Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Andrew]

Andrew here again--I'm the undergrad from last week who is writing a paper on the 14th Amendment, Reconstruction, and the Hobbesian Social Contract.

I posted the first part of my research notes last week and now have 2 sections of research notes done if anyone would like to take a look and give any feedback.

13th Amendment and Unfinished Business
https://aota.substack.com/p/abolition-the-thirteenth-amendment

Emergence of Oppressive State Govts Post-Civil War
https://aota.substack.com/p/emergence-of-oppressive-governments

[Michael D]

Hobbes is wrong. There is no social contract.

[darkknight9]

How long can a person be held without trial if they have been charged? Does it vary by state? What reasons would someone have to hold someone untried for years on end without actually giving them their speedy trial?

[David Nieporent]

There are theoretical limits. There are no real ones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder

[darkknight9]

Cripes.

Thank you David.

[BrianL.]

Speedy trial seems to be meaningless. Watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time:_The_Kalief_Browder_Story on Netflix. It's the true story of a high school kid who was accused of stealing another kid's backpack and spent three years at Riker's Island, two of them in solitary confinement.

[BrianL.]

Without getting a trial.

[ducksalad]

There was another case of a person who spent 7 years in pretrial detention.

https://nypost.com/2015/09/10/inmate-takes-plea-deal-after-nearly-7-years-in-rikers-without-trial/

But apparently some fraction of the delay was due to the defense attorneys.

[Krayt]

That seems to be a loophole, the defense lawyers agreeing to extensions so they can get more done. Yet they cannot just request delays until some arbitrary too long passes.

[BillyG]

Check out Kevin Mitnick some time.

[Moderation4ever]

An interesting question, you might consider the cases of detainee held in Guantanamo Bay. They are of course not citizens. The government seems unlikely to have a trial, lest bad things are revealed or worse yet, the defendant is aquitted.

[rsteinmetz]

They are also in theory prisoners of war and could be held until the war is over.

[David Nieporent]

No; the U.S. has expressly refused to classify them as POWs, because many of the things done to them would be illegal if they were. They're "unlawful combatants."

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, per the Geneva convention, if they were combatants at all, they were unlawful combatants. They weren't wearing uniforms, were they?

The status of unlawful combatants deliberately sucks, as a way of encouraging countries to not use them.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Bush/Cheney pressuring CIA interrogators to torture detainees in order to elicit false confessions tying Saddam to 9/11 is the most awful thing a president has ever done. Why no whistleblowers came forward at the time is an equal scandal.

I will never forget being called a “traitor” for opposing Iraq and opposing what became of Afghanistan because i didn’t think it wise to spend $5 trillion to slaughter random Muslims on the other side of the world. Everything after December 2001 in the GWOT saved zero American lives and in fact killed more Americans than OBL and Saddam combined! Thank God Trump had the nuts to stand up to the Military Industrial Complex and surrender to the Taliban.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! Man, are you naïve.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

What could be worse than lying America into an asinine war?? What could be worse than selling America out to China??

My theory is George Bin Bush read one too many book about the Greatest Generation and wanted boomers’ swan song to gift the world Jeffersonian Democracy and free markets. Instead he started and mismanaged two asinine wars that killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden while squandering what should have been the strongest economy in American history as the boomers didn’t turn 65 until 2011 all the while China is made great again.

[Currentsitguy]

Although getting OBL was obviously critical, personally I think we invaded the wrong country from the get go. Considering the origin of most of the hijackers, we should have taken Saudi Arabia, seized the oil fields, toppled the Kingdom, and lined up every single last Imam in the country against the wall.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not really practical, though I understand the sentiment.

The Saudis could easily destroy their oil producing infrastructure on short notice, and they produce enough of the world's oil that if you invaded and they blew things up on the way out, you'd get a world-wide depression that would kill a lot of people.

That said, the decision to hand Kuwait back to the royal family, who'd slunk out in advance of the invasion, was pretty stupid. We could have taken the place over as a protectorate, and the population would have thanked us, they were not exactly fond of their rulers.

[Absaroka]

"We could have taken the place over as a protectorate, and the population would have thanked us..."

Just looking at the last couple thousand years of history, that seems extraordinarily unlikely.

"... they were not exactly fond of their rulers."

Outside of his own tribe, Saddam wasn't very popular, but we seemed to wear out our welcome pretty fast.

[Moderation4ever]

The problem with using uniforms is that we are not really talking about a battlefield. Many of the people were captured during their routine lives. If you are at home with your family and an extraction team captures you, are considered a non-combatant because you are in street clothes?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Pardon me Mr American general—do these uniforms meet Geneva Conventions standards?? If not can you give me several billion dollars to buy proper uniforms so we can fight you by GC standards?? All praise to Allah!

[TwelveInchPianist]

They're supposed to distinguish themselves from non-combatants, so they don't put legit non-combatants in danger.

But they're entitled to a legit trial.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, not a defense of Guantanamo. Which was chosen on the bogus theory that we could be totally in control of a place, and yet it wouldn't count as US territory for purposes of the Constitution applying.

Just saying that, if they were indeed combatants, they'd have been unlawful ones.

[bernard11]

if they were indeed combatants, they'd have been unlawful ones.

Big "if."

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Meh, people die in war…that’s why I don’t care about torturing detainees for information. The liberal media really screwed up the water boarding issue because it should have focused on attempts to elicit false confessions.

[Krayt]

John McCain was waterboarded, and not "to see what it was like". He said it was torture. That's enough for me, and anybody else.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

McStain said solitary confinement was the worst torture—KSM has been in solitary for almost 2 decades!!! Furthermore, McStain didn’t have actionable intelligence so the torture was to elicit false confessions. Also, McStain didn’t do a positive thing since the ADA in 1990.

False confessions are immoral even if elicited with puppies licking a detainee’s face. I’ve thought a lot about all of these issues the last 20 years and I’m probably the most ethical person on the planet because I’m not competitive and I have a 125 IQ and I’m wealthy enough that I can live comfortably enough in middle America if everything goes to shit and I have no desire to live in NYC or Malibu.

[jimc5499]

I was "waterboarded" in SERE school in the early 80's before it was popular. Not an experience I'd care to repeat.

Under military law, any of those detainees that were caught with a weapon or violating certain laws, could have been shot on sight or by firing squad at a later date.

