sufficient to grant disproportionate political influence to the wealthy, spending their own personal money without limit. Arguably, that is too much political power for wealth already—but for that challenge potential remedies may risk too much empowering government to control political content. Where privileging disproportionate political influence unequivocally goes too far, is to further empower wealth by politically privileging access to corporate treasuries raised from commerce. That results in political abuse of lesser shareholders, who are helpless to do anything if their own money is highjacked by corporate officers on behalf of political positions the lesser shareholders oppose.

A counter-argument suggests that if lesser shareholders don't want their money hijacked by tycoons to buy the politics the tycoons prefer, the lesser shareholders are free to sell out and invest elsewhere. That fails to account for the fact that ordinary citizens who are not shareholders must still compete against the tycoons at a huge disadvantage in the political-speech marketplace, and have no remedy. Even the lesser shareholders who sold out find themselves in that pickle. It is time to stop it. Let democracy's leveling principle of one-person-one-vote extend into the world of political finance.

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume you realize that not one newspaper in the country is a natural person, right? Theoretically they're not even non-profits. So you're taking 1st amendment protection away from every single newspaper and media outlet. The Washington Post? The New York Times? CBS? They all lose 1st amendment protection under your scheme.

Imagine the consequences of basically every media outlet in the country being subject to government censorship. But that's what you're proposing.

[Sarcastr0]

What protections? Newspapers already can't print false stuff.

What do you think I'm advocating for?

[Sarcastr0]

Oop, sorry I screwed up the threading.

[Sarcastr0]

With you on the natural persons distinction being a classification that would swallow the right, Brett.

[Nelson]

Since the free press is guaranteed in the First Amendment, you aren't making a valid argument. The press is, in the clear text of the Constitution, protected.

I have yet to hear a reasonable philosophical defense of corporate personhood regarding speech or religious freedom. When the First Amendment rights of a citizen can be mitigated or eliminated by a non-human legal construct, we are in a very dangerous realm.

The rights of people should always overpower the rights of not-people. Dress it up however you want, but companies aren't people and shouldn't be treated as equal to people.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I have yet to hear a reasonable philosophical defense of corporate personhood regarding speech or religious freedom.

That's because the whole "corporate personhood" thing is and always has been a strawman argument wrt 1A and CU. The decision in CU did not...repeat, did NOT...declare that corporations are persons. The assertion that it did is propaganda aimed at those who are too lazy/illiterate/just plain dumb to know that they're being lied to.

[wreckinball]

They want to restrict speech of those they disagree with. That has become Captain Obvious recently. So they will just let these restrictions on speech creep.

So say they don't like Fox News, censor it. They like the WAPO and NYT, prosecutorial discretion no action. See how that works?

It's like "social justice", It's not justice at all. If you dispute the election of Biden you are a terrorist and deserve to be locked up for months without bail or a trial for your trespassing charge. You see your "cause" is wrong.

If you burn loot and sometimes murder in the name of fighting for racism your cause is just and there are no charges. Your "cause" is right.

Free speech just needs to be basically absolute. The following are examples of free speech= lies, misinformation, hate, supporting Nazi's, criticizing blacks gays women or islam.

Everyone and any group, company, union whatever has free speech rights.

There fixed it. Because they will basically take it away inch by inch if you let them. And the free speech does not apply to anything the ruling regime dislikes. It's "hate" speech! Just like in any totalitarian country,

[David Nieporent]

It’s like “social justice”, It’s not justice at all. If you dispute the election of Biden you are a terrorist and deserve to be locked up for months without bail or a trial for your trespassing charge. You see your “cause” is wrong.

If you dispute the election of Biden by trying to overthrow the government you are a terrorist and deserve to be locked up.

The rest is just right wing nonsense by people who happy to see black people locked up for months without bail or trial, and are just upset it's happening to people who look like them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If you dispute the election of Biden by trying to overthrow the government you are a terrorist and deserve to be locked up."

If you dispute the election of Biden by trespassing, you are a trespasser.

If the government thinks people tried to overthrow the government or engaged in terrorism, they should charge them with that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you dispute the election of Biden by trying to overthrow the government you are a terrorist and deserve to be locked up.

Is that your new, "Hands up, don't shoot"?

[Don Nico]

" Specifically, I want political speech restricted to natural persons."
I am fascinated to see that you oppose free political speech for labor unions.

[Nelson]

Unions are the same as corporations, in character if not in legal status. Any restrictions on corporations should apply to unions as well.

[Don Nico]

Agreed. That is exactly what I am referring to.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don Nico, I have been a member of the Operating Engineers, the Machinists, and the Boilermakers. The Machinists did not seem as corrupt as the others.

At least on paper, they all practiced one-person-one-vote governance. So in principle, your critique is mistaken. On that basis, under my suggestion they could continue to practice politics, at least to the extent the Supreme Court has not already restricted them with regard to members who disagree. Note that same protection, inexplicably, has, not been awarded by the Court to benefit shareholders who disagree. Why do you suppose that is?

I acknowledge that you point toward a political problem with my suggestion. Folks are accustomed to the notion that unions and corporations are flip sides of the same regulatory coin. Many would not likely welcome letting unions continue in politics while per-share-voting corporations got thrown out. I regard that as habitual error, but acknowledge it's a thing. Nelson's comment at 10:20 examples that view, while in another comment he seems to agree with me.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

From your silence on the matter we can now conclude that you do in fact favor government censorship of news media organizations.

[David Nieporent]

Note that same protection, inexplicably, has, not been awarded by the Court to benefit shareholders who disagree. Why do you suppose that is?

Because the government doesn't tell people that they must be shareholders.

[Don Nico]

SL,
Ae you truly suggesting that union members have monolithic political preference, views on political questions, etc.
Just because they may practice the appearance of one-person, one-vote governance does not change that when the union takes a political position, it takes an incorporated position.
Your suggestion otherwise is a sophistry. I could make the same statement about an incorporated partnership. Yet you preference of silencing their speech would have the same characteristics as union speech.
The consistent position is that both labor unions and other corporation all have free speech rights.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Specifically, I want political speech restricted to natural persons."

Great news! Only natural persons can speak.

Corporate and other persons are just a mechanism for organizing the activity of natural persons.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, TwelveInch, corporations are a piggy bank empowering corporate officers to speak with gigantically outsized influence. It would improve American democracy to curb that extravagant influence, and let corporate officers speak instead with merely the less-outsized influence enabled by their personal wealth.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, TwelveInch, corporations are a piggy bank empowering corporate officers to speak with gigantically outsized influence.

You're of course referring to the NYT, WaPo and other large newspapers, every broadcast news organization, etc.

[David Nieporent]

It would improve American democracy to curb that extravagant influence,

Shocker. Lathrop wants to forbid speech.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What are you talking about Nieporent? I am fine with corporate officers saying whatever they want, including whatever they would say by using corporate funding. I would merely require that they get into the pool with the rest of us, and pay out of pocket for the swim.

[David Nieporent]

Commenter_XY, in this universe I want the government regulating political speech, but not on the basis of regulating its contents. Specifically, I want political speech restricted to natural persons. One person one vote is an indispensable leveling principle of democracy. To maintain that demands an end to political activity from per-share voting corporations, where one-person-one-vote does not apply.

Speech is not voting. What are you talking about?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe he thinks corporations can vote?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Neither is politics voting, Nieporent. Politics is the process by which this nation has chosen to govern its public affairs.

Politics includes voting, but it is far more than voting. Participation in politics ought to be on a principle of equality among citizens, even if only roughly so, because of variations in private wealth.

Of course, other systems than politics could substitute, and govern public affairs otherwise. Plutocracy, for instance, could replace politics. To the extent that governmental influence can be generated by putting at the disposal of corporate officers corporate treasuries allocated on the basis of per-share voting, plutocracy can displace politics. It has already done so to a remarkable degree.

I am baffled by American citizens who favor plutocracy instead of politics as a means of empowering or constraining government. I doubt most such citizens are really plutocrats—there seem to be too many of them, and too little money to elevate them all. But it is easy to understand that aspirational plutocracy has long exerted influence on the minds of some. Perhaps that imaginative faculty, however remote from practicality, is what keeps the pro-plutocracy claque going. Their wealth may never prove sufficient to enable them to share in plutocratic rewards, but perhaps they take their dreams of power as adequate repayment for their loyalty.

[Sarcastr0]

7. Examples of political speech regulations as inspired by VA State Board.
A. Governmentally required disclosures. Make sure people at least have all the facts. The Court has begun to clamp down on these requirements recently. Seems to misunderstand the logic of VA State Board.
B. FTC but for politics. If a politician lies about facts the audience does not have access to check, that's abusing a power imbalance. Fraud is a huge problem for commercial speakers, why are politicians somehow less important?

How to enforce? Leaving the President aside as a particularly hard case, what about lesser politicians? Civil cause of action? Fines? That's a legislative policy question, not a Constitutional one.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and how we could regulate political speech and lies."

And, that says it all about where she's coming from, I expect. Having stated her goal, you know she's going to find some way to achieve it.

No transcript. The written word, one of mankind's greatest inventions, right up there with agriculture. Watching it being abandoned in real time is very depressing...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Any updates from this White, male blog’s band of clingers on how the reinstatement of Trump is coming along?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Biden and company are doing their best to ensure it happens.

[Estovir]

The idea that Trump will return is terrifying. Alas the handlers for Hunter Biden’s dad aint helping!

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3824

Americans Give President Biden Lowest Marks Across The Board, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Majority Say The Biden Administration Is Not Competent
October 06, 2021

President Joe Biden receives a negative 38 – 53 percent job approval rating, the lowest score he’s received from the American people on his job performance since taking office, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea- ack) University national poll of adults released today. In Quinnipiac’s last national poll released 3 weeks ago, he received a negative 42 – 50 percent job approval rating.

Today, Republicans (94 – 4 percent) and independents (60 – 32 percent) disapprove of the job Biden is doing, while Democrats approve 80 – 10 percent.

HANDLING OF ISSUES

Biden received negative scores in the double digits on all but one key issue when Americans were asked about his handling of …

the response to the coronavirus: 48 percent approve, while 50 percent disapprove;
the economy: 39 percent approve, while 55 percent disapprove;
his job as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military: 37 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove;
taxes: 37 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove;
foreign policy: 34 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove;
immigration issues: 25 percent approve, while 67 percent disapprove;
the situation at the Mexican border: 23 percent approve, while 67 percent disapprove.
When it comes to Biden’s personal traits, Americans were asked whether or not Biden …

cares about average Americans: 49 percent say yes, while 48 percent say no, compared to 58 – 37 percent yes in April;

is honest: 44 percent say yes, while 50 percent say no, compared to 51 – 42 percent yes in April;
has good leadership skills: 41 percent say yes, while 56 percent say no, compared to 52 – 44 percent yes in April.

More than half of Americans say 55 – 42 percent that the Biden administration is not competent in running the government.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"The idea that Trump will return is terrifying"

Why exactly is it "terrifying"?

Trump is many things. A blowhard, braggart, difficult to work with, and more.

But if we go by his actual actions, what was really "terrifying?" He didn't start any wars. He left power willingly. There was no "coup" in any meaningful sense.

There were lots of accusations of the dangers of Trump, but when it came to actual events, we had a President who didn't start any wars, got us a vaccine in record time when the experts said it was basically impossible, and more..

The biggest danger, in my mind, of Trump getting re-elected, is that Biden and the Democrats won't actually turn over power. That's a very real risk in my mind.

[apedad]

Since this is a legal blog, in law, the process is just as important as the result.

Trump has no clue - nor any interest - in the process and treated the presidency as his kingdom.

His MO is to make wild (sometimes disparaging) remarks, snap his fingers to make something happen, then call his lawyers when things didn't work out.

[Don Nico]

The sooner that the Orange Clown disappears from the scene the better the future of America will be.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Something you, I and everyone interested in truth and decency in a President can agree on.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

you, I and everyone interested in truth and decency in a President

LOL!

[Armchair Lawyer]

A DH0 level argument, the weakest possible.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"His MO is to make wild (sometimes disparaging) remarks"
And? Remarks, no matter how dumb, aren't necessarily actions.

"nap his fingers to make something happen,"
-For example? Which actions occurred?

"call his lawyers when things didn’t work out."
Again....not an action.

Specifically what actions did Trump take that were "terrifying"?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Why would anyone think that the likes of you has any interest in reality, given the free pass you gave Trump for his egregiously corrupt and self-serving behavior?

You clearly don't expect that the President should put the country first above their own self-interest, and that's fine, but you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously when you attempt to gaslight non-cultists.

[David Nieporent]

Since this is a legal blog, in law, the process is just as important as the result.

This is right.

Most of Trump's policies, individually, weren't terrifying. Some of them are terrible, others stupid, others evil (but in conventional ways) — and a few were even good — but mostly not terrifying. What was terrifying was Trump's attitude towards government and society. Nothing mattered but him and his whims and his desires and benefits, and anything that stood in his way was to be burned to the ground. Norms, institutions, reality itself, none of that was to be spared. This went far beyond partisanship to pure cult — so, sure, every GOP president has complained about liberal media bias, but Trump went so far as to try to tear down Fox if it reported something negative about him.

The ultimate goal/result was a post-truth society built on trolling. Which was very unhealthy for the country, until it became literally unhealthy once covid hit and Trump ran into an opponent, a virus, that he couldn't gaslight.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Most of Trump’s policies, individually, weren’t terrifying."

Yep

"What was terrifying was Trump’s attitude towards government and society. Nothing mattered but him and his whims and his desires and benefits, and anything that stood in his way was to be burned to the ground."

This seems to be more your impression, than any concrete actual action. And if we go by the OP "But if we go by his actual actions, what was really “terrifying?"

So, you're terrified, not by Trump's actions, but by the impressions that you have of him?

It may be worth reconsidering your impressions, based on the actual actions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, half-educated, bigoted, worthless, obsolete, anxious, antisocial, backwater people loved Trump.