[Queen Amalthea]

This 'war' often doesn't involve 'countries.'

[Harvey Mosley]

I have never understood how it can be "unlawful" for a civilian to defend their home from an invading army.

[dwb68]

What opinion are we getting tomorrow? What does Vegas Say?

[John F. Carr]

People in Boston, including the mayor, don't understand the use-mention distinction: "An arbitrator has ruled that the Boston Police Department must reinstate a police officer who was accused of calling a group of Roxbury Prep students racial slurs, saying that the officer was just giving a 'truthful accurate report' to school staff."

https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/12/03/boston-police-officer-to-be-reinstated-after-firing-over-allegations-of-racial-slurs/
https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/12/06/michelle-wu-calls-reinstatement-of-boston-police-officer-fired-over-allegations-of-racial-slurs-unacceptable/

If one reads between the lines (we have only a reporter's summary of a lawyer's memo drawing on an arbitrator's summary of the evidence) one student called another a Bad Word, the officer told school staff, and was fired for using a Bad Word. He would have been better off careerwise shooting the kids.

[Queen Amalthea]

"one reads between the lines "

Usually a bad idea...

[Ed Grinberg]

With all the "political correctness," you pretty much have to.

[Queen Amalthea]

With all the misinformation (which often springs from people 'reading between the lines') you should be wary of doing so.

[MP]

The officer was re-instated because the Officer made a "truthful accurate report to two school officials to give them the specific, eye-witness testimony they needed to address serious problems with student behavior".

There's zero evidence given anywhere of slur usage.

Why exactly do you believe otherwise...other than it matches your preferred narrative?

[Queen Amalthea]

Did you mean to reply to John? It was he who said "If one reads between the lines ...one student called another a Bad Word, the officer told school staff, and was fired for using a Bad Word". I criticized the first six lines of that statement.

[MP]

The evidence on hand is that the officer was fired for making "truthful accurate report to two school officials to give them the specific, eye-witness testimony they needed to address serious problems with student behavior". There is zero evidence to the contrary. John's rephrasing doesn't change the substance of the presented evidence one iota.

[Queen Amalthea]

So it's interesting that you're responding to me about John's claim (repeatedly), and not him. Is this your way of trying to wink at me?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Usually a bad idea..."

Any reason to think that this particular inference is unreasonable?

[Queen Amalthea]

Talking about a general heuristic. Any reason to think it's wrong in this particular?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes. The particular inference here strikes me as reasonable.

And why would making inference from available facts generally be a bad idea?

[Queen Amalthea]

I think it's a bad idea to read an ostensible factual report of an incident and proclaim what 'really' but 'went unsaid' happened. I'd wait for more confirmed data for any proclamations. YMMV.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I think it's a bad idea to read an ostensible factual report of an incident and proclaim what 'really' but 'went unsaid' happened. I'd wait for more confirmed data for any proclamations. YMMV."

I would think that some inferences can be made from an ostensible factual report, other can't. YMMV.

[Queen Amalthea]

That's an odd argument against a general heuristic.

[Krayt]

I think we're 12 orders off the central finite curve of detailed knowledge of what occured.

[Queen Amalthea]

"The particular inference here strikes me as reasonable."

Why?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Because the use of racial slurs was found to be in the course of a truthful and accurate report about the student behavior. You don't they would re-instate a cop who said something like, "the niggers were misbehaving", do you? And if they did, the criticism would be more explicit about what he said.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Because the use of racial slurs was found to be in the course of a truthful and accurate report about the student behavior."

"If one reads between the lines (we have only a reporter's summary of a lawyer's memo drawing on an arbitrator's summary of the evidence) one student called another a Bad Word, the officer told school staff, and was fired for using a Bad Word. "

???

[TwelveInchPianist]

That scenario would be consistent with the arbiter's finding. A scenario where the cop didn't use any slurs wouldn't be, because it would be unnecessary to reference the cop's report.

[Queen Amalthea]

So John's inference is wrong?

[swood1000]

Some kids say that the n-word was used. Others didn't hear it. No context is given. Some say that he called them monkeys.

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm sure Jimmy the Dane and the other's here so passionate about long term/absuive detention will take up this fellow's cause post-haste!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/15/carlos-murillo-vega-lawsuit-private-prison/

[Jimmy the Dane]

Guess I will start caring when people actually have a genuine care about issues like this again instead of using abusive detention/pre-trial detainment for political purposes seen a legitimate because of the people being victimized are of the "wrong" politics.

[Queen Amalthea]

Discussion of Founders that refused to support slavery in their personal public lives. So much for the 'everybody did it back then' defenses.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/opinion/506782-anti-slavery-revolutionaries-who-practiced-what-they-preached

[MP]

"everybody did it back then"

Yeah. All sorts of academic literature making that supposition. You're on a Straw Woman roll today!

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm talking about conservatives, not academics. We all know there's not much overlap there!

[Michael D]

Who? Where? Citations?

[Queen Amalthea]

You want citations that not many academics are conservatives?

There's been some posts about that recently here.

[VinniUSMC]

Your (in)ability to read is ceaselessly amazing.

[mbrettmoore]

Has anyone read the lawsuit Meadows filed against Pelosi and the January 6 committee? I haven't had time and wondered what people thought about it.

[Moderation4ever]

I have not read it also; I would suggest that Mark Meadows is already in trouble. He gave the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol access to many documents and there is no taking that back. He has also written a book for profit that contains information he may wish he had kept secret.

The burden is now on him to claw that information back and resist further disclosures. A tough row to hoe.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not a lawyer, but it appears that Mark Meadow's concern is that the committee is double checking the phone records he provided with the telecommunications company records. Suggesting he is offended that the Committee doesn't believe him.

Again, I think he gave too much and is now trying to claw the information back.

[Number 2]

As I type this I am sitting through a mandatory NJ continuing legal education course on diversity, equity and inclusion. It would be easy to attack the substance of the subject matter, but what sticks out to me is that the course is one great collection of jargon mixed with conclusory assertions presented without evidentiary support or explanation.

[AmosArch]

In other words a state cult.

[Number 2]

Well, I just learned a new word: “invisibilizing.”

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you think there aren't plenty of examples of marginalizing or erasing the presence or contributions of certain groups? Or do you object to creating a term for that phenomena?

[VinniUSMC]

Do you think, at all? Or do you get a script?

[Jerry B.]

One expects that if you’re not sufficiently doctrinaire, you go to the wall.

[Queen Amalthea]

The hyperbole is strong with this one.

[swood1000]

a mandatory NJ continuing legal education course on diversity, equity and inclusion

What are some of the conclusory assertions? I have never seen the assertion of systemic racism given with evidentiary support. I have seen facts cited such as that 65% of black children live in a single-parent home, compared to 24% of white children, and that black high school students are less likely to receive a high school diploma, but the connection is never made to the specific system responsible or what part of the system should be changed to remedy the situation. There does, however, appear to be a robust argument in favor of uprooting the entire system and then rebuilding in a manner that will equalize economic outcomes.

[Number 2]

It’s not even as specific as the statistics you cite. It’s a conclusory assertion such as “microaggressions lead to adverse health outcomes.”

Interesting: they presented a video listing the obstacles to equality that black people face. Notably absent was any reference to a public education system that has utterly failed the black community.

[Commenter_XY]

Number 2, as a fellow sufferer in the People's Republic of NJ, is there really any surprise public education was unmentioned? I mean, the NJEA has the NJ executive and legislative branches by the short hairs, and they yank.

[Queen Amalthea]

The argument is quite simple.
1. For most of our history there was legal and social discrimination on a systemic scale. This of course led to inequality.
2. Inequality begets further inequality (those whose parents went to college are more likely to go to college, those with wealth are more likely to be approved for loans, those with wealthier networks are more likely to land good jobs and other economic advantages, etc.,)

[MP]

"systemic scale"

That's not a thing. And it intermixes definitions.

Systemic Racism means there are specific societal mechanisms, particularly legal ones, that reinforce racism. It's not a function of scale. It is a large scale issue...i.e. Systemic Racism is a large scale form of Racism. Large Scale Racism is not necessarily Systemic.

[Queen Amalthea]

That's pedantic puddle-duck at best.

Systemic means "of or relating to an entire system" as opposed to "localized" or "a particular part." Scale refers to "the size or level of something, especially when this is large" Systemic scale re racism in the US means it was related to our entire system and large.

But again, that's pedantics. Every non-Vulcan knows what's meant here.

[Illocust]

You forgot the most important part. Therefore it okay to give Obama's daughters affirmative action and discriminate against the white kid who's parent eye crackheads based solely on skin color 😀

[Queen Amalthea]

I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because their parents like to ogle crackheads based solely on skin color.

[Harvey Mosley]

"Every non-Vulcan knows what's meant here."

[swood1000]

Inequality begets further inequality (those whose parents went to college are more likely to go to college…

Washington D.C. spent $30,115 per pupil during the 2016-2017 school year, yet only 23% of the eighth graders were proficient or better in reading or math. Take a look at the achievement differentials by race/ethnicity in the D.C. schools. If you say to someone, “Here’s the path to economic success” and he declines to take it, do you call that “systemic racism”?

[Queen Amalthea]

What do you think this proves? That relatively modest measures to offset deep inequalities that can be traced to the majority of our past don't have quick results?

[swood1000]

What do you think this proves? That relatively modest measures to offset deep inequalities that can be traced to the majority of our past don't have quick results?

To the extent that a kid chooses not to make the effort in school, he should not be told that the reason he is only hired for a low-paying job is outside of his control and is to be blamed on the evilness of the system.

[Queen Amalthea]

So a Noble Lie is what you're pushing?

[swood1000]

What are you referring to by "Noble Lie"?

[Queen Amalthea]

We should ignore obstacles people face because it might deflate them to do otherwise.

[swood1000]

No, that's not what I'm pushing. Re-read my statement and tell me specifically what, if anything, you disagree with.

To the extent that a kid chooses not to make the effort in school, he should not be told that the reason he is only hired for a low-paying job is outside of his control and is to be blamed on the evilness of the system.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Swood, it looks like you have moved, "chooses," into a context with which you are unfamiliar.

Also, the presumption of a just and generally available evaluation of talent and effort might be a stretch.

[Ed Grinberg]

This the exact argument Communists everywhere (from Lenin to Mao to Castro) use to justify their disastrous policies.

[Queen Amalthea]

"one great collection of jargon mixed with conclusory assertions presented without evidentiary support or explanation."

Wow, what a totally different thing from most legal education!

[Jjh_Esq]

This statement explains a lot of your posts perfectly.

[Ed Grinberg]

conclusory assertions presented without evidentiary support or explanation

https://www.commentary.org/articles/bari-weiss/resist-woke-revolution/
"Courage means, first off, the unqualified rejection of lies. Do not speak untruths,...no matter the comfort offered by the mob. And do not genially accept the lies told to you. If possible, be vocal in rejecting claims you know to be false. Courage can be contagious..."

[Jerry B.]

New Zealand is going to set up a rolling ban on cigarette smoking, so that the legal age will always be a year older than folks now in their teens.

What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/09/new-zealand-smoking-ban-cigarettes/

[santamonica811]

1. A thriving black market springs up.
2. A black market is created, but it has only a small effect, and tens of thousands of lives (long-term) are saved, plus billions of dollars in medical care.
3. No black market is able to take hold, due largely to NZ's geographic isolation.

Seems like an interesting social experiment. I'm not sanguine about how successful it will be. But cigarette smokers are (IMO) about the most pathetic group of drug addicts, so I'm definitely in favor of trying different things to curb/cure their drug addiction/use.

(It's my sense that essentially zero people take up smoking once they hit their 30s. A quick Google is not giving me any answers to this question.)

[Gasman]

"3. No black market is able to take hold, due largely to NZ's geographic isolation."

It's not like this stuff can't be grown by the typical gardener.

[Currentsitguy]

Because a drinking age does a fantastic job of keeping alcohol out of the hands of the too young.
/sarc

[santamonica811]

A drinking age *does* do a good job of keeping alcohol out of the hands of teens. It does not, of course, do a perfect job...kids being kids, they find ways around drinking-age laws sometimes. But I don't think you're making the argument that, in an America with no such laws, no additional teenagers would be drinking, right?