[Nelson]

"what was really “terrifying?"

Policies on tariffs, legal immigration, undermining the rule of law, repeated lies about a variety of subjects (Covid, tax cuts, election integrity for starters), refusal to condemn political violence if it wasn't from the "left", failure to get us out of Afghanistan, failure to address infrastructure (despite multiple "infrastructure week" announcements, etc.

"He left power willingly."

He left power kicking and screaming, lying about election fraud (an ongoing betrayal of America). He tried to force election officials, DOJ officials, and anyone else he could pressure to declare a safe and secure election "corrupt", gamed out ways to thwart the will of the American people, and filed dozens of lawsuits to prevent Biden from taking office (all but one, a technical point that had zero impact on the result, which failed and were rightfully ridiculed). So, anything but "willingly".

Trump is a terrible human, was a terrible President, is disdainful of democracy, views the Presidency as a transactional position with no obligation to represent anyone other than his base, is paranoid, subscribes to unfounded conspiracy theories, and demonstrates no belief in core American principles.

The thought that he might take office when he will face no electoral consequences due to term limits is horrifying.

The fact that most of the Republican party seems to have surrendered their democratic (small d) principles and embraced the cruelty of Trumpism is probably the most shocking and disappointing part.

I still believe that the GOP is dedicated to democracy and the rule of law, but it is hard. I believe that when this cult of personality wanes that we will return to a nation that honors differences of opinion. We've faced down Japanese internment camps, Tuskegee medical experiments, Jim Crow, McCarthyism, J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon, and regime change wars (just to name a few) and it has made us stronger as a country. Once we get past this crisis, it will be added to the list of things that our democracy has faced and overcome. We will learn from these excesses and become a better, stronger country for it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

His policies on tariffs were "terrifying"?

Really? The same policies that Biden is continuing?

It's hard to take you seriously, if you think Trump's policy on tariffs were "terrifying".

[Krychek_2]

Actually Biden is reversing some of the worst Trump tariffs, but even if that weren't the case, that Biden is also doing it doesn't justify Trump doing it. In addition to being a logical fallacy, "you too" isn't a defense.

[Life of Brian]

Biden is also doing it doesn’t justify Trump doing it. In addition to being a logical fallacy, “you too” isn’t a defense.

It is however, a point that most intellectually honest people would feel the need to address in this context. "It would be terrifying if the other guy came back and continued the same policies in place now" just doesn't have quite the same ominous ring to it.

[Krychek_2]

It's wrong on the facts because Biden is reversing at least some of the tariffs, though not fast enough to suit me. But there's still a big difference in that Biden hasn't initiated any tariffs. That was all Trump.

[Life of Brian]

But there’s still a big difference in that Biden hasn’t initiated any tariffs. That was all Trump.

Well, that took about 30 seconds: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/business/economy/biden-aluminum-tariffs.html

[Nelson]

I didn't say anything about Biden. He is wrong to continue them. That doesn't change the fact that Trump believes that tariffs are good and effective, as opposed to an indirect tax on Americans. Such willful ignorance is terrifying and you can expect him to double down on the bad policy, since the other choice is to admit that he was wrong.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Regardless of whether Biden or Trump are right or wrong on tariffs, the question was posed that they were "terrifying".

And I can't really see how the tariffs themselves were "terrifying".

Perhaps you can explain it? Especially in the contexts of why they are not "terrifying" now

Or perhaps you believe the current president is also " terrifying" with his actions? Why or why not?

[Nelson]

They are terrifying because they highlight a core value that runs through Trump and his policies: if he doesn't want to believe it, he won't. Regardless of how clear it is he's wring, regardless of how badly the policy is doing, regardless of anything else. Never admitting he's wrong is more important than getting things right. And the more obvious it is that he's wrong, the more likely he is to double down. That's very, very dangerous behavior in a President and very, very terrifying.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, his actions in putting tariffs on China weren't actually terrifying?

Only your impression of why he did it was terrifying?

And if someone else did it, and you had a different impression of why they did it, it wouldn't be terrifying?

[Nelson]

Yes, they were. Not just for their own impact on the price of goods, but because it is something that he will continue to pursue for the sole reason that if he stopped it would make it seem like he was wrong. Or weak. Or whatever he thinks about it. Policy based on an unwillingness to admit error should scare everyone.

And no, I would find anyone who directed America's economic policy and was so unwilling to believe anything he/she didn't want to believe that they wouldn't look at any of the "cons" of a policy choice terrifying.

[Life of Brian]

That doesn’t change the fact that Trump believes that tariffs are good and effective, as opposed to an indirect tax on Americans. Such willful ignorance is terrifying

I'm old enough to remember when Wal-Mart was viewed as a local-business-killing villain and "well, but people like to buy cheap shit" was viewed as the point-missing distraction it was.

But setting that aside, I take it you're equally terrified about Biden's willful ignorance re who pays for corporate tax hikes?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I didn’t say anything about Biden. He is wrong to continue them. That doesn’t change the fact that Trump believes that tariffs are good and effective, as opposed to an indirect tax on Americans. Such willful ignorance is terrifying

So you're terrified about Biden now? Yes or no.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/business/economy/biden-aluminum-tariffs.html

[bernard11]

He left power willingly. There was no “coup” in any meaningful sense.

He did not "leave power willingly."

There may have been no coup, but that was not for lack of trying. That the coup attempt failed does not excuse it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll agree that he didn't leave power willingly, in the sense that he didn't want to leave power, and pursued every legal option for retaining it, and one or two that were somewhat dubious. I've already said that I liked the fact that he was willing to fight, but that you also need to know when to stop fighting.

But he didn't have to be carried out of the White house by the Secret service, as many Democrats were predicting.

There was no coup attempt, if you're talking about January 6th. He lead a peaceful demonstration, and a small fraction of the demonstrators got out of hand despite his having explicitly told them to be peaceful.

[SimonP]

Trump's coup attempt happened via his various attempts to pressure state electoral officials to "de-certify" or otherwise reject the results from certain electoral districts, with an eye towards flipping their electoral votes or withholding them from the slate of electors submitted to Congress, which was, in turn, designed to set up a conflict in Congress that would allow Republicans to hand the presidency to him. When that failed, he pressured Pence to use his ceremonial position in counting the electoral votes to somehow "reject" electoral ballots, with the same purpose.

None of that had any legal support, and some of it was likely illegal. The fact that he sat on his hands while the insurrectionists were attempting to kill members of Congress is just icing on the coup-cake.

[bernard11]

Don't forget his attempt to pressure DOJ into taking all sorts of dubious action, and to pressure Raffensberger in GA, etc.

a small fraction of the demonstrators got out of hand despite his having explicitly told them to be peaceful.

Glad you've given up the "tourist" nonsense. And he had plenty of time while the thing was going on to ask them to stop. By all accounts he was all for it.

[DaveM]

NONE of that was illegal. Name one act paired you believe is criminal, and please cite the law, this is a legal hootenanny.

[Toranth]

The truly scary part of this "coup" insanity is the insistence of its supporters that taking your arguments to court and letting them be handled in accordance with the law is something that should be forbidden and punished.

[Nelson]

No one said illegal. Although the lengths that he went to and the lies that he used (and continues to use) to pretend that he didn't get his ass handed to him by a mediocre opponent who almost literally phoned it in from his basement is ... illuminating.

Whether the various ways he tried to subvert the election and defy the will of the people rises to the level of illegality is a question for the FBI, DOJ, and prosecutors. But he is definitely a wanna-be tyrant and a danger to the country, our democratic principles, and the ideals this country was built on.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No one said illegal.

Then there was no coup attempt, as such a thing would be inherently illegal.

Although the lengths that he went to and the lies that he used

So you're saying that the "Russia Collusion" bullshit that the impeachments were based on (and that we now have evidence of the Clinton campaign actually being guilty of) was a coup attempt?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"I’ve already said that I liked the fact that he was willing to fight, "

True. Of course, you also liked the argument that former Pres. Obama was a communist Muslim born in Kenya, and you are an autistic, right-wing misfit.

[David Nieporent]

He left power willingly.

In much the same way that Jeffrey Epstein went to jail willingly.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Biden and company are doing their best to ensure it happens."

Are you QAnonersstill focused on next Thursday for Pres. Trump's reinstatement, or has the date been moved back again by Deep State manipulations?

[apedad]

Foreign National Sentenced for Money Laundering Funds to Promote Turtle Trafficking

A Chinese citizen was sentenced today to 38 months in prison and one year of supervised release on a federal money laundering conviction.

Kang Juntao, 25, of Hangzhou City, China, had previously pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Camden, New Jersey, to financing a nationwide ring of individuals who smuggled at least 1,500 protected turtles, valued at more than $2,250,000, from the United States to Hong Kong. The court also ordered Kang to pay a $10,000 fine, equaling the total assets he held in the United States.

Kang trafficked in five turtle species protected by the treaty. The eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), the Florida box turtle (Terrapene carolina bauri) and the Gulf Coast box turtle (Terrapene carolina major) are subspecies of the common box turtle (Terrapene carolina) and have been listed in CITES since 1995. The spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) is a semi-aquatic turtle listed in CITES as of 2013. The wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) has been protected under CITES since 1992. The turtles are worth on average between $650 to $2,500 each in the Asian market. Female turtles with rare markings have been sold for as much as $20,000.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/foreign-national-sentenced-money-laundering-funds-promote-turtle-trafficking

I don't understand criminals sometimes.

[apedad]

Aryan Circle Gang Leader Sentenced to 87 Months in Prison for Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering

A Texas man was sentenced today to 87 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release for his role in directing subordinate Aryan Circle (AC) gang members to assault and inflict serious bodily injury on a victim.

Martin joined the AC in the early 2000s and held the rank of upper board member at the time of the offense, meaning that he was one of the five highest-ranking AC members in the country. In this role, Martin made decisions and directed the actions of other gang members regarding a range of issues including who to recruit and admit as members of the gang; who should be disciplined or removed for violating the AC rules; and which rival gangs the AC would fight with or against.

According to court documents, Martin learned that another AC member wanted to switch his gang affiliation, or “patch over,” from the AC to a different gang. Martin ordered AC members to attack the member to “X” him, or remove him from the gang, because it violated the AC’s rules to join a different organization. On Martin’s orders, several AC members then violently beat the victim, including by kicking the victim in the head while he was on the ground. The attack resulted in the victim obtaining medical care and suffering long-term injury.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/aryan-circle-gang-leader-sentenced-87-months-prison-violent-crime-aid-racketeering

As in the case above, I'm amazed at the formal organization and logistics involved in these criminal activities.

Seriously, if you're going to put in the work, then why not go legit?

[apedad]

New Hampshire lawmaker made the absurd claim that COVID-19 vaccines contain a 'living organism with tentacles'

Holy crap!

This wasn't on Rep. Ken Weyler's personal social media accounts.

This dumbass put the claim in a 52-page report he e-mailed to the NH Fiscal Committee members.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nh-lawmaker-claims-covid-vaccine-has-living-organism-with-tentacles-2021-10

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, that's in Guam tipping over territory. He should probably be getting a psychiatric exam.

Not forced to get one, mind you, but he should get one voluntarily.

[David Bremer]

Cthulhu lives in us all.

[MP]

He didn't draft the report.

And the report is pretty awesome...insofar as it a premier example of conspiracy theories run amuck.

[David Nieporent]

Group of Louisiana state legislators claim that Pfizer hasn't actually been approved, and demands that the state department of health make that announcement. Governor laughs at them. Finally, the exasperated (GOP) state Speaker tells legislators that they're no longer authorized to write stupid shit on Louisiana House of Representatives letterhead.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_3395d3c2-246b-11ec-8782-d3e2fc728c19.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitternoladotcom&utm_campaign=snd

[AtR]

Should lawyers be disbarred for failing to support "the narrative"?

https://ldad.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/DC-Ethics-Complaint-Against-Jeffrey-Clark.pdf

[apedad]

No they should be disbarred if they, ". . . engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. . . ."

To reiterate, Mr. Clark’s proposed December 28 letter said that the Department of Justice had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.” THAT STATEMENT WAS FALSE. (my emphasis) The Department of Justice had identified no such concerns and moreover none existed. On the contrary, before Mr. Clark delivered his letter to Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue, the Department of Homeland Security had announced on November 13 that “the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.” The State of Georgia had confirmed the Georgia election results after two hand recounts. Courts across the nation had rejected dozens of lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign containing claims of voter fraud and the Georgia Supreme Court itself had dismissed one of those suits on December 13.

[AtR]

To clarify, at question was a letter that Jeffrey Clark sent to his superriors, asking them to sign on as the official position of the department. The question appears to hinge on whether the department considered the concerns identified a "significant" - this appear to be an opinion statement, and not a matter of fact.

[M L]

“the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.”

Wow. Just lies and more lies everywhere you look.

[apedad]

You're free to join the Kraken team and MyPillow guy in presenting evidence of any criminal activity.

[jb]

This was the conclusion of Trump's own administration, no?

[Nelson]

Stop using inconvenient things like facts to make your point. Obviously Trump has ushered in a postmodern, posttruth, and postmoral utopia.

[M L]

Figures it would be the trump administration telling more lies.

Meanwhile back in reality, a few short years ago the new York times and democrats and republicans all used to agree that voting by mail is less secure. Which would make this the leasts secure election by far. And they weren't even dreaming of universal automatic mailing of ballots.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link to original source material. The complaint seems self-explanatory to me.

The conduct of various lawyers was essential to Donald Trump and company´s perpetration of the Big Lie. Those lawyers should not squawk when the chickens come home to roost.

[BrianL.]

“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” -- Ayn Rand

[IPLawyer]

If we can ignore reality why would it be that there is anything else true about the world that we couldn't ignore just as much? What a stupid statement

[Illocust]

So I have a question, how should a libertarian government handle foreign non-libertarian governments distorting the market? I'm not talking about in situations such as subsidizing chair production. The libertarian arguement there is that we are better off for having cheap chairs and the only people screwed are the citizens of the other country. I'm talking about market distortions in what products are availble.