Now, we can split hairs about whether or not the reduction in teen drunk drivers, alcohol abusers, etc is "good" or "great" or "fantastic" or "meh, not enough." Fair enough. And I can see the libertarian argument that kids, like adults, should be free to make even stupid life choices. I (as someone who drives on public roads) am very happy about laws targeting underage drinking. But we can agree to disagree about this approach.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's also a question about whether legally discouraging drinking until a relatively high age has negative effects when they eventually do become old enough to drink, relative to being gradually introduced to it in a home setting.

That latter is legal most places in the US, of course, but somewhat discouraged. We've made a point of letting my minor son have an occasional sip, just so it's not the forbidden fruit.

[bernard11]

So if the gradual introduction is generally legal, what's the problem?

Surely you're not suggesting that if we do away with laws against underage drinking everyone will just start introducing their kids to alcohol, teaching them how to be responsible, keeping them off the roads when drinking, etc., and that will prevent carnage?

[David Nieporent]

The fact that they won't have to hide it will mitigate harm.

[KiwiLib]

Geographical isolation hasn't stopped every other drug known to humankind from coming in here. Whether that be Coke (favoured by the Prime Ministers boy friend and other "celebs"), Meth (favoured by the local gangs) or heroin (favoured by those with connections to Asia).

It's an idiotic idea even by the low standards this government has set. No doubt the gangs are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of yet another valuable commodity to trade.

[darkknight9]

I hope its just ciggs and not all tobacco. Awful lot of Hobbits and Wizards live in NZ... I'd hate to piss all of them off...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FGLW_ViVEAw1ROj?format=png&name=360x360

[Michael D]

Drug prohibition works great. Why not expand that to include cigarettes! Sarcasm alert.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's a bit overstated. Notice that all of the ones who did not own slaves were Northerners. There was not much slavery in the North, and one could be succesful and rich without it. The South, OTOH, was economically dependent on it. It's easy to denounce something when your livelihood has nothing to do with it.

It is generally accepted that the Founding Fathers expected slavery to die out as time progressed, so the Northerners held their nose so that the Union could be formed. Unfortunately for the slaves, the invention of the cotton gin and the industrial revolution in Great Britain and then the United States changed all that.

[AmosArch]

Slavery, at least the garden variety was always doomed to die out. Even if the Confederacy won handily. Probably sooner rather than later. So the states rights theory of the Civil War that has suddenly become heretical over the past 20 years is actually correct in a way. But more because in the broad picture the Civil War was irrelevant for the slavery issue rather than the idea that it wasn't fought over slavery.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Slavery, at least the garden variety was always doomed to die out. "

That's why it took a bloody war and massive federal efforts to end it!

[Michael D]

Post hoc fallacy

[Queen Amalthea]

Nope.

[Currentsitguy]

Given a few decades the tractor would have destroyed most of it in the South. Why go through the expense of the housing and upkeep of a large workforce when a single machine does the same work? Really it's the same reason automation is moving into things like the food industry now.

I don't care if it's fast food joints today or plantations 160 years ago, the bottom line is always the bottom line.

[David Nieporent]

Slavery, at least the garden variety was always doomed to die out. Even if the Confederacy won handily. Probably sooner rather than later.

Setting aside the immorality of telling slaves to wait to be emancipated, this is pretty evidence-free. There's no indication that the South was willing to give up on slavery (and if they did, it would probably involve a massive bloodbath in which blacks were expelled.) Slavery barely existed in Delaware, and yet they still rejected compensated emancipation.

[rsteinmetz]

It still would have died out eventually has cotton production was mechanized as ultimately happened after WWII.

I've sometimes wondered whether the daily lives of northern mill workers were generally better than southern plantation workers.

[santamonica811]

rsteinmetz,
"southern plantation workers"
Are you referring to slaves here? Or to some different group of people who worked on plantations? If you did mean slaves; it's a really odd (and telling??) euphemism.

[rsteinmetz]

You mean like enslaved workers?

[Queen Amalthea]

"I've sometimes wondered whether the daily lives of northern mill workers were generally better than southern plantation workers."

"Libertarian," folks!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I've sometimes wondered whether the daily lives of northern mill workers were generally better than southern plantation workers. "

Is "southern plantation worker" racist right-wing dumbass for slave?

[grb]

Bored Lawyer : "It is generally accepted that the Founding Fathers expected slavery to die out as time progressed...."

I don't say you're mistaken on this, but I still have two concerns: First, whenever anyone starts with "it is generally accepted" some skepticism is warranted (of course, this applies when I say it too). Second, you find this in the 1790 census:

25.5% of the North Carolina population were slaves
32.2% of the Maryland population
35.5% of the Georgia population
39% of the Virginia population
43% of the South Carolina population

How exactly would a South Carolinian in 1787 see a future where slavery "died out"? I just can't imagine that happening.

But I can believe a Northerner might despair of constitutional negotiations collapsing over slavery, and therefore "decide" it must die-out in the long run. Thus he wouldn't have to take a stand then. That sounds like both human nature & the natural instinct of politicians of that era (or now).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census

[Michael D]

“James Wilson wryly observed that if defenders of the right of the slave trade were maintaining that South Carolina and Georgia would probably soon abolish it themselves, then there was no reason for them to stay out of a Union that might prohibit that trade.”

https://mises.org/library/conceived-liberty-2/html/c/718

[bernard11]

Let's add some numbers.

As of 1860:

NC: 33.35%
GA: 47.78%
VA: 30.75%
SC: 57.18% (!!!)

I don't have the MD numbers handy, but in MS slaves were 55.18% of the population. Anyone want to talk about the "consent of the governed?"

[swood1000]

How long slavery would have lasted in the United States without the Civil War is an interesting question given the Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom. At the time of the Civil War slavery in this hemisphere existed only in the Southern States, Cuba (abolished 1886) and Brazil (abolished 1888). Another interesting question is this: if slavery in this country would have ended by 1900 then the Civil War accelerated that by only 35 years. Was that worth 640,000 deaths?

[Queen Amalthea]

The liberty of black people is, of course, rather cheap for most 'libertarians.' Kind of a 3/5ths discount...

[Craig Johnston]

You do understand that the 3/5ths valuation of slaves in the census was forced on the slave states by the free states, right? The slave states would have preferred to count them like any other people but the free states did not want the slave states to have so much power in the House. You make it sound as though the slave owners thought of their slaves as being worth 3/5ths of a free person.

[VinniUSMC]

You do understand

No, Queen does not understand.