If a foreign non-libertarian government conditions access to their products, markets, and citizens on an agreement to not provide or modify a product provided to the rest of the world, it is a market distortion based on force. How should a libertarian government deal with this?

[apedad]

This is all hypothetical because there are no libertarian governments.

So may even say "libertarian government" is an oxymoron.

Governments make laws and rules.

If it's citizens are being threaten by a foreign entity (as in your example), then a government should act to counter the threat.

If the government doesn't act, then it could lead to the fall of the government and/or fall of the nation.

Being "libertarian" has nothing to do with it.

[Illocust]

Alright, then substitute in "what actions should libertarians recommend to a government" for "how should a libertarian government". The main question is how the libertarian philosophy handles such a issue.

[apedad]

I think Brett B. mentioned once that being Libertarian doesn't mean it's a suicide pact.

If there's a threat, then an action must be taken to counter/neutralize it.

[MP]

Mis-allocation of resources by an external entity isn't a threat. I'd think it would only rise to a level of "threat" if the external entity was causing a situation where it was somehow impossible for the affected entity to be unable to have an economy that allows for basic subsistence.

Beyond that...if the Chinese subsidize steel which causes all of Gaultville's steel plants to shut down...then *shrug*. Gaultville will just allocate to somewhere they have a competitive advantage.

[apedad]

Agree. I'm just saying IF there's a threat then something has to be done - regardless if you're a Libertarian.

[MP]

There's nothing anti-libertarian about self-defense. But the threat should be material and imminent. And it's very hard for me to rationalize how such any sort of economic threat would become material to the point of justifying force.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that's unrealistic.

China has long pursued a policy of luring in essential parts of other countries' industrial ecology, (Rare earth refining, for instance, or manufacture of some electronics.) by subsidizing them, so as to render those countries dependent on China, even for strategic military supplies.

The obvious implication is that, having rendered you dependent, they will cut off the supplies if you displease them. They've gained the ability to crash the world economy, and threaten to use it as a weapon. Setting aside little things like spyware in routers.

Interdependence and specialization is not a threat among friendly, peaceful nations. It IS a threat when one becomes dependent on a hostile totalitarian power.

[MP]

A truly libertarian society would say "go ahead and crash the world economy" and call their bluff. Additionally, raw material dependence isn't actually a dependence from a subsistence perspective. Sure, there might be an adjustment/adaption period of there was a disruption, but that doesn't mean force is warranted to prevent it.

[Krayt]

"We will sell them the rope with which to hang them."

Anyway, a libertarian government would have no problem playing hardball with a dictatorship. You have no more right to access to a dictatorship's products than you do to sell food to a hostage taker. This is a perfect thing for democracy to control.

[bernard11]

Could you give an example, even a hypothetical one?

"You can't export your cars to us unless you refuse to export them to Country X."

Is that what you're getting at?

[Illocust]

Hmmm, I was more thinking, you can't export your cars here unless the cars you sell to other countries meet X standard, but yours seems to be the same premise.

[ducksalad]

I'd say the answer depends on your theory for why we should have free markets at all.

If your starting premise is that consenting adults have a moral right to associate and trade with minimal interference from the government, independent of whether that gives the best economic outcome, you get one answer. The government should probably do little or nothing, and certainly not place restrictions on its own citizens to retaliate for what some other country is doing.

If your starting premise is utilitarian, that governments should enforce the best economic outcomes, and it just so happens that free markets do that but only if other countries play along, you get another answer. If the government can't get bad countries to play by the free market then you jail, fine, or punitively tax your own citizens who wish to deal with those bad countries. Since your own citizens are only ones you can jail, fine, or punitively tax.

I guess you can tell which side I come down on.

[M L]

Libertarian philosophy is extremely incoherent and naive, so I don't expect you'll get any good answers.

And by that I mean the "real" fully libertarians. As a general political direction relative to the status quo or mainstream views, I like libertarian.

[Nelson]

OK, I'm looking for a little lawyer/ConLaw knowledge. Here are my questions:

1) I believe that, in Roe, the right to an abortion was judged to be part of the unenumerated rights to privacy and/or bodily autonomy. Is that correct?

2) Are there other rights that could be asserted to protect abortion if a fetus does not have legal status as a person?

3) Are there rights that would become relevant if a fetus does have legal status as a person?

[Krychek_2]

1. Been a while since I read Roe but that sounds right.

2. Yes. Privileges and immunities, which include medical decision making and bodily autonomy. Also Ninth Amendment and right to liberty.

3. Even if the fetus is a legal person, the question would remain whether one person has the right to effectively seize another person's body for nine months. I could not force you, against your will, to let me sleep on your couch for nine months; the idea that one person can seize another person's body for nine months is problematic.

This sounds harsh, but the fetus would then have the legal status of trespasser.

[wreckinball]

The fetus is not some random person on your couch. It's your kid. If you decide you no longer want your kid you can't kill them.

[apedad]

Fetus = kid.

No.

[Don Nico]

"Fetus = kid." ..... "No."

Language is a weapon in the class warfare

[wreckinball]

He can't debate so the one line snippets is it. You know the science is "settled" LOL.

[Sarcastr0]

Posting is praxis.

[wreckinball]

It has a heartbeat, it has organs , if it was born prematurely it would survive. That is a kid. That was my grandchild. He didn't turn into a kid just because my daughter chose not to abort him.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like you agree with Roe about when it attains personhood and rights.

[M L]

Roe does not say that personhood is obtained at viability.

[Sarcastr0]

It says rights attach by the third trimester.

Arguing via magic words is pretty lame.

[Nelson]

The standard you just described is viability. Good to know you have joined the rational side of the argument.

[M L]

So those who allow abortion after 20 weeks are the irrational side of the argument and are killing babies?

[Sarcastr0]

Amazing false choice you set up there.

[Nelson]

26-30 weeks for sustaining brain development, but 26-27 weeks would be the end of the second trimester. Almost every fetus is unviable at 20 weeks.

But yes, arguing that a fetus that can't sustain its own life is a person (or is alive or can be murdered or is invested with legal protections or however you choose to say it) is the irrational (as in "not-rational") side of the debate. It is pure faith and emotion.

Which everyone has the right to use when choosing their own behavior. But no one else.

[M L]

Newborns can't survive on their own to precisely the same degree.

[Nelson]

Nonsense. And this sort of dishonest, bad faith argument is typical.

If a newborn is left in a crib, it will not instantly die. It will, biologically, sustain its own life. Before viability, a fetus removed from the womb and laid in a crib will instantly fail. It is incapable of sustaining its own life.

Pretending that viability means anything more than that is intentionally deceitful.

[M L]

Newborns can't survive on their own. It will not, biologically, sustain its own life. Or non-biologically, either. Whatever that means. Pretending the rapidity with which it perishes means anything is . . . dumb.

The discussion here is about a commenter above who seemed to take the position that upon viability, that is a "kid" and a "child," and so killing it would be tantamount to (doesn't necessarily mean equal to) murder. And you said that was the rational side of the debate. I would tend to agree.

I think reasonable minds can disagree about abortion, especially given that a lot of people haven't really thought it through, but there are boundaries. Allowing elective abortion beyond the point of viability at 20-22 weeks is beyond the pale. Yet the pro-abortionists are so extremist in their thinking, that this is what they do.

So the position that abortion after viability at 20-22 weeks is tantamount to murder is the reasonable one. To say otherwise is unreasonable. As for before 20-22 weeks, it is still the termination of a living human. One might reasonably conclude that because it cannot live outside the mother's womb, then it has less value and so shouldn't be viewed quite as seriously. But there are some difficulties with this. First, just because it is a bit less serious, does that mean terminating its life for any or no reason is justified? Terminating a human life is pretty serious, even a little tiny one. Second, this position has to contend with the fact that a newborn or an adult in an ICU, or an Alzheimer's patient, or an adult with severe mental disabilities, etc etc also can't live on their own. We don't generally see it as acceptable to kill them, so why the unborn? In response, one might argue that terminating the life of a fetus is justified because of the burden that it imposes. The burden it imposes is unique and different than the above examples of born people who can't survive on their own, in that it is specifically tied to the mother and her body (side note, notice that she's called a "mother" for a specific reason, because she has a child). The main reason that such a burden would be unacceptable is if it is imposed without voluntary consent or assumption of the burden or risk. But everyone knows that sex carries the risk of pregnancy, and having sex is voluntarily taking that risk except in cases of rape. Other than consent, one might argue that the burden is still too great, and even if the risk was voluntarily undertaken, terminating the life of the fetus is justified enough that it should be legal even if merely for convenience's sake. Such a view seems to reduce the value of the unborn human life essentially to zero.

Purely scientifically and logically, a natural conclusion would seem to be that any living human, no matter how small or at what stage of development, falls within a rather clear category with bright line boundaries, and this is much more significant than any sorts of subdivisions or subcategories. Being a human is more important and significant than whether you are black, white, brown or any other shade of skin color, big, small, cognitively impaired or very smart, old or brand new. You might point out those things matter in some contexts, like you need to be 25 to rent a car, but none of those subdivisions are very significant compared to the category of being a human. If our moral reasoning and strong intuition seems to be that living humans are valuable and shouldn't generally be killed at will by other humans, then it would seem that this judgment ought to apply to the entire category at least to some degree, such that any living human is considered deserving of at least some kind of legal protection and consideration.

People may reasonably disagree about exactly what that should look like. Whenever you assert that something should be done by government force, the big question is always on what scale of jurisdiction? We may not approve of China's concentration camps, mass torture, rape, and genocide of ethnic and religious minorities, forced abortions and sterilizations, and other such things commonly seen around the world and in history, but they are not part of our jurisdiction so it's not really our business or within our capacity to go in and correct everything.

So whenever you say, we're not going to allow murder or rape, for example (or any other government rule), there's always a question of how big a territory you are going to impose your moral conclusions upon by using force and government to enforce these rules, and whether you should impose upon a neighboring group or culture that seems to be in wide disagreement with you. But as far as the basic premise that any living human ought to be valued and considered worth protecting at some level, the main reason this isn't accepted is just that it's inconvenient.

[Krayt]

In this discussion, provisionally yes.

It takes two to tango, and, aside from rape, a woman knowingly risks pregnancy with sex. As such, there would be millions of years of implied agreement. A guy risks it, and is on the hook no matter how drunk or careless he is.

As far as I am concerned, ensoulment is a religious concept, and therefore should not hold sway at a legal level. Abort away.

[DaveM]

Then what is it? Please, be precise. No "clump of" nonsense.

[Nelson]

Using your analogy, you can throw them out. If they can't survive on their own, that isn't on you. You aren't killing them.

[wreckinball]

A one year old can't survive on their own. You can throw them out?
So go ahead keep posting. Looks good on you.

[Nelson]

We were discussing an adult child on a couch. You can throw them out and are not responsible for them.

Any adult can sever responsibility for any child at any time. It happens every day.

[Illocust]

You can't throw your child out in the middle of a blizzard with no clothes. You will be charged with negligent homicide when they die. You can sever your rights at any time of the day, as long as you turn them over somewhere that they can reasonably assumed to be safe first.

[Nelson]

No, but you can sign away your parental rights and you no longer have any responsibility for the child. If a fetus is a person, they can do that at conception, if they want.

No one has an obligation to protect, save, house, feed, or in any other way support another person.

A fetus, as a person, would have neither more nor less rights than any other person, correct?

The puritanical argument that a woman, by choosing to have sex, automatically surrenders her rights to a fetus is unconstitutional on its face.

[Krayt]

They have no obligation, but if someone steals your ladder and you go yank it ​back while they are using it, and they break their neck, that is murder

Your idea only works if the fetus is not legally a person with rights, in which case your argument is not needed.

If it is, then arguably the woman implies consent with the pregnancy itself, aside from rape.

[IPLawyer]

I can't believe some of the stupid shit I read in the comments here

[M L]

"No one has an obligation to protect, save, house, feed, or in any other way support another person."

Yes, they do. Any parent or other person with a child in their possession or custody has such an obligation. And if they were to abdicate it, any infant would promptly die. There are many such cases, usually with druggies who passed out.

Can they unburden themselves of this obligation? Yes through proper procedures, none of which involve killing the child.

[David Nieporent]

No, but you can sign away your parental rights and you no longer have any responsibility for the child. If a fetus is a person, they can do that at conception, if they want.

No one has an obligation to protect, save, house, feed, or in any other way support another person.

I am not sure why you think this. Hint: it is very much not correct.

[SimonP]

By the same token, the government can't force you to adopt a kid you don't want. Or, if it somehow did, it ought to help you raise it. Right?

So what work is the characterization "your kid" doing, in the analysis?

[David Nieporent]

If you decide you no longer want your kid you can’t kill them.

Now you tell me?

[Illocust]

3. Can't be a trespasser if you are the one who put me on the couch and I'm not concious/capable to remove myself. Think of a boat instead of a couch, you've placed me on your boat and sailed miles and miles out to sea. While you ordinarily have the right to revoke your consent for me to be on your property at any time, in this situation you are required to take me somewhere I can reasonably be expected to survive (a.k.a. land) before being able to exercise your right to revoke consent.

[wreckinball]

Yea arguing witches ghouls is a little pointless. Of course you are killing a baby. They just want to do it apparently up to the moment and a little after if it suits the mother.

[Sarcastr0]

Arguing via 'of course' is a clue you're not really arguing at all.

So is speculative telepathy about they people you're arguing against.

[wreckinball]

I know exactly who I am arguing with. There is pro-life and pro-death. Guess which side I'm on,

[Sarcastr0]

I think you've chosen to not think hard enough to actually understand the debate.

You are one of those for whom politics is identity, and facts or nuance don't need to enter into it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not think hard enough to actually understand"

Sarcasto: "You don't agree with me, therefore you do not understand. I am very intelligent."

[Sarcastr0]

Not what I said Bob.