[grb]

What Queen Amalthea understands is the southerners demanded a quarter to forty-percent of their state populations be counted for representational purposes when those same states themselves didn't account them as fully human.

Do YOU understand that? It terms of the most basic human rights, southerners valued their human property at 0/5 - and only fought otherwise as a scam to secure more political seats. The 3/5th valuation was not an ideal from the north, but a desperate measure in the face of the south holding negotiations hostage for their own racist ends. It it stands-out as something shameful today, it's pretty damn clear where the blame lies. Or least it should be, even to the most ardent Lost Cause-type.

[Craig Johnston]

You forgive the north for too much by assigning all of the blame to the south. Yes; slavery was, and is, a horrible practice, but the slaves are people residing in the states in the same way that illegal aliens are today. I recall some northern politician saying words to the effect that he should be able to count his horses if southerners could count their slaves. That lack of respect for the personhood of slaves does not excuse the south nor does slave holding excuse things done by the northerners.
They were people and should have been counted as people, not as less than people. The northern states caused the latter to be the case and they have to be held responsible and we should not ignorantly blame the south for the actions of the north.

[Gasman]

"Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom"
It is interesting to note that most middle-east gulf countries waited until the later part of the 20th century to abolish slavery. And mississippi gave token support to the 13th amendment in 2013, so there's that.
I suppose that those remaining in slavery or born into it during those 35 years might have felt that a bunch of dead white guys would be worth it.

[grb]

swood1000 : Was that worth 640,000 deaths?

Those deaths occurred because the South was worried slavery wouldn't expand into new states & territories. There wasn't the slightest threat to southern slavery at the time of secession; the only threat was to slavery's future growth and expansion. That alone caused the rebellion.

So was that worth 640,000 deaths?

[Queen Amalthea]

Good, but better said they occurred because the South was worried slavery would be *prohibited* from expanding into new states and territories. They were absolutely convinced they could defend and maintain mass slavery if this were allowed. And they were willing to risk it all to achieve that goal. Slavery was critically important to the South. They said as much often.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just to be clear, the reason they were worried that slavery wouldn't expand into new states, and territories destined to become states, is that if this continued, eventually they'd be a powerless minority in Congress.

So, yeah, pretty much the same reason abortion states are afraid of allowing pro-life states to outlaw abortion: It could eventually lead to a pro-life supermajority in Congress.

[bernard11]

And why do you think, absent the Civil War, slavery would have been abolished by 1900? What is the case for that?

Was it worth 640,000 deaths? Ask the Confederates and their defenders. Take your assumption. Was 39 years of slave labor worth 640,00 deaths?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does this White, male, right-wing blog generate racist conservatives, or merely attract them?

[David Nieporent]

Was that worth 640,000 deaths?

It was worth an infinite number of Confederate deaths, since they were, you know, slaveholders (or defenders thereof). Their lives shouldn't even enter into the calculus.

If a group of terrorists break into your kids' school and take a class of 40 kids hostage, and police storm the school to free the hostages, and 3 terrorists and 3 cops die, would you say, "Well, were 6 deaths worth it, given that the terrorists would probably have released the kids eventually?"

[Gasman]

"It's easy to denounce something when your livelihood has nothing to do with it."
Or maybe some had arranged their livelihoods so as not to depend on it.
In any event, they were doing the right thing, so whether it was through aggressive personal divestiture, or simple happenstance, the non-enslavement of other humans is still a good thing.

[Queen Amalthea]

When it comes to the absolute chattel slavery of black people then, these folks are all 'well, there are so many complicated factors, who can judge,' but when it comes to a modest requirement to wear a mask during a pandemic they are all 'TYRANNY OF THE UTMOST!'

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't know who you mean by "these folks," but it is not me. Slavery was a moral blot on the United States, and the Founding Fathers already knew that.
My point is, it is a bit unfair to compare a John Adams, who was a Boston lawyer and a gentleman farmer, to George Washington, who was a Virginia plantation owner. Adams was raised in a situation where none of the people he knew owned slaves, he never needed slavery, and rose to prominence that way. Washington the opposite.

[Queen Amalthea]

This is cultural relativism. 'Everyone around him did it, so how can we hold him culpable?' (Eat it, MP!).

Of course, that wasn't even true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Carter_III#Manumission

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

BL very clearly wasn't saying that. But some people do say it, and you are correct that it's not true.

[Bored Lawyer]

I see my response never made it.

I clearly was NOT saying that. I was saying that it is unfair to compare people in different situations. Morality is not relative, but an individual's ability to rise to the occassion and act morally does vary by the person's situation.

[bernard11]

Or maybe some had arranged their livelihoods so as not to depend on it.

Yes.

[bernard11]

The South, OTOH, was economically dependent on it.

Was it, actually? I mean, you hear that all the time, but I wonder. Maybe it was just the planter class whose wealth depended on slavery.

Suppose there had been no slavery. Well, you could still grow cotton, which was in demand. You just would have had to pay market wages to your workers. And if that made growing cotton in some areas not all that suited to it unprofitable, then wouldn't it be better to put that land to some other use?

Alternatively, if you can't steal labor, maybe you become more capital-intensive, industrialize more, etc., and find other ways to make money.

In short ISTM that, in the abstract, slavery may have actually harmed the overall economic development of the South. I admit I haven't looked at things in any depth, but I recall reading that per capita income of free southerners was half that of northerners before the Civil War.

So maybe slavery wasn't such a great economic engine, save for the planter oligarchy.

[Sarcastr0]

Culturally dependent is the argument I'd make.

Which is why the idea that slavery would just die out is not one I buy.

A person will destitute themselves to keep their place what they think it should be.

[bernard11]

Culturally dependent is the argument I'd make.

But how does that differ from "the wealth of the ruling class was dependent on slavery?"

[Sarcastr0]

The identity of the ruling class required owning people. Their self image.

That goes deeper than their wealth and leisure.

[grb]

When you have a "slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War" argument (as I've had multiple times with my southern brethren over the years), you'll often hear that XX% of southerners didn't own slaves, so why would they fight for slavery?

I like to point out that the same class of southerners who didn't own slaves in 1861 were mercilessly lynching blacks in 1951. And they still didn't own slaves. Sometimes economics ain't all.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I like to point out that the same class of southerners who didn't own slaves in 1861 were mercilessly lynching blacks in 1951."

Collective guilt much? Most Southerners didn't own slaves before the Civil war, and most Southerners didn't lynch blacks in 1951.

[Absaroka]

"Collective guilt much?"

The Jim Crow states were democracies, so 'Most (> 51%) of Southerners supported treating blacks in an unconscionable manner' seems hard to disagree with.

If your quibble is that they weren't stringing up the rope themselves, but merely electing sheriffs and judges who would look the other way (or help out) with the actual lynching, well, most Germans weren't concentration camp guards. And a German who disagreed at least had the excuse of living in a dictatorship.

[bernard11]

The Jim Crow states were democracies, so 'Most (> 51%) of Southerners supported treating blacks in an unconscionable manner' seems hard to disagree with.

Indeed, it was much more than 51% of white southerners. Remember, the biggest issue in lots of southern political campaigns was which candidate was the most ardent racist.

[Toranth]

Just to be clear, does this collective guilt of voters in Jim Crow states extend to the 80% or more of Blacks that voted for Democrats - the same ones implementing and enforcing the Jim Crow laws?

[Sarcastr0]

They fought for slaves, and they cheered the lynchings.

We have been talking about the group this whole time, not some random southerner, so your collective guilt objection doesn't apply.

[bernard11]

And yet the lynchers and others who engaged in racial violence were almost never convicted of crimes, despite their identities being generally known.

Why didn't all those pure-hearted folks rise up and insist that the laws be enforced?

[bernard11]

Another counterargument is that that same XX% weren't the people making the decisions. Whatever their motivation, the decision-makers - the ones who were happy to go to war - were in fact motivated by a desire to protect slavery.

[grb]

I've made that point as well while going thru this rote argument. A lot of times you'll hear the average Rebel soldier wasn't fighting for slavery. To that, I ask how often is the cause of a war determined by polling the front line troops? It seems to be a special Lost Cause exception to normal historical method.

[Aemon McGarret]

After reading about Dobbs all last week. I have to ask. Has anyone challenged the assertion that the State has any say in a woman's pregnancy? And that any anti-abortion law is unconstitutional? A pregnant woman is a package deal. There are no "pre-born babies. There is a pregnant woman in some phase of her pregnancy before birth. And a baby and a mother afterwards. There is no Baby until birth.
Letting the Roman Catholic Church & the Southern Baptist Convention bully their way into the issue is where this went badly wrong. The conservative Christians deeply believe in their understanding of Life, God, & pregnancy. And they have become powerful enough to change the Federal Courts & shift the Supreme Court to their position that we need anti-abortion laws because mothers are slaughtering their babies by the thousands. Using the fact that pregnancy is a process that produces a Baby to separate a woman from her pregnancy and claim the right to become involved, should not ever have flown. The State & the Courts have no business trying to determine when there is a baby. As we have seen. And no place in a woman's decision whether to have a child or not. This should be very obvious, if you aren't making up reasons not to look.

[Number 2]

“Has anyone challenged the assertion that the State has any say in a woman's pregnancy?”

Remember: Roe v. Wade specifically states that a women’s reproductive rights are not absolute, citing for that proposition Buck v. Bell, the decision from the 1920s holding that the government may involuntarily sterilize women that the government determines will likely produce “inadequate” offspring. If Buck is still good law, as Roe essentially said it was, then the State clearly has a say in a woman’s reproductive process. Which is why it puzzles me to hear Roe described as a decision requiring the government to keep its hands off women’s reproductive organs. Roe actually says no such thing.

[Aemon McGarret]

Yep. That's the problem alright. People looking at that instead of the issue.

[Aemon McGarret]

So, we are using sterilizing people against their will as the precedent to say States have the right to regulate abortion? Both Roe v. Wade & Casey are a mess. Because the Court should not have gone there.

[David Bremer]

"A pregnant woman is a package deal. There are no "pre-born babies. There is a pregnant woman in some phase of her pregnancy before birth. And a baby and a mother afterwards. There is no Baby until birth.

There's your problem. Lots of people consider fetuses to be people well before birth. Some consider them people at the moment of conception.

Until you recognize that reasonable minds can come to different conclusions about this unanswerable question--at what point does human life exist--you're not debating the issue; you're just demanding that people agree with you.

[Aemon McGarret]

Lots of people are welcome to their opinions about other people's pregnancies. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. The point is exactly that this is not an answerable question; beyond human understanding. My contention is that the pregnant woman is the only person who should have any say. I really would never demand someone agree with me. This just what I think & why.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If one believes that a fertilized human egg is a person with the natural right to live, then they also believe that the state has an obligation to make laws protecting that life. Your position is not neutral, it is the position that an embryo or early term fetus is not a person deserving the protection of the law.

[grb]

David Bremer : "There's your problem. Lots of people consider fetuses to be people well before birth"

And yet how many of those "lots of people" would force a rape victim to carry her rapist's child? You see, there's your problem. Because pious posturing aside, almost no one really (really) takes this fetus-equals-person stuff seriously - at least not to the extent its rights are absolute, to the complete exclusion of the woman's.

It's an absolutist "belief" that isn't absolutist at all. It's pretend absolutism, with exemptions & caveats at difficult situations or bad PR problems. Ultimately, it all boils down to this: If some harlot decides to have un-reproductive sex, then the hussy loses any say to what happens in her body. Since it's her fault, we can "righteously" throw the Absolutist Switch and watch her suffer the consequences.

But when your "innocent human life" stops being an innocent human life at some inconvenience, that's a problem. It's a poor justification for blighting the lives of tens of thousands of women yearly.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" reasonable minds "

A reasonable mind neither advances nor accepts superstition-based arguments in public debates among competent adults, particularly with respect to public affairs.

Religion-based arguments are for gullible children of all ages.

[Don Nico]

David,
You fall into the trap of equating human life with legal personhood.
It is hard not to say that a dividing fertilized egg is not human life. It is life and it ain't chimp life or rattlesnake life, etc.
The entire issue is when that life is a legal person. For that there are many opinions

[Queen Amalthea]

Notice the same adamant pro-lifers here who casually dismiss the burdens on women are often the same folks who think being required to wear a mask on their face during brief indoors transactions is the ultimate tyranny. This is like distilled and concentrated male privilege at work. If men got pregnant these fellows would be declaring a War on Emrbyos and creating a huge federal bureaucracy to invade our personal lives to fight it.