[Bob from Ohio]

In fact it is what you said.

[wreckinball]

Ha sure you do. You declare your stuff Gospel without evidence and without justification and then say do research

[Sarcastr0]

No, wreckinball, I judge you on the complete lack of arguments you make, not on your thesis.

[VinniUSMC]

Sarcasto: “You don’t agree with me, therefore you do not understand. I am very intelligent.”

90% of Sarcastr0 posts nowadays can be summed up as this.

[DaveM]

And I think you've perhaps chosen to avoid the debate because you aren't willing to address the simple (but inconvenient to you) truth that a baby is a baby.

[Sarcastr0]

Begging the question just makes you look too dumb to engage.

[Nelson]

And I'm assuming you are addressing point 3, where a fetus is given personhood status. If not, it isn't a child, an individual, a human being, or a person based on US law.

[Nelson]

This was supposed to be a reply to wreckinball.

[Illocust]

I'll certainly answer, even if not directed at me. If another person involved is really the only relevant arguement left in abortion. Cutting up a corpse, animal, or mannequin isn't murder no matter what reason you have for doing it.

[Nelson]

No one is cutting up a fetus to abort it. Third trimester abortions, short of medical necessity (like the fetus failing to thrive) doesn't happen, legally. And we are talking about legal abortions here.

"Partial birth abortions", abortions causing depression, abortions causing infertility, abortions causing cancer, and any one of a thousand other lies anti-abortionists spout have a specific purpose, but honest discussion isn't it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Third trimester abortions, short of medical necessity (like the fetus failing to thrive) doesn’t happen, legally. "

A lie.

Multiple states do not make such a distinction.

[Nelson]

And yet it hasn't been done, legally, in decades. It's pretty much the definition of a straw man.

[Brett Bellmore]

Interview with a Doctor

"Well, a large percentage of our patients had no idea that they were pregnant. People go, “How could this possibly be?” Well, look at that reality show. It happens. Maybe you’re a little heavy and you already have irregular periods, or you had intercourse once, several months ago, and the guy said he pulled out and there’s no sex education in your school so you think everything’s fine. Or you never have periods because you’re very thin, or a doctor has told you you were infertile.

I could tell you a million reasons why women who are perfectly smart — and they are, these are not stupid women — don’t come to know they are pregnant. They have no weight changes, they don’t feel sick, they don’t feel movement, or if they do they think it’s gas. Suddenly someone says, “Hmm, your stomach’s looking big, have you taken a pregnancy test?” And the person may have taken a test, and it may have come out negative — I’ve had women that only got a positive on their third test. And either way they think they just got pregnant. They have no idea they’re in their 24th week. So they make an appointment for an abortion, and it takes a few weeks, and they have their ultrasound and find out that they’re at 27 weeks, which is too far for an abortion anywhere. So then what happens? They either give up or have a baby, or they go on the Internet and they find us."

Notice he doesn't say anything about medical necessity? He just requires "a compelling story". He won't do elective abortions at 35 weeks if he thinks there's a risk of complications.

[Brett Bellmore]

Abortion ‘is never, ever a casual decision

"The women Sella treats fall into two categories: those who discover foetal abnormalities; and those with healthy, viable babies whose maternal circumstances mean they could not cope with the baby.

...

A mother of three came to the clinic because, at 26 weeks, her husband was killed in a car crash, destroying her family emotionally and financially, so she felt she could not cope with a new baby. “Unless you have listened to the woman and know what she’s going through, it is hard to understand,” Sella says."

She does elective 3rd term abortions. Not even with the fig leaf of mental health.

[Brett Bellmore]

After 40 years in Boulder, abortion doctor Warren Hern is still at war

"He doesn’t share his clinic’s statistics and rarely speaks of individual cases, but Hern has said he also performs late abortions for women who are not facing any grave medical outcome."

IOW, elective abortions.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, yeah, it's not a strawman. It's not common, but neither is it nonexistent. And these are just doctors who will publicly admit to doing it...

[Nelson]

Then that isn't legal, is it? Roe set a point before which restrictions couldn't be imposed, but with very few exceptions there are state bans on late-term abortions and they don't violate Roe.

But the essence of the point remains. The whole third-trimester "partial birth abortion" or whatever overtly hysterical phrasing is used these days is not a real thing. It is such an outlier that the only reason to bring it up is to inflame people's emotions. Mostly on your own side of the debate.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, I can think of circumstances under which you're getting off my boat whether you can safely do so or not. If you pull a gun on me and tell me you're seizing my boat, for example. If you pose an immediate threat to my health or safety.

But the analogy breaks down anyway because the pregnant woman didn't affirmatively invite the fetus into her womb. At most, she could have done more to prevent the fetus from being there. Sometimes it's not even clear that she could have done more; if she was date raped at a party, for example.

[wreckinball]

When you are at the rape argument you've twisted yourself into a pretzel and have lost the debate. Let's exclude that fraction of a percent,

[IPLawyer]

Yeah... no.

[Illocust]

There are two barrels. One of them contains an unconscious man. I am aware one of these barrels contains an unconscious man. I am aware that the unconscious man being in the barrel is through no fault of his own and he was incapable of taking any action to prevent himself from being there. If I pick up one of the barrels and place it on my boat then sail to the middle of the ocean, I have affirmatively consented for the unconscious man to be on my boat through knowingly taking an action to directly place him in the boat. Remember consent is not the same as desire. I desire to not pay for my icecream, but I none the less consented to pay for it, when I handed over the money.

Your addition to the arguement of a gun being pulled is valid and strengthens not weakens the analogy. Your life being in immediate danger is valid reasons to be allowed to take another person's life, and one of the reasons why immeninent and immediate threat to the mother's life is one of the exceptions nearly everyone places on abortion restrictions.

Rape is not as clear cut a situation. Though someone dropping an unconscious man off on your boat is generally not considered a good enough reason to be able to murder the innocent unconscious person.

[Krychek_2]

But the explicit purpose of putting a barrel -- and its contents -- into your boat is to have the barrel and its contents on your boat. The explicit purpose of having sex, most of the time, is not to produce a fetus. Most of the time, in fact, sex does not result in pregnancy, and that's a good thing. Again, the most that can be said about the pregnant woman is that she could have exercised more caution than she did.

[Illocust]

No, putting a barrel on your boat doesn't have to be because you want to have its contents in the boat. It could be because your going on a fishing trip and want somewhere to store your fish. The point is you can take an action because you only want x result, in this example taking the action of placing a barrel on your boat because you want you want an empty barrel, but that doesn't negate your consent to the actual result.

Sex is like a gacha machine. I put my quarter in because I want the kitty figurine, but the exchange for a quarter doesn't suddenly become invalid because I opened the container to find a doggy figurine instead. I consented to exchange a quarter for a container with only partially known results (I know there can be a dog or a cat inside). I cannot retroactively remove the consent i have at the time because the container had one of the results I didn't want.

[Krychek_2]

But your hypo started out with me knowing that one of the barrels has an unconscious man in it. So yes, if I put a barrel on the boat, at bare minimum I assented to having an unconscious man on my boat if I couldn't be bothered to even look inside the barrel to see if that was the one with the person inside.

That's not what happens with sex. Pregnancy is a possibility, but most of the time it doesn't happen, even when people aren't using protection. It's not like your hypo in which there's a 50/50 chance I'll end up with an unconscious body.

[Illocust]

The exact percentage doesn't really matter. It could be a one in a hundred chance or one in a thousand. You just know that with picking up that barrel and putting it in your boat there is a chance that a completely innocent person is inside, and that that person is there through no fault or action of their own. The odds don't nullify the consent you gave through direct action and knowledge of possible results when you put the barrel on the boat.

[Nelson]

A parent of a live-birth child isn't compelled to care for their child (surrendering parental rights is quite common) so why should a pregnant woman be compelled to do so? What you are actually advocating is for a separate and more extreme set of laws for a fetus vs. a living person.

[Illocust]

Nope, just your not allowed to murder a person once they are a person (when they become a person is one of the real debates. My mother is of the personal opinion it is not until about two years after birth, but opinions and justifications vary). The boat anology is good, because it's very close to the situation that a mother is in. No she doesn't have to let anyone stay on her boat, but if she put someone on her boat she's not legally allowed to toss them over board to drown unless they are a direct and immediate threat to her life. She has to take them somewhere they can safely depart the boat.

[Nelson]

It isn't murder, by any legal standard. And if we want to make a "it was put there so it is an obligation" as in your boat analogy, it is the man who put it there. Nothing inside a woman can create a fetus by itself. So it is only the man's action that creates the fetus.

By your argument, it is the man's responsibility to carry the fetus for nine months, since he made it.

[Illocust]

Asking someone else to put the barrel on your boat is the same as doing it yourself. You still took a direct action knowing it could result in an innocent party being placed on your property through no fault of their own.

Also, you really think that sailing someone out to the middle of the ocean and then tossing them overboard isn't murder? I mean think about it. The mob used cement shoes because it made it harder to find the body. Not because they thought the police wouldn't prosecute them for murder if they just claimed to have revoked consent for someone to be on their boat.

[Nelson]

I think that in a conflict of rights between two people, the fact that Person A cannot survive without Person B doesn't put any burden on Person B to provide anything to Person A.

I know that the anti-abortion argument is that because the fetus cannot survive without the mother, that obligates the mother to carry the fetus. It is a stronger argument that the fetus isn't alive at all.

Consider other restrictions your position would put on the mother. She wants to drink and smoke and take substances that are legal, but toxic to the fetus? She wants to have medical procedures that would require substances like anesthesia that would be "fatal" to the fetus? She wants to have elective surgery to sever the umbilical cord? She wants to do any one of a thousand other things that are dangerous to the fetus, but completely legal for anyone who isn't pregnant? What then? Will her decision making always be subservient to the safety of the fetus? How many activities, behaviors, substances, or choices would you legislate away from the mother?

[David Nieporent]

So it is only the man’s action that creates the fetus.

If the women you've been with are just passive receptacles, you're doing it wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

"compelled to care for their child (surrendering parental rights is quite common)"

Surrendering parental rights is "care", the mother is legally transferring the duty to care to someone else.

If a mother gives birth and just lets the child die without any care, then she is committing manslaughter/negligent homicide.

So she is in fact compelled by law to care for the child in some manner.

[Nelson]

You are trying to put a responsibility on the mother that cannot be put on any other citizen in any other situation. The fact that the fetus is incapable of surviving is an argument that it isn't alive, not that the mother should be relegated to secondary status concerning her rights.

Ultimately, your argument is that if a woman has sex, she (and only she) must surrender her bodily autonomy. A more reasonable conclusion is if the fetus cannot sustain its own life, it isn't biologically independent of the mother's body. And therefore has no individual rights because it isn't an individual.

[Illocust]

Nope, as my boat example showed. I'm putting the same restrictions on her rights that anyone else has in any situation outside of pregnancy. That's why I keep using analogies that show how we handle conflicts of rights in every other situation that is similar. Like the boat, you've got a right to decide who can be on your boat, but you can't just toss people off the boat who are no immediate threat to you. When enforcing your rights, you don't have the legal right to take any action you want. There are restrictions, and they depend on culpability and proportionality.

[Nelson]

And I'm not using an analogy, which is a rhetorical way to hide or distort the actual issues. I'm specifically talking about the conflict of rights between two people and what obligations each has, in terms of the law.

I can't see how to get around the fact that a person is not suddenly obligated to another person if the second person cannot survive without the first person.

[Illocust]

Analogies are how we make sure that consistent principles are applied. They allow us to take the emotion out of a situation and break it down to the relevant questions. They allow us to see how we have already resolved similar issues and apply the same rules across the board instead of just making up whatever rule is convenient at the time. Even when analogies don't fit we learn from them, because by identifying why an analogy is not analogous to the current situation we are able to better identify what factors truly matter in a situation.

The boat is a good analogy because it allows for many of the same situations as a pregnancy. We can have a person's life be completely reliant on somebody else. We can set up multiple situations to test the differences that matter (your not required to sail your boat over and save a stranger that is drowning, just like you aren't required to give up blood for donation, but you can't just toss someone off your boat if it will cause them to drown without further justification.) And come up with a good list of things that make a difference in how rights conflicts should be resolved in the very similar case of pregnancy.

[Nelson]

The problem, of course, is that an analogy is an imperfect reflection of the issue you are discussing. If, on the other hand, you strip away the emotion and reduce it to the least common denominator you have a solid foundation to build your logical argument on.

Fundamentally, the question here is this: what obligates one person to support another? If you talk about a pregnant woman and a fetus, there is subtext and emotion. If you just reduce it to two people, it is a much more fundamental conversation, is it not?

[David Nieporent]

You are trying to put a responsibility on the mother that cannot be put on any other citizen in any other situation.

You're mistaken about the latter, but in any case, pregnancy is sui generis.

[Nelson]

"Surrendering parental rights is “care”"

What? Do you have a citation? Or even a logical argument?

[Bob from Ohio]

The mother has to follow a process to legally surrender parental rights before she can escape her duty to care for her newborn. A pre-arranged adoption or compliance with a Safe Haven Law [dropping the child at a specified place like a hospital or fire station].

Until she does so, she has to care for the newborn. She cannot just drop it of in a basket on a doorstep hoping someone will take care of the child.

[Nelson]

However, there is no provision that says "if the baby can't survive without the mother, the mother may not surrender it".

That said, you still haven't justified why a pregnant woman's rights are subservient to a fetus'.

[David Nieporent]

However, there is no provision that says “if the baby can’t survive without the mother, the mother may not surrender it”.

There really is. Seriously, do you not know this? A mother — or father, for that matter — cannot just say, "I don't feel like caring for this kid, so I'm not going to anymore."

Most states have "safe haven" laws that provide a limited carveout to parents who abandon their newborn children, often as little as a 72-hour deadline, but some as long as 30 days. Within that window, a parent can abandon his or her child, but only after first making sure that the child will be cared for by dropping the child off with the appropriate caregivers (defined differently in different states, but typically hospitals and first responders). Otherwise, abandoning the child is a crime.

[Nelson]

I'm not even talking about care. I'm going to assume that you honestly didn't understand what I was saying.

The fact that a fetus is *incapable* of existing separate from them mother. Not "it's incapable of caring for itself". It literally cannot survive unless it is attached to the mother.

That isn't the responsibility of the pregnant woman. She has no obligation to involuntarily support a fetus that can't survive without the mother providing sustenance and shelter in her womb. What justifies the mother's rights being subservient to the fetus'?

[David Nieporent]

I’m not even talking about care. I’m going to assume that you honestly didn’t understand what I was saying.

I mean, these are actually your words, just a few posts above in this thread: "A parent of a live-birth child isn’t compelled to care for their child (surrendering parental rights is quite common) so why should a pregnant woman be compelled to do so? What you are actually advocating is for a separate and more extreme set of laws for a fetus vs. a living person."

So, yes, you actually even were talking about care. And my response is that your understanding of what parents have to do for 'living persons' is wrong.

The fact that a fetus is *incapable* of existing separate from them mother. Not “it’s incapable of caring for itself”. It literally cannot survive unless it is attached to the mother.

I mean, yes, before a certain point that's true. But you haven't explained why that fact would mean that a mother would have less responsibility, rather than more.

What justifies the mother’s rights being subservient to the fetus’?

The fact that a fetus is incapable of existing separate.

If I walk by a starving panhandler, I am not obligated to give him any money or food to feed himself. If my son is starving, I am obligated to give him money or food to feed himself. What justifies my rights being subservient to my son's?

[M L]

1. Yes but also importantly, an unborn baby was judged to not be a person for purposes of the US Constitution and federal law.

2. No, not in the sense of "rights" that federal courts have jurisdiction to define and enforce against state or local governments. Other than that, maybe, sky's the limit.

3. Yes, for example, the right to life.

[Illocust]

1. Eh, that can change in a heartbeat, and will change once the artifical womb is eventually created. Kind of like how once meat can cheaply be grown in a lab with the right flavor profile, killing animals for meat will eventually become illegal (a good time away). It's how humans work. Once starvation stopped being a real problem we stopped being sympathetic to parents who left infants to die from exposure.

[M L]

Right. Mass murder is a constant norm throughout human history, easily excused whenever and wherever it is seen as profitable or convenient.

When the particular instance or form is no longer profitable or convenient, it then becomes very useful as a target of flamboyant moral condemnation, as vociferous as it is phony. This of course serves as a soothing salve of self-righteousness over fresher sins and horrors.

[Krayt]

Long way back, when lab grown meat was literally just science fiction, some hard core vegetarians suggested meat would n9t be ok even in that case.

1. It came from an animal. Maybe a killed one. Maybe a live one painlessly harvested. Fruit of a poisoned tree.

2. Eating meat itself is psycho-psionically-karmically inherently evil and alters the mind to see killing and predation and my eyes glazed over. So even lab-grown meat is inherently evil to eat.

[Illocust]

Honestly I think vegetarians are silly. A chicken is little better than a plant with legs on the life scale. I just recognize how humans tend to make moral decisions. Once it costs us nothing to declare something to have rights, we give it rights. Give a trashcan googly eyes and we'll start transferring emotions on it.

[ducksalad]

I know a vegan who is even opposed to purely vegetable meat-like substitutes, the reason being that it's an attempt to get an illicit pleasure one should not even be seeking.

[Nelson]

That sounds like a recovering Catholic. We can feel guilty about anything.

[Nelson]

I can see the anti-abortion position once the fetus can be transferred to an artificial womb. Until then, I don't see it as a moral argument.

[Bob from Ohio]

" I don’t see it as a moral argument."

That's it guys and gals, Nelson has decreed morality on this issue.

[Nelson]

No, I said that *I* don't see it as a moral argument. Unlike the anti-abortionists, I am not trying to force my moral conclusions on anyone else.

I not only acknowledge that there are many different moral conclusions people have come to about abortion, I am a fervent advocate of each person being allowed to use their own moral beliefs to inform their actions.

That is the exact opposite of decreeing morality.

[M L]

The pro-abortionists are the ones who imposed their moral conclusions on everyone else in Roe v Wade. And what a grotesque moral conclusion it was.

But go ahead and see how far you can carry this idea of not imposing moral conclusions on anyone, when it comes to the termination of innocent human life.

[Nelson]

Is anyone forcing people to get abortions and I just never heard about it?

Your moral conclusion is that abortion is morally wrong. Nothing and no one is forcing you to act contrary to your beliefs.

My moral conclusion is that abortion is morally acceptable. If you get your way, I would be forced to accept your moral conclusions, not mine.

*You believe* that it is an innocent human life. It is by no means an established fact, anywhere. It isn't the dominant belief of Americans. It isn't the dominant belief of scientists. It is literally an unestablished and unsubstantiated assertion by a small, but vocal, minority. Ipse dixit of the worst kind, dressed up in moral superiority, self-righteousness, and unwillingness to grant others moral agency.

If you don't support abortion, don't have one. But you don't get to make that choice for anyone else. Certainly not without a better reason than "we're more moral than you are.".

[M L]

It actually is an established fact. Is it alive or dead? And what species is it? There you go, human life.

SCOTUS in Roe decided that a local community or state was not allowed to decide whether the human life is a "person" meaning meriting legal protection. Or congress either for that matter. They imposed their moral conclusion on everyone else.

You might say, but a state concluding a fetus is a person is also imposing the moral conclusion of the majority in that state against a minority in that state. Yes. That is how our government is supposed to work, for better or worse.

Peter Singer and others believe it should be ok to kill a newborn as well. Some murderers think it's ok to murder whoever they want. We impose on them.

[Nelson]

Fair point. I once again got sloppy with my words and conflated "personhood" and "life". Which, of course, is not a fact.

The debate isn't about biological life. It is about when a fetus legally becomes a person. And the position that a fetus is a person at conception is, at best, a fringe belief. And it is the worst sort of conclusion: unclear, but stridently advocated as an absolute truth by a small, vocal minority who claim moral superiority to anyone who doesn't agree.

"They imposed their moral conclusion on everyone else."

No, they made a legal determination. And it didn't impose anything on you. It literally changed nothing about what you would or could do regarding abortion. You would never consider abortion before Roe and nothing has changed after it.

Overcoming the right to bodily autonomy isn't something that should be subject to opinion. Ultimately, a person's rights are more important than someone else's belief. I find it compelling that an organism must be able to sustain its own life, biologically, before it can be considered a person. You don't. But I'm not trying to infringe on someone else's right to bodily autonomy. You are. To me it is simple, logical, moral, and personal.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. The same goes for your opinions.

[M L]

"The debate isn’t about biological life. It is about when a fetus legally becomes a person. ​And the position that a fetus is a person at conception is, at best, a fringe belief."

Well, in the United States, for purposes of the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS, a fetus is not a person. So if anyone believes that a fetus is a person for purposes of the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS, they are wrong.

For other purposes, fetuses might be a person. But as a legal matter generally, abortion is generally allowed in the United States. Actually, abortion policy in the United States is somewhat ghastly, most European nations and other nations around the world don't allow such late abortions for any or no reason as the US does.

The general definition of "person" is, someone who has legal rights. So the "debate" as far as legally becoming a person, is really over who SHOULD be a person, not who IS a person. People want to change laws or say how laws should be, not just say what laws are. Unless of course the argument is framed more in terms of natural rights. If someone is arguing over what IS a person and not just what SHOULD be a person, then what they are saying perhaps is that a "person" means a human being with natural rights endowed by God that SHOULD be recognized by any just government. That is different from the definition of "person" in a technical legal sense of what current laws mean and how they are applied.

[Nelson]

Here is another question I have for people who believe that a fetus is a person as well as that the courts shouldn't be "activist" and legislate from the bench.

Since the law says that a peraon, a human being, a child, and an individual requires live birth (as in Congress passed the law and the President signed it), shouldn't the courts leave it alone?

If you believe that the courts should overturn the law, what whould the legal rationale be?

[M L]

Courts should not legislate from the bench. Roe v Wade was the all-time worst instance of that.

Personally, if a depraved State wants to allow the killing of innocent human beings, I don't think the federal government (including its courts) should necessarily intervene, or that they necessarily have legitimate originalist jurisdiction under the Constitution to do so.

Whether a state court should intervene is a matter of state law. The only thing worse than "legislating from the bench" is doing so outside of your jurisdiction. Some say that judges have always had fairly wide latitude to interpret the kinds of "rights" for example mentioned in the 9th amendment. Could be. But federal courts would exercise such latitude against the federal government and state courts against the states.

[Nelson]

Following your logic, is there an inconsistency in the following?

1) Federal law, via the Supremacy Clause, will prevail in a conflict between state and federal law.

2) A person/child/individual/human being is defined in federal law as requiring live birth (and, in plain text, not before that)

3) Any state law which seeks to create "fetal personhood" would cone into conflict with (and be overruled by) federal law.

Also, as a general question of jurisprudence, are the legal ramifications of overturning a law or a previous court decision relevant to the ruling? So in considering overturning Roe and the mechanism by which it was achieved, would the Justices consider the follow-on impacts to existing law? Or is that supposed to be irrelevant to ruling on the issue before them?

[M L]

"1) Federal law, via the Supremacy Clause, will prevail in a conflict between state and federal law."

Well, yeah, but there are limits to that, otherwise you wouldn't need most of the rest of the Constitution, like the enumerated powers.

"2) A person/child/individual/human being is defined in federal law as requiring live birth (and, in plain text, not before that)"

Link? Cite?

You're speaking in vague generalities. A word is often "defined" a certain way in statutes just for purpose of that act, or that section, or that provision, or just that sentence, without regard to millions of other legal contexts.

"3) Any state law which seeks to create “fetal personhood” would cone into conflict with (and be overruled by) federal law."

It depends.

There have long been laws that allow homicide charges for someone that kills a baby in the womb outside of abortion.

And, as a matter of fact, contrary to your implication in #2, federal law provides for the same thing: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

[Nelson]

1) I thought that the Constitution is kind of the "uber-law" of America. So basically you can pass any law you want as long as it devolves from (or at least doesn't contradict) the Constitution. Obviously it is more nuanced than that, but that's why I'm asking these questions.

2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Again, I'm not a lawyer or a ConLaw scholar, but this seems pretty comprehensive and foundational.

3) There is a kid who keeps referencing this law (and denying that 1 US 8 excludes fetuses) so I'm more familiar with it than many other laws, but from what I've read that law is saying that for a set of crimes (I believe there are somewhere over 60 listed) a fetus will be considered a victim (but not a person) for the purposes of the law if it is injured or killed. I think it is only a sentence enhancement, in that the crime against the "unborn child" cannot be a stand-alone charge. So it is only in the commission of one of the listed crimes that the "unborn child" is considered a crime victim. If the mother loses the baby in another circumstance (like getting hit by a car while jaywalking or be getting knocjed down by someone running down the street), this law would not apply.

But, again, I am not a lawyer. I try to research and understand the laws and arguments people reference in these blogs, but some laws (like the one you cited) are complex, nuanced, and subject to being misunderstood by non-lawyers like me.

[M L]

Re 2)

You shouldn't need to be a lawyer or a ConLaw scholar to read that statute you cited a little more carefully.

It says that "person" et al INCLUDES any human who is born alive.

It does NOT say that "person" et al EXCLUDES the unborn. In fact, it specifically clarifies that the statute shall not be construed in such a fashion.

Your grocery store advertises that all fruits are on sale for 50% off. You ask if this includes pineapples, and they say yes (or tomatoes if you're cheeky). Does that mean kumquats are excluded?

[Nelson]

Subsection C says it pretty clearly.

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section."

The way I read that is that if a new law were to be passed that expanded those definitions to "a point prior to being "born alive"", this law wouldn't mitigate that law. But for now, the definition of those four words refer only to after live birth (therefore specifically not a fetus).

As far as I know there is no federal fetal personhood law. So as of now, a fetus is not covered by this law bcause that would "affirm" and/or "expand" the law before "live birth"

So basically it isn't constraining future laws, but it does exclude fetuses from this particular law. Is that correct?

[M L]

That law is the same as your grocery store manager saying that fruits include pineapples. In no way does it mean fruits do not include apples, oranges or anything else. It is silent on the issue.

[Nelson]

It very explicitly says that it changes nothing before live birth. A fetus has never been a person under US law or the Constitution. This law defines those terms for all US laws and specifically says that nothing before live birth is changed by the law.

So a fetus is not included in the legal definition of person, individual, child, or human being under US law.

And a false analogy doesn't change that.

[Nelson]

If you haven't noticed, I find analogies revealing of the mindset of the person who presents it, but pretty useless in analyzing a concept. It is far too subjective and inaccurate.

[M L]

The analogy is true and very useful. If you ever study logic or study to take the LSAT you'll learn about sufficient and necessary conditions.

The law you cited takes the following form: B --> P

B = living born human.

P = person.

If you are a living, born human, then you are a person (for the specified purposes). The first is the sufficient condition and the latter is the necessary condition.

Now if B->P is true, can we conclude that P->B ? No, we cannot. Just because all born living humans are persons, does not mean all persons are born living humans. And this basic rule of logic is what subsection C is explaining for the benefit of the reader.

[Nelson]

And I love the tomato comment! LOL!

[M L]

Re 3)

Mostly, you are correct about what this law means. Except here: "a fetus will be considered a victim (but not a person)"

Wrong. If the referenced criminal law uses the word "person" in reference to a victim of the crime, then the effect of this law is that the fetus is a person for the narrow and specific purpose of these criminal statutes.

Again, you are attempting to take words out of their legal contexts and apply the meaning used in that context broadly to other unrelated legal and nonlegal contexts. That's not how it works. Law isn't a computer programming language and neither is English.