[Michael D]

Your mask argument is perhaps the dumbest analogy I have yet to read.

[Queen Amalthea]

I agree conservatives making that mask argument are really dumb.

[grb]

There must be some kind of QAnon nexus here that I can't completely work out. I only realized this after hearing Tucker Carlson said this about Covid:

“But the virus itself, this is true, does tend to take away the life force in some people I notice,” the Fox News star proclaimed. “I mean it does feminize people. No one ever says that but it’s true.”

(it all starts with your precious bodily fluids)

[swood1000]

Has anyone challenged the assertion that the State has any say in a woman's pregnancy?

According to what principle would the State not be able to legislate with respect to a woman’s pregnancy? The Union in 1868 comprised 37 States, of which 30 had statutory abortion prohibitions. Why were they all invalid?

[Aemon McGarret]

Really? That States have routinely walked all over people, a lot; is the reason we should let them get involved in a woman's medical & family decisions? And abuse her. What principle? personal Liberty.

[swood1000]

What principle? personal Liberty

The personal liberty of a woman not to get pregnant is absolute. What about the Equal Protection of the laws for the benefit of the fetus? The reason for all those state laws against abortion was the judgment that the fetus is entitled to protection. The original Hippocratic Oath, dating from the time of Hippocrates (died 380 BC), included the sentence: “Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.” You may not agree with it but plenty of people have.

[Queen Amalthea]

"The reason for all those state laws against abortion was the judgment that the fetus is entitled to protection."

Citation needed. Maybe it was to regulate women's sexuality and/or position? I mean, at the same time, there was a ratification that citizenship only applied to *persons born.*

[swood1000]

Citation needed.

Well, for example there is the leading case of Hall v. Hancock (32 Mass. 255 (1834)), in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, citing many English cases, ruled unanimously:

[A] child is to be considered in esse [in being] at a period commencing nine months previously to its birth.... [T]he distinction between a woman being pregnant, and being quick with child, is applicable mainly if not exclusively to criminal cases [and] does not apply to cases of descents, devises and other gifts; and ... a child will be considered in being, from conception to the time of its birth in all cases where it will be for the benefit of such child to be so considered....

I mean, at the same time, there was a ratification that citizenship only applied to *persons born.*

Yes, and many of the attributes of citizenship, such as the right to vote, are denied to children until they come of age, but this is not inconsistent with the rights of children to Equal Protection of the laws.

[Queen Amalthea]

"T]he distinction between a woman being pregnant, and being quick with child, is applicable "

Uh, you know what's going on here, right? They're drawing a *distinction* between a pregnant woman and one being quick with child...

And citizneship is a bit more fundamental than right to vote. And yet preserved only for persons born...

[swood1000]

Uh, you know what's going on here, right? They're drawing a *distinction* between a pregnant woman and one being quick with child...

In other words, they’re saying that the child is to be considered in esse [in being] at conception.

And citizneship is a bit more fundamental than right to vote. And yet preserved only for persons born...

Be that as it may, it is a citation for the proposition that as of 1834 the state supreme court with the highest prestige ruled that a child existed at conception.

[Frank Drackman]

"First do no harm"?? I always thought it was "Fists, Do some harm!",

and Hippocrates forbid Physicians from doing Surgery, so it's a bit outdated, of course it was 380 BC.

[swood1000]

Hippocrates recognized a difference between physicians and surgeons. That's all.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it was left unsaid that you needed to make a legal argument, not an "I'm morally right and therefore the law needs to conform to my preferences!" argument.

[Krayt]

It's been pointed out women refer to their babies as their babies, as in d'ya wanna see a sonogram of my baby?

Two sides idiotically tugging on this word. I support abortion but you should not play a facetious game of it's not a baby.

[AmosArch]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A pregnant woman is a package deal. There are no "pre-born babies. There is a pregnant woman in some phase of her pregnancy before birth. And a baby and a mother afterwards. There is no Baby until birth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not feeling like getting into the weeds here but your thesis is a pretty lame semantical declaration. A prolife version of you could just as easily declare the baby a distinct entity and bask in its obviousness.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
. And they have become powerful enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yeah I too miss the good old days in the 1800s with those nasty Christian influences contained and liberated womyn ran free in the meadows building transgender bathrooms to their hearts desires.

[Aemon McGarret]

OK obvious to me. This isn't a thesis. This isn't a word puzzle game. This seems to me to be the fairest and most consistent way to approach this issue. My opinion. Why should anyone else have a say, other than the pregnant woman? The anti- abortion position is that ending a pregnancy is "murdering a baby". They are using law to enforce that opinion on the rest of the country. The Court never should have gone there.
I was just making the point that the Churches are Very big bullies. I have no idea what that last thig is about.

[Illocust]

When two individuals are involved and one is unconscious do we really say only the condos person gets to have a say in whether the unconscious person can be killed? We have no problem with the state stepping in in every other case of one person killing another. Even when both potatoes are actually concious and able to give consent, we at a minimum let the state step in and make sure that one party isn't pairing the other or just lying about the one who is going to be killed's wishes.

You're base stealing. Assuming that there is only one party involved and arguing from there, when the entire debate is centered on whether there are one or two people.

[Illocust]

People not potato. Pressuring not pairing.

[grb]

(we could use an edit function)

[Queen Amalthea]

"when both potatoes are actually concious and able to give consent,"

I can see eating one potato (if properly buttered and with sour cream) without the ability to give consent, but two?

[Aemon McGarret]

I am saying that ending a pregnancy is not killing a person. The whole debate is centered on a question that cannot be answered. Everyone's answer is just an opinion. And many have their agenda. The pregnancy belongs to the woman.

[Toranth]

By using the word "person" you are using an undefined - and undefinable - term that allows you to apply your conclusion to anything you want.

The child is most certainly human ( a well-defined term) before and after birth. Any abortion is, without doubt, killing a human.

[Queen Amalthea]

Why are you such an anti-Semite?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion#The_fetus_as_less_than_fully_human

[Bob from Ohio]

"moment of creation is when bones and arteries begin to form[14] and in other places he says that the "moment of creation" is at the 40th day"

6 weeks in other words, right where Texas placed it.