None of this is really relevant to the real issue of abortion. It is just some words that Congress legislated. You can see that the politics of abortion likely influenced the drafting. At most, it's minimally, tangentially related to the technical legalities of abortion in a linguistic and semantic sense.

[Nelson]

I guess I phrased that wrong. I meant that the fetus is considered a victim if it was injured or killed and if it happened in the commission of one of the listed crimes.

So basically, this law doesn't say that a fetus is a person for any other laws, just in the specific circumstances listed in the statute. Correct?

[M L]

That's correct.

[Nelson]

For 1), above, I am talking about federal law. Another way of saying it is that I thought the Constitution set the boundaries around federal laws and, if a state passes a law that conflicted with a Constitutional federal law, the federal statute wins.

[M L]

Let's say yes. Where do you imagine there's a conflict between a federal statute and a state law that is relevant here?

[Nelson]

I have no clue. I was interested in the basis of Roe, if there were any other rights or bases that could arrive at the same decision, and what rights might come into play if Dobbs ends with a decision that established fetal personhood.

Calling a fetus a person, a human being, or a child/baby is just one of those things that annoy me for its dishonesty. If people would just say "I believe that a fetus is ...", we'd be on the same page. But anti-abortionists can't help but misrepresent the facts of the moment, which is that legally a fetus is a fetus and not a baby/child/person/human being/individual. After Dobbs thongs may change, but for now that's how things are.

I just hope that, if Dobbs turns put badly for personal liberty, pro-choice folks continue to support the rule of law and don't act like that whack-job who wouldn't issue marriage licenses because she didn't accept Obergafell or, even worse, betray their oaths like Roy Moore did before he got the boot.

[Nelson]

By "I have no clue", I mean I'm not knowledgeable about the specific laws that may conflict with state law, but with person/child/individual/human being being clearly defined as attaching after live birth when included in federal laws, I have to imagine that there are a lot that could come into conflict.

[apedad]

Leilani Lutali: Unvaxxed Colorado woman with renal failure denied kidney transplant

Leilani Lutali, a Colorado woman with stage five renal failure was months away from getting a new kidney. She reportedly met her donor, Jaimee Fougner, in a Bible study just ten months ago. Now, she and her donor are looking for another hospital because of the University of Colorado Hospital’s policy about vaccinations.

According to the hospital, the majority of transplant recipients and living donors are now required to be vaccinated against Covid-19. Neither woman, per news reports, has received their shots. Jaimee Fougner, who is donating a kidney to Lutali, said she hasn't received the vaccine for religious reasons. Lutali said she hasn't gotten the vaccine because there are too many unknowns.

https://meaww.com/leilani-lutali-woman-stage-5-renal-failure-denied-kidney-transplant-until-vaccinated-feels-coerced

Hmmmm.....tough call but I agree with the hospital.

Suppose the patient said their religion opposed pumped oxygen or anti-biotics, etc., i.e. things that would help with the overall success of the surgery.

The hospital could also say, we're not doing it.

She did say she'd sign a waiver but why should the hospital waste resources if her decisions may result in a negative result.

[Illocust]

Not really a tough call. The normal reason to deny organs (triage, to few organs for too many people in needs) doesn't apply here. She will die without a transplant. Her chances of survival go up significantly with treatment. There is no good reason to deny care if she can pay.

[Krychek_2]

Disagree. By not being vaccinated she puts the hospital and its staff at risk. She's free not to vaccinate; they're free not to assume the additional risk she poses.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, she's not putting them at risk of anything. They're taking preventative procedures anyway, and regularly encountering vaccinated people after work. You can make an argument for the vaccination improving her prognosis after transplant, but it's total BS that she's endangering the hospital.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
An patient vaccinated or not could be infected with COVID. The hospital would be prudent to insistent on two negative PCR tests shortly prior to any such major surgery.
As Brett notes,the immuno-suppressants that the recipient will be given argue for being vaccinated before the surgery.

[David Bremer]

Well, any surgery--hell, any interaction--puts the doctors and staff at risk. After all, she could have any number of infectious diseases that could spread to staff or other patients (e.g., MRSA, HIV, etc.)

It's understandable that the hospital should and will work to mitigate the risks. The surgeons will take various precautions (e.g., wearing gloves and masks). And nobody would object if they said the patients need to be checked for Covid first.

The only reason to outright refuse treatment--Hippocratic oath be damned--is to ostracize those who refuse to get the vaccine. As current vaccination rates show, this sort of attitude has been incredibly counter-productive. But, at this point, everyone's more interested in social signaling and imposing upon those you disagree with.

[VinniUSMC]

Disagree. By not being vaccinated she puts the hospital and its staff at risk. She’s free not to vaccinate; they’re free not to assume the additional risk she poses.

Y'all "Science" believers have gone off the deep end.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm kind of on the fence about this: Oxygen or antibiotics are much more directly related to the success of the operation than the vaccine is. OTOH, she's going to end up on immune suppressors, it would probably be helpful to have been vaccinated prior to the surgery, because contracting Covid without the ability to generate an immune response would be bad news, and the circulating antibodies would be protective.

But, of course, she's going to have to take precautions against infection anyway.

But, you could say that of any vaccination in her position. Are they requiring her to be current with any other vaccine, or just this one?

Realistically, while you can make an argument for her getting the shot, all they're really doing is exploiting leverage to get a mostly beside the point compliance.

[wreckinball]

Being unvaccinated does not equal being infected with Covid. AIDS is contagious and is transmitted by what some consider dangerous behavior. It also puts the hospital at risk because its a blood born disease. Should we ban all AIDS patients from medical treatments? Of course not

But the political doctors say no simply because the AIDS demographic, gay men, is now a preferred identity group.

This sucks there is no justification. If you do it you should have your medical license immediately suspended. We don't need political doctors

[Bob from Ohio]

"I agree with the hospital"

Of course, its consistent with your view on abortion.

The hospital is killing her on purpose. They ought to be ashamed.

[Krychek_2]

So not accepting a patient who puts them at higher risk is now killing her? Send us a postcard from whichever planet you're visiting.

[Bob from Ohio]

There is no risk to anyone who works at the hospital, they are all vaccinated.

[Don Nico]

Like other arguing on the other side, Bob, you are grossly mis-characterizing the situation

[David Bremer]

It is when the risk is incredibly marginal and can be mitigated with various easy work arounds (e.g., having them get tested).

As others point out above, this argument would justify refusing treatment to not only anyone currently with HIV, but to anyone with a higher risk of having HIV. You may want to think about the implications of that first.

[wreckinball]

It's not medicine or science it s politics. They know they can be hypocrites. Unvaccinated = undesirable demographic OK to deny medical treatment, AIDS = desirable demographic (gay men) therefore you are a monster if you deny medical treatment

[Life of Brian]

Unvaccinated = undesirable demographic OK to deny medical treatment

And on top of that, it's not nearly that clear-cut. Just wait until the disparate impact statistics catch up with this one.

[Krychek_2]

Are they planning to exchange body fluids with the person with the elevated risk of HIV? If not, there's no risk. You can stand as close to someone with HIV as you like and you're not going to catch it unless there's an exchange of body fluids.

[David Bremer]

Now you're moving the goal posts. We're talking about risk, not guarantees. There is an increased risk of contracting HIV if dealing with an HIV patient, even if you can take measures to ensure that risk remains small.

Here, the hospital can take all sorts of steps to minimize the risk to them. They can test her for the disease. They could ask her to quarantine too. They could (and likely have) get vaccinated themselves. Yet, they are still refusing.

At this point (and assuming the story is reported accurately), it's not about risk; it's about coercion and punishing people they don't like. That's a very, very dangerous road for medical workers to start down.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
You are really underestimating the risks when there are changes of fluid splatter, spray etc.
My daughter work in pathology at UCSF and SF General during the height of HIV transmission. There is a reason that face shields, triple gloving and other such precautions were taken.

[Ben_]

What did The Good Guys do this week? They trespassed and harassed a female Senator in the bathroom and released a video of it. Biden made it clear he wasn’t too upset about that. That’s The Good Guys for you.

In other news about The Good Guys, see this story about Logan Dubil: https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=18235

The Good Guys demand what they call "respect" but of course we have all seen that they offer only hostility in return. In the name of "inclusion" The Good Guys are trying to get Logan kicked off campus.

[Ben_]

The common thread is that leftists believe in ideals BUT: https://mobile.twitter.com/Doc_0/status/1445372206561779716

BUT whenever they want something their principles are temporarily suspended. And they always want something.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're utilitarians, basically: The end justifies the means.

The problem is that once you decide an important enough end justifies any means necessary, all your ends become cosmically important.

It's part of why everybody opposed to them has become a Nazi: The worse the evil you're fighting, the worse your tactics can be, and still be justified. Regarding your opponent as evil frees you to do evil things yourself, with a clear conscience.

So they just keep ramping up how evil they consider the opposition to be, to free themselves to use any tactic they want.

[apedad]

Are you describing Trump again?

[wreckinball]

Ha TDS when you've got no comeback

[apedad]

Not all.

Brett's description perfectly fits Trump.

The ends justify the means.
Belittle the other side
Call them evil.

[wreckinball]

Yea you're in denial. Give me an example of action beyond mean tweets

[wreckinball]

So let's do some compares on ends justify the means behavior

Which admin is this:
1) Advocated lockdowns by executive order
2) Advocated vaccine mandates
3) Calls those that disagree with them domestic terrorists and locks them up for months without bail or a trial
4) Expands the definition of terrorism to include parents who disagree with their school board
5) Advocates for more censorship of free speech

[wreckinball]

Well you know if its an emergency do principles don't apply . They have a whole menu of these emergencies to now choose from.

Covid, guns, climate change, racism. I'm assured (black robes and lawyers insist!) that the founding fathers meant the constitution to be suspended if any of these things are going on. And if they didn't they are just old white men so the constitution doesn't apply

[wreckinball]

The good guys also setup a plant (the FB whistleblower) so that they can censor free speech even more. Because that's what good guys throughout history have always done. Censor free speech

I mean whistleblowers always immediately get their former employer to do what they say and get the power of congress behind them. Ha!

She's as close to a whistle blower as Christine Blasey-Ford is to a sexual assault victim,

[Sarcastr0]

You should lay off the tin foil.

[wreckinball]

So you think the whistleblower and Ford are legit? And then throw out the tin foil hat reply. Go ahead make my day with a counter point

[wreckinball]

Let me start with Ford:
1) Don't know where
2) Don't know when
3) Waits decades for a confirmation hearing (opportune political moment) to reveal what she doesn't know when and where it happened
4) Tries to get her alleged best friend to collaborate but friend declines

Ha, yea its "tin foul" to think she may be a fraud.

[Sarcastr0]

This tracks with how memory of a long ago traumatic events tends to work.
It does not track with a plant, who would be better prepared.

I also note that you've pivoted away from the Facebook whistleblower being a plant.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It does not track with a plant, who would be better prepared."

Yes it does. A plant would avoid making a falsifiable claim.

[Sarcastr0]

Make an unfalsifiable, but concrete false claim is not hard.

Try again.

[Brett Bellmore]

It can be fairly hard to make an unfalsifiable concrete claim about events decades earlier; Any concrete details you provide risk permitting your target to produce an alibi. Give a specific date and location? He may have proof he was elsewhere. Say it happened somewhere or other in a several year interval? Probably he can't prove where he was the whole time.

[wreckinball]

Sigh, yea weak reply on Ford. It would have been much clearer if she filed charges when it happened. Gullible rubes only believe the politicized allegation, but reject it when their guy is the one being accused.Aa test , what do you think of Tara Reid?

Sigh fake FB whistleblower (aka Vindmann syndrome)
1) Quits her position at FB whom she's blowing the whistle on for something that is not illegal, i.e. not censoring enough, and that FB is explicitly protected from by section 230
2) Immediately gets a 60 minutes gig and a congressional hearing on how we need to censor more
3) FB of course now totally agrees with her and will censor opponents of the regime more (oops I mean "misinformation")

Comeback with stronger sauce dude you're weak. Snarky but weak.

[M L]

Pasting my comment on Ford from 2 weeks ago below. See also my comment below on the "whistleblower."

Actually Ford’s story did contradict itself.

1. Ford’s letter to Feinstein says there were five people at the house, then she wrote a statement in connection with a highly unusual polygraph test that there were 6+ people.

2. Ford’s letter to Feinstein says she was pushed by 1 person, Kavanaugh, then later she wrote 2 people.

3. Ford’s testimony was that the assault happened in 1982, which conflicts with her therapist’s notes and with what she told the Washington Post.

4. Ford changed her description of the house’s layout after investigators produced evidence that undermined her account.

5. Ford backtracked on the location being near the country club after investigators produced evidence that undermined her account.

Of course there are a lot of other ways in which the evidence contradicts Ford’s story, as well. For example, she claimed she couldn’t fly due to fear of flying when evidence indicates she was just recently flying. Her ex-bf testified that she had counseled people on polygraphs which contradicts her testimony. She testified that she never told anyone about this for 30 years, until prompted by home renovations and the need for a “second front door” to feel safe, when evidence indicates that second door was installed 4 years prior and was used as access for other tenants. Not to mention, of course, that all the other witnesses, including Keyser, deny her story. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

By the way, Ford’s attorney stated that protecting abortion rights is “part of what motivated Christine.”

[Don Nico]

Not to mention the fake "littlegirl voice" that Ford used in her testimony in contrast with other recordings of her speech in professional circumstances.
Still she was caught in two easily falsified lies in her testimony under oath.

[Brett Bellmore]

Facebook ‘Whistleblower’ Was Part Of Election-Meddling Team That Nuked The Hunter Biden Laptop Story

She's just pissed that they're not censoring enough.

[Sarcastr0]

Ad hominem, Brett? And the Federalist?!

[Bob from Ohio]

"And the Federalist?!"

Ad hominem, sarcasto?

[wreckinball]

Sarcasto is 100% ad hominem, no content

[Sarcastr0]

The part of my comment you cut out was a substantive engagement with Brett's link, chief.

[M L]

It's interesting that there is apparently a perceived need for MUCH MORE political censorship and control through social media. And that a cheap PR stunt would be necessary or helpful to doing that.

Apparently they think current efforts are not sufficient, and they are ramping it up in advance of the 2022 and 2024 elections.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "...That Nuked The Hunter Biden Laptop Story...."

And this is where I ask Brett (for the ten-thousandth time) this :

What allegation from Hunter Biden's supposed laptop wasn't relentlessly reported in the newspapers, news shows, internet, radio and TV?

Answer : None.

Brett is always weepy & indignant over the failure of what he himself has called an "October Surprise". He just can't admit there was never any there there.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're going to pretend the story wasn't actively suppressed for weeks, just because the effort to suppress it wasn't 100% effective?

[grb]

What allegation from Hunter Biden’s supposed laptop wasn’t relentlessly reported in the newspapers, news shows, internet, radio and TV?

Answer : None.

[Toranth]

According to post-election polling, 45% of Biden voters were unaware of Hunter Biden's laptop or any of the allegations that came from it.
NPR refused to cover the allegations at all.
The NYT reported that there was a claimed laptop, but only to attack any claims.
Other 'news sources' like Politico, CNN, and the WashPo didn't detail the allegations either, only reporting on "Russian Disinformation".
Twitter and Facebook actively deleted discussions of the laptop and its materials.

Are you seriously trying to claim that because a small portion of the vast media industry was talking about it (while the rest either suppressed or actively attacked the mere concept), it was "relentlessly reported"?

[David Nieporent]

That's nothing; wait until you hear what percent of Trump voters are unaware of the fact that his campaign worked with the Russians to win an election, and then that he tried to extort Ukraine into smearing his political opponents.

Twitter and Facebook did not delete any discussions of the laptop and its materials. There were no "allegations." There was nothing to the story. That's why sad, pathetic Trumpkins keep talking only about the meta-story about this purported suppression rather than actually citing "allegations."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If she wants to be involved with more censorship, wouldn’t it have been easier to apply for the position Prof. Kerr has largely vacated at the Volokh Conspiracy?

[Sarcastr0]

So your reasoning as to the FB whistleblower is that nothing Facebook did was illegal, just makes them look bad, and nevertheless Facebook acted to stop looking as bad?

You're pretty foolish.

[wreckinball]

So not censoring makes them look "bad". Um no it doesn't except for the trained moneys in congress and you apparently.

This is a pretense for more censorship, fully backed by congress, but useful idiots like yourself fall for it hook , kine and sinker or maybe that's what you prefer because yo feel it will never affect you.

Oh wait I thought since this was a libertarian site you'd actually be against censorship, My bad comrade,

You're really bad at this debate thing. All snark no content

[Brett Bellmore]

There is no "makes them look bad" without reference to in whose eyes they look bad. Her complaint turns out to be that FB didn't let her censor more. Where her idea of appropriate censorship was censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story. Yeah, she was on the team that decided to do that, and didn't think they were allowed to do enough.

Apparently someone somewhere was allowed to say something on FB that made a Democrat look bad...

[Brett Bellmore]

"This tracks with how memory of a long ago traumatic events tends to work."

If I strain a muscle rolling my eyes, I should be able to get a jury judgement against you. You do realize that psychiatry has pretty much given up on recovered memory therapy, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Good thing I didn't mention recovered memory therapy, then.

[Sarcastr0]

Personally, I don't think it's good practice, and does more harm than good.

But you suddenly the politicians who you consistently hate as a class of people are sacrosanct?
I don't believe you actually care about this for a moment.

[Ben_]

Here's the thing though, I don't have to "care" personally about Kyrsten Sinema individually. I'm against anyone following anyone into the restroom to harass them. Personal affection toward whomever isn't required to make the choice not to do criminal or immoral acts.

You think it's too bad the messaging got messed up.

It's a contrast: unwillingness to commit crimes versus anything goes. It shouldn't need to be stated, but the problem with anything goes is that there's no limiting factor and anything can end up getting you in the history books alongside Pol Pot and Stalin. And anything goes on one side also justifies a strong defense with very few limits on the other. "Progress" down the anything goes continuum has a high probability of a very sad result.

But don't learn anything. Just make up an emotionally satisfying story and decide to believe it so you don't have to learn any lessons that cast doubt on The Good Guys.

[Sarcastr0]

This is just 'my side has a monopoly on virtue.'

Ironically, you seem to be using that cartoonish view to argue anything goes if it owns the libs.

[Ben_]

My side has the monopoly on not following Senators into the restroom to harass them and record them, at least this week. Probably for all of 2021, but cite counter examples if you know any.

I remember my side had the monopoly on not burning down city blocks last year.

A couple years before that, my side had the monopoly on not opening fire on congressmen at a charity baseball game.

My side has the monopoly on not using FISA warrants to spy on opposition campaigns, as far as anyone knows.

I could go on. Too bad only one side has the monopoly on so many of these.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“my side had the monopoly on not opening fire on congressmen at a charity baseball game.“

You know their were too mass shootings that involved shooters who parroted the right’s immigration talking points, right?

[LawTalkingGuy]

*there

[Cal Cetín]

When you've lost CNN, maybe you've gone too far.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/04/politics/kyrsten-sinema-bathroom-confrontation/index.html

I certainly hope these insurrectionists get jailed without bail. /sarc

[TwelveInchPianist]

Looks like it's a crime in AZ to film/record someone in a bathroom without their consent.

[Ben_]

So what? Here's how they treat threats against senators: https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2021/10/06/rand-and-kelley-paul-rip-the-biden-doj-for-not-bringing-charges-against-multiple-people-who-have-threatened-their-family/

[M L]

Lol they don't care about that. They want Rand Paul to be threatened.

But if you stroll into the Capitol like a tourist with the guards opening up the velvet ropes for you and waving you in, they might put you in solitary confinement for 9 months and beat you within an inch of your life.

Unless of course, you were an FBI informant or agent like many in the crowd, you may get off.

[Sarcastr0]

Death threats to Congressional offices are extremely common. I've handled a few myself.

[David Nieporent]

I hope on the receiving end only!

[Cal Cetín]

I'll mention this one more time, concerning suing states in lower federal courts, and then I'll drop the subject. I am aware that the precedents are contrary to what Hamilton said, so I'm taking that as a given. Precedents can be overturned.

“The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only ‘in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.’…In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”

/Federalist 81 (Hamilton)

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed81.asp

[not guilty]

Somehow I missed any reference to exclusive original jurisdiction.

[Cal Cetín]

Hamilton wrote before abortion-related suits against the states were a thing, so he was behind a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" about the anti-choice implications of his principles.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How do you see the jurisdictional question having implications one way or another for the substantive outcome?

[M L]

Nearly everything has ill suited a State's dignity for over century now.

[Sarcastr0]

1855, if I recall you correctly.

[M L]

Sweden, Denmark, and now Finland have all banned the Moderna vaccine for younger people due to risks of death, myocarditis, heart inflammation. Sweden banned it for those under 30 years old.

Whoops!

In related news 3 Moderna founders have just joined the Forbes' list of richest people.

[apedad]

You might want to change your comment.

1. Those countries paused (not banned) Moderna.
2. "A Nordic study involving Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark found that men under the age of 30 who received Moderna Spikevax had a slightly higher risk than others of developing myocarditis," he said.
3. The Finnish institute said the Nordic study would be published within a couple of weeks and preliminary data had been sent to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for further assessment.
4. The EMA's safety committee concluded in July that such inflammatory heart conditions could occur in very rare cases following vaccination with Spikevax or the Pfizer/BioNTech Comirnaty jab, more often in younger men after the second dose.
5. Regulators in the United States, EU and the World Health Organization have however stressed that the benefits of shots based on the mRNA technology used by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech in preventing COVID-19 continue to outweigh the risks.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/

[M L]

"Those countries paused (not banned) Moderna."

They don't allow it for certain younger age groups. You're not serious here, are you?

[apedad]

A temporary pause is not a ban.

[M L]

You're pulling my leg right. Pretty good humor if you are.

But yes. At one time we had a temporary pause on the sale of alcohol here in the States.

[apedad]

And if it does turn into a ban it will because of SCIENCE.

[Don Nico]

apedad,
Please lose the caps in science. We are not going to see a divine revelation in either direction.

[M L]

Harvard study: vaccination levels unrelated to COVID cases

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

"In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people."

[David Bremer]

Yes, but did you read to the end?

In summary, even as efforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humility and respect. Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.

So are you for going back to distancing and masking while we work to figure out treatments? Because that's what this paper would argue.

There are also other considerations that can affect this. For example, once vaccines became available, people could do things to mitigate the risk of significant harm and began engaging in things more likely to lead to spread (e.g., going back to office, stop wearing masks, etc.). So it's not entirely surprising that areas with greater vaccines (and people taking greater risks) will have some greater level of spread.

[M L]

"basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing"

Yes I'm in favor of washing hands "or" maintaining safe distance. I would encourage people not to go into a mosh pit when there's bad sniffles going around in your community. And, if you do, wash your hands after.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's fascinating. You somehow managed to read the whole paper, which said nothing about masks, and see "masking" where it said "hand washing".

[David Bremer]

Well, since we have talked about hand-washing since before Covid, that's not really one of the non-pharmaceutical prevention efforts that we instituted because of Covid. "Maintaining safe distance" was what prompted stay-at-home orders and banning all sorts of activities (such as youth or recreation sports). To "renew" those would me to bring back some form of compelled distancing. And, when a safe distance can't be maintained, such as in school settings, going to grocery stores, etc., it means masking.

So yes, if you read this and think about what they are saying, it does mean returning to mask mandates, crowd and activity limits, etc.

[Don Nico]

I am really surprised to find this paper in a Nature family publication. A study of correlations over 7 days hardly deserves the appellation of "study."
Looking at the Figure 1 in "Findings" the data are completely consistent with zero correlation. In fact the conclusion quoted is entirely driven by 5 outlier data points. While it is dishonest to remove these and recompute. You must also include them in in the computation of the variance of the correlation coefficient or or the chi-square of the fit.
I'd put no confidence at all in this preprint.

[M L]

Thanks for the analysis.

[Don Nico]

Another objection to this comment
This is a so-called "study" by one researcher at the Harvard School of public Health and one from a secondary school in Brampton, ON Canada.
It is not a Harvard study.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Some fun facts about perhaps the most covered song in rock history, "Louie Louie."

It was written and first recorded by the Los Angeles R & B singer Richard Berry in 1957. It didn't sell much and in 1959 Berry sold the rights to that song and a couple others to his label for $750, because he wanted to get married and needed some cash. No one really knows now how often the song has been used, but there are over 2000 recorded covers, and it's been used in dozens of movies. Berry got no money at all from all that use, until legal actions in the mid-1980's resulted in a settlement where he got 50% of the songwriting royalties going forward. No back royalties, but Berry literally went from living on Welfare to being a fairly wealthy man.

The most famous version is of course the 1963 recording by The Kingsmen. For a number of reasons, including that he didn't know the lyrics very well, the singer Jack Ely slurred the words to the point that they cannot be deciphered in many places. This caused many listeners to assume that they were dirty (they aren't), and complain about the song being played on the radio. The FBI initiated a 2 year investigation, including interviewing group members and getting the original master tape. They concluded that there was no evidence the lyrics were obscene. Amusingly, in that two years they seem to have missed that at the 56 second mark of the recorded song, you can clearly here the drummer, Lynn Easton, shout "Fuck!" very loudly. Listening with headphones or earbuds it can be heard quite clearly.

[M L]

Robert W Malone - the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology - has been IP blocked by the New England Journal of Medicine from reading their website.

https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1446064487988146180

"This is fascinating.
I am apparently no longer allowed to read the New England Journal of Medicine.
They have blocked my internet protocol address."

[grb]

M L : "Robert W Malone – the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology...."

You need read no further to know ML has been duped again. Malone did not invent "mRNA vaccine technology"- something you can confirm a zillion times over with the briefest fact-check. Hell, Malone didn't know himself he'd accomplished such a grand deed until just recently : A self-penned summary of his career in 2019 didn't mention the feat.

As a grad student, Malone joined a research team at the Salk Institute that had studied RNA expression / transcription, before falling out with his supervisor and moving to a start-up rather than wait around for a PhD. The Salk work produced a 1989 paper on RNA transfection with Malone as an author. Since then he's bounced around academia & the pharmaceutical industry, leaving no significant accomplishment in his wake. Nothing from his career makes him the "inventor of mRNA vaccine technology"

So here are the questions, ML : Should you go to a bald-faced liar about his professional standing for medical advice? Malone's resume lies seems to presage his looney-toon gibberish of quack cures and vaccine fantasy side effects.

Bonus Question : Why are you so damn gullible?

Bonus Bonus Question : Haven't you ever wondered why your handlers suddenly programed you to be anti-vaxx? Shouldn't you take a sec & work that out?

[Don Nico]

As a public service here is Wikipedia's description: (citation callouts omitted)

In the 1980s, while a researcher at the Salk Institute, Malone conducted studies on messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology, discovering that it was possible to transfer mRNA protected by a liposome into cultured cells to signal the information needed for the production of proteins. In the early 1990s, he collaborated with Jon A. Wolff, Dennis A. Carson, and others on a study that first suggested the possibility of synthesizing mRNA in a laboratory to trigger the production of a desired protein. Malone claims to be the inventor of mRNA vaccines, although credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi,and was ultimately the result of the contributions of hundreds of researchers, of which Malone was but one.

[M L]

Reads like a fair summary, on its face.

I wonder though if he claimed to be "the" inventor or just "a" inventor.

[grb]

1. Do you honestly think even "an inventor" is warranted by the above?
2. Would anyone take his quackery seriously without this "inventor" bullshit?
3. Why do you credit his garbage, inventor or not?
4. Why did your handlers suddenly remake you into anti-vaxx???

[Don Nico]

GRB,
"1. Do you honestly think even “an inventor” is warranted by the above
Did you read the first line in the wikipedia bio noticing a key "discovering"?
"In the 1980s, while a researcher at the Salk Institute, Malone conducted studies on messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology, discovering that it was possible to transfer mRNA protected by a liposome into cultured cells to signal the information needed for the production of proteins."

The "an" looks fair in a chain of discoveries by many people.

[grb]

OK : Does that mean all the other hundreds of researchers involved in the decades of work leading to an mRNA vaccine are also its "inventor" ? Does that make the scientists whose work was much more important "inventors-plus" ? It seems a pretty elastic way of describing credit & input, which I suspect isn't typical in cases where defending an anti-vaxx loon isn't the aim. As I point out above, Malone didn't even know he was the "inventor of mRNA vaccines" until the title was needed to justify his quackery. He left the accomplishment off a list of career accomplishments as late as 2019.

Oh, and he definitely has described himself as THE inventor of the vaccines (as has his wife. If only my Ex had been so dutiful!). The fact that he's a liar as well as a head-case is irrefutable.

A question, Don: You've said you're in the profession or discipline of science in some capacity & insist your Covid comments aren't exclusively nipping at the heels of people who dare criticize anti-vaxxers (like a furious little terrier, to wax metaphoric). I've seen little evidence of this even-handedness, but here's a chance to prove me wrong: What is you're informed opinion of Robert W Malone's Covid claims? ML might benefit from your input.

[M L]

So you're saying he was not IP banned by the New England Journal of Medicine from reading their website? What's your evidence for this?

I'm not anti-vaccine, so apparently you just make things up, otherwise I'd be more curious about some of your vague unsupported claims.

[Sarcastr0]

You share constant anti-vaxx articles on this blog, so forgive me if I don't take your protestations in good faith.

[M L]

This is really easy to explain.

With the increasing insanity and political dysfunction that inevitably results from centralizing too much government power and decisionmaking in D.C., which has been accelerating in recent years, the vaccines have become politicized. The vaccines have been politicized just like COVID and ivermectin and masks and everything else. They are politicized primarily by those who want to seize unprecedented powers, and who want to distract from rampant corruption and negligence by driving agendas and issues that they know will be divisive.

I'm opposed to said seizure of unprecedented powers, such as unprecedented types of vaccine mandates by executive order. So, while I've always been OK with an unworried about vaccines (but also unconvinced of any great necessity to be vaccinated against the flu every year for example), because of the tyranny just described, I'm interested in illustrating the reasonableness of doubts about very new vaccines, and generally the high degrees of uncertainty inherent in frontiers of biological science like this which are contrary to the smugly confident misunderstandings continually asserted by authoritarians who love authoritarian policies.

[grb]

M L : "This is really easy to explain"

The "increasing insanity and political dysfunction" has came from your side alone. The Right chose Covid Denialism as agitprop to stoke their base. Since then they’ve taught their followers to believe the disease isn’t serious, its effects are exaggerated, the statistics are phony, people’s deaths aren’t real, the medical experts are Bond-grade villains, all precautions are irrelevant and secret miracle cures are being hidden from us.

They’ve fought tooth&nail against every single measure to fight the pandemic, right up-to & including vaccines. We’ve seen immediate & vigorous push-back from the Right against any new tactic for fighting Covid, based on nothing but the crudest possible political calculation.

Do you even believe your own nonsense about tyranny? You're a person who has lived with dozens of vaccine mandates your entire life, and yet here you are play-acting hysteria about "those who want to seize unprecedented powers." I apologized for being so blunt, but you are completely full of shit.

You say you're "interested in illustrating the reasonableness of doubts about very new vaccines", but that doesn't justify peddling obvious lies - not even in this Age of Trump. Maybe instead of worrying about owning all those "smugly confident" Libs, you should try just growing the fuck up.

[M L]

You're a special one. Few try and deny that that the Wuhan covid pandemic has brought unprecedented new centralization of and increase of government powers. Maybe you can be one of the few authoritarian enough to try and defend Bidens executive mandate. My body my choice, slaver!

[grb]

And you're a gullible fool - a puppet dangling at the end of someone else's string. Actions taken in the 1918 Flu Pandemic:

Schools, theaters, churches and dance halls in cities across the country were closed. Kansas City banned weddings and funerals if more than 20 people were to be in attendance. New York mandated staggered shifts at factories to reduce rush hour commuter traffic. Seattle’s mayor ordered his constituents to wear face masks. The first study found a clear correlation between the number of interventions applied and the resulting peak death rate seen. Perhaps more importantly, both studies showed that while interventions effectively mitigated the transmission of influenza virus in 1918, a critical factor in how much death rates were reduced was how soon the measures were put in place.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/rapid-response-was-crucial-containing-1918-flu-pandemic

There's absolute zero "unprecedented" about the measures used to fight this pandemic, you're just too damn ignorant of history to know any better. And if they had a vaccine back then? Well, I doubt they had enough morons to make a pro-disease political party, like today's Right. They'd have welcome the vaccine just like people have welcomed vaccine mandates against Hepatitis B, Diphtheria, Polio, Chickenpox, Measles, Mumps, and Rubella.

You’ve lived with those mandates your entire life, as have your parents, your siblings, friends, neighbors & coworkers. The only difference today is your political masters told to think 180-degrees different and - needless to say - you responded with immediate servile unquestioning obedience. That's more slavish than anything I'm asking you to do, ML.

I just want you to question the people who program your thoughts.

And act like you've got the slightest bit of common sense for a change.

[grb]

M L : "I’m not anti-vaccine...."

Do you really believe that? It's hilarious to consider, but maybe you do. Your ideological masters decided Covid Denialism would stir up the base, so maybe you're so bifurcated in mind and soul that you "believe" constantly peddling anti-vaxx claptrap has nothing to do with your "beliefs". That's something I could see happening in a Trump supporter.

After all, Fox News pushed stories undermining vaccines at least once on 99% of the days from 01 April to 30 September (181 out of 183). They demonized public health officials, called for civil disobedience to vaccine requirements, pushed fraud claims of vaccine deaths and promoted quack cures as an alternate to vaccination. Yet they claim they're not anti-vaxx, so why not you too?

PS : Days 182 & 183? They fell during the Afghanistan withdrawal. Fox News was too just too busy on those days to bother convincing imbeciles to remain unvaccinated.

https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/fox-has-undermined-vaccines-nearly-every-day-last-six-months

[Don Nico]

Of course, as an open access journal (by mandate of the NIH) NEJM is available for anyone to read, except for those who have interfered with the website.

[M L]

The facebook "whistleblower," a former middle manager who debuted her new shtick in remarkable fashion with an immediate 60 minutes interview and Senate testimony, full PR and legal team and press contact . . . is represented by Jen Psaki's PR firm and Eric Ciaramella's ex-CIA lawyer.

LOL.

[apedad]

Martinned provided the Wiki link for emergencies in the US which is pretty interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States#:~:text=List%20of%20national%20emergencies%20in%20the%20United%20States,Persons%20Wi%20...%20%2015%20more%20rows%20

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-operative-says-it-hurts-white-kids-to-make-kids-of-color-feel-they-belong

The quote from the campaign manager for school board members was: “helping kids of color to feel they belong has a negative effect on white, Christian, or conservative kids.”

I was going to say the usual “someone is saying the quiet part out loud with a bullhorn” thing in response to this insanity. But rarely do you see a strict racial hierarchy, couched in terms of a hierarchy of children’s feelings, stated so baldly. Even segregationists would often couch their beliefs in terms of separatism being beneficial for everyone.

Anyway, add this to the pile of examples that “anti-CRT” advocates have an agenda that isn’t very pretty.

[MP]

Projection? Unsurprising that The Daily Beast provides no context. Also unsurprising that since the context free quote supports your narrative, you buy into it in full.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There is zero context which makes that statement better, as the board President noted. And her attempted clarification didn’t do much better.

Also you can’t just say “projection” and expect it to mean anything. Particularly when what I’m doing is quoting someone else. Like what am I supposed to be projecting?

[MP]

You're projecting your belief that the person in question was clearly articulating a racist position.

I could easily believe she was clumsily trying to making a point about how race centric anti-racist programs/initiatives promote segregation and classify others as bad based on the color of their skin or as bad because they don't walk lock-step with the ideology.

But if you just want to think the worst of people, go ahead.

[LawTalkingGuy]

She said what she said. So you’re either 1) a credulous fool or 2) a bad faith troll who wants to gaslight people into believing that even the most blatantly racist sentiments aren’t bad and are missing “context.”

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That isn't projection. Unless you are making the argument that LTG is racist, and projecting his racism onto the statement by Mary Beeman. A clearly ludicrous argument, if that is indeed what you are saying. More likely you don't understand projection in the social psychological sense.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What context are you hypothecating that would make it better? Do you suppose she prefaced it with, "here is an example of a transparently racist sentiment that does not reflect my actual beliefs:" or something?

[M L]

MERCK SELLS FEDERALLY FINANCED COVID PILL TO U.S. FOR 40 TIMES WHAT IT COSTS TO MAKE

The Covid-19 treatment molnupiravir was developed using funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense.

https://theintercept.com/2021/10/05/covid-pill-drug-pricing-merck-ridgeback/

Note that the buyer at this price is also the government.

[jb]

Wouldn't it be cool if the government that paid for the development of the drug could also negotiate prices with the company trying to profit from it?

[M L]

‘We’re in the middle of a major biological catastrophe’: COVID expert Dr. Peter McCullough

In a recent lecture, Dr. Peter McCullough presented alarming data related to COVID vaccines, the fraud of national health authorities, the ‘Therapeutic Nihilism’ being exercised in hospitals, and the urgent necessity of active resistance.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/were-in-the-middle-of-a-major-biological-catastrophe-top-covid-doc-mccullough/

“I think the reason why everybody’s here is we have a sense that something very bad is going on in the world. And I’m here to tell you, I think it is,” he said.

“If you feel tension right now and you feel some emotional distress and if you feel as if things aren’t going right … I think your perceptions are correct,” the physician continued.

[M L]

STUDY: Vaccine-associated myocarditis is greater risk to children than COVID

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1

"For boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021 (7-day hospitalizations 1.5/100k population) and 2.6-4.3-fold higher at times of high weekly hospitalization risk (7-day hospitalizations 2.1/100k), such as during January 2021. For boys 16-17 without medical comorbidities, the rate of CAE is currently 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk, and 1.5 to 2.5 times higher at times of high weekly COVID-19 hospitalization."

[Don Nico]

Before drawing any conclusions, I suggest that people look at the entire paper AND the open critiques of the work offered in the open peer review and comment section.

[M L]

Here also is a news story covering some criticisms of the study, and including quotes from the authors in response.

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2251

[rsteinmetz]

Ifound out the other day that our great ally the Frebnch catagorically refuese to extridat anyone to the United States for crimes committed in the US. Ifound this out reading about a Frenchman indited for multiple rapes in the US who "went home for Christmas" a couple of years ago. Most peoplle know about Roman Polanski this only happened a couple of years ago.

[Bob from Ohio]

You have to be a French citizen to benefit. They won't extradite French citizens anywhere. There are some other countries which are similar.

In theory France can prosecute crimes committed elsewhere by its citizens but I do not know if they actually do so.

[rsteinmetz]

Thhat is only one in a long list of think the French have done in their own self interest.

The recalled diplomats from the USbecause the USand the UK sold some submarines to austrailia.

They recent made Jesse Jackson a Commander of the Lefion of Honor because of the improvements he adocated in eth US.

Reviewing French history in the last century of the French acting first and foremost for themsleves.

[Cal Cetín]

Wait, they *did* make Jackson a Commander of the Legion of Honor

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/french-president-honors-us-civil-rights-leader-jesse-78928176

Isn't Jesse one of the original woke guys? I thought the French were trying to distance themselves from "American" wokeness.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Seems like the shitty little snowflakes at the University of Michigan are butthurt that a professor played a video of Laurence Olivier's performance of Othello.

The professor has been removed from the class.

[Titus PUllo]

DOJ putting their crack antiterrorist team on parents is something I would think the legal eagles here would comment on..well I guess we know why..Garland can't be criticized can he?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, you've cracked it. This site is almost unreadable with the never ending wall of text obsequiously singing the praises of Merrick Garland.

[Don Nico]

What is Mr. Biden doing to avoid a direct military confrontation with China?
Please don't say that he has assemble a team of experienced and competent military advisors? After Afghanistan, that dog won't hunt.

[Commenter_XY]

The hugely increased naval activity of UK, AUS, JPN and India in concert with the US might forestall an invasion of Taiwan by China. I tend to doubt this, but it is the best we can do for now (and sell the Taiwanese all the weaponry that they can possibly purchase to become a porcupine). At least POTUS Biden is not stopping that increased naval activity in a bid to appease the communist totalitarians in China.

Regardless, China will move on Taiwan.

[M L]

BIDEN: "When you see headlines and reports of mass firings, and hundreds of people losing their jobs, look at the bigger story...United went from 59% of their employees [vaccinated] to 99%..."

Interesting, so when you fire all the unvaccinated employees, the rate of vaccination tends to go up.

Hoo boy.

Starting to see why Osama bin Laden wanted Biden to be president and thought this would lead the US into crisis. Crafty guy that bin laden. https://nypost.com/2021/08/20/bin-laden-warned-in-2010-letter-that-biden-would-lead-us-into-crisis/

[David Nieporent]

Interesting, in that you are either not-very-intelligently misunderstanding what he said, or are deliberately misreading it. The 99% figure is the figure before they were fired, not after.

[M L]

Peter Daszak, Who Sought U.S. Funds for Wuhan Lab and Aided Cover-up, Faces Calls to Quit

https://www.newsweek.com/peter-daszak-u-s-funds-wuhan-institute-virology-aided-cover-faces-calls-quit-ecohealth-alliance-1636103