[Aemon McGarret]

I see nothing here other than quibbling over words. And asserting that a child is human before birth. Again, I see no reason to impose your understanding of pregnancy & when a person is a person on the country.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

But by saying only the mother gets to decide, you are also imposing your understanding of pregnancy and when a person is a person on the country. It may be right or it may be wrong, but it isn't neutral, as you seem to be arguing.

[Toranth]

A child is human from the moment of conception.

If it isn't human, what species is it?

Your "understanding" is actually nothing of the sort, and the fact that you cannot differentiate between "human" and "person" goes to highlight how weak your "understanding" of the topic is.

[not guilty]

It is established law that the Fourteenth Amendment´s reference to persons does not include the unborn. Liberty is an incident of personhood.

[Illocust]

My belief you are a person is just an opinion, or do you agree that if enough people come to a consensus we can define person and punish people for killing other people we have defined as persons. If you don't, please direct your energy to taking down the freedom ending evil that is anti-murder laws.

[Queen Amalthea]

You're being really silly here.
Zygotes and embryos are *remarkably* different from Aemon. They are often microscopic, lack neural nets, limbs, etc.

Maybe things like that there's unique DNA there or whatever is ultimately determinative in this argument. But what's truly wacky is thinking that a reasonable person isn't convinced.

[Bob from Ohio]

Zygotes

"The zygote phase is brief, lasting only about four days."

embryo

"At the ninth week post-conception, the fetal period begins. From this point until birth, the organism is known as a fetus."

https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-a-zygote-2796031

So you agree on an abortion ban at 9 weeks?

[Aemon McGarret]

This is more than a word game. Lots of opinions. Mine is that no one else's understanding of her pregnancy and her moral responsibilities toward it are valid. She has all of these moral decisions, not you & me.

[David Nieporent]

"This question cannot be answered. Also, this is the answer."

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's an interesting case example for you...

Imagine, you're a politician in the United States. And the FBI decides to set you up. They have an informant call you, talk for a while about several different things, and then mention in a single sentence in a 10 minute phone call that a white collar crime "probably happened". But they never follow up, and you never hear about it again. The FBI is sure to record the call though.

Now, imagine the FBI comes by 9 months later to talk to you. They just want to talk to you about some items. They ask about this white collar crime, and you say "you don't remember hearing anything about it".

The FBI comes back again, and asks about the crime again. You ask if you're a target of an investigation. And the FBI says "no, you aren't". Again, you say you don't remember hearing anything about it.

The FBI then decides to charge you with making two separate counts of a false statement to the FBI because you couldn't remember a single sentence in a phone call from 9 months ago. The FBI doesn't charge you with anything about the crime itself...just the fact you said you couldn't remember anything about it.

Legit?

[Queen Amalthea]

Jesus, it's obvious you want to be cute and cut to something here. Just do it. Don't be so tiresome.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This is the point where you could do research and educate yourself.

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, I can't research what weird analogy you're dying to draw here.

[David Nieporent]

I think he's alluding to the Jeff Fortenberry case.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The statute at issue here, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, requires evidence that the defendant acted "knowingly and willfully"—that is, that they knew the statement was false, and that they knew it was illegal to lie about it.

Based on the fact pattern you're describing, it sounds like 1. the politician did not actually commit that offense, and 2. it would be extremely unlikely that a prosecutor could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that they had.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The point isn't to get a conviction... The point is to say the politician is being "indicted"...

https://apnews.com/article/campaigns-nebraska-indictments-omaha-campaign-contributions-015e1a7c565c3287117144830dc5bb6d

[Noscitur a sociis]

If Rep. Fortenberry sincerely believed that what he was saying was true, then he didn't commit a crime. And if the prosecutors know that he believed that what he was saying was true and sought an indictment to harm him politically, that would be very serious misconduct.

Is there any particular reason why you think that's what happened?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Past history of behavior by the FBI.

https://www.npr.org/2012/03/15/148687717/report-prosecutors-hid-evidence-in-ted-stevens-case

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus dude, that's awful evidence.

If an anecdote 9 years ago that doesn't share the same facts as your hypothetical is the best proof of bad faith you can muster, you really got nothin'.

Your concerns about FBI misconduct to come up only when you want to defend Jan 06. Quit with the special pleading and maybe you'll have a bit more credibility.

[cmcc_aus]

This just in from the Austin American Statesman, possibly pay-walled,
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2021/12/09/texas-abortion-law-2021-judge-ruling-roe-v-wade-supreme-court/6453616001/?utm_source=statesman-Evening%20Read&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=baseline&utm_term=hero&utm_content=TEXAS-AUSTIN-NLETTER14

"A state district judge in Austin on Thursday said some elements of Texas' restrictive abortion law are unconstitutional and should not be enforced, marking the first time a court has weighed in on the law's constitutionality since it was enacted in September.

The judge did not issue an injunction to block the law from being enforced. Instead, Thursday's order will be the basis of an ongoing legal battle in trial court between several abortion providers and Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion organization.

In the order, District Judge David Peeples said the enforcement mechanism employed in Senate Bill 8 denies due process of law and violates the Texas Constitution by allowing anyone to file suit against abortion providers and other individuals, without first having to prove they have been harmed by those individuals' actions."

Makes sense to me. IANAL, so I leave it to y'all to find the opinion and interpret the Due Process piece.

[BillyG]

I like the method used, now the same ruling needs to apply to environmental laws that allow Sierra Club to sue power pants.

[cmcc_aus]

Agree.
The issue from the get-go is where is there a cause for action, if there hasn't been any harm, but the legislature has seemingly stated that any abortion is in essence an offense against morality and public decency, and defined that as a cause for action. But this court says that a third party not harmed by the action simply doesn't have cause to sue -- at least not as a civil offense in which there has been no damage suffered. Not 'due process' can be rooted in an ill-defined harm. And at that point it could be that anti-SLAPP provisions kick in,

[Krayt]

And many a law firm took payments for discovering violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in local businesses.

Indeed, having such a business model was seen as a feature of it.

[not guilty]

James and Jennifer Crumbley have displayed atrocious parenting skills, but I have my doubts about the appropriateness of charging them with involuntary manslaughter. I don´t think the State´s theory is that they furnished their son with a gun knowing that he planned to shoot up the school with it -- if that were the case they would be culpable as accessories to premeditated murder. What Michigan statute gave them fair warning that their bad parenting decisions could constitute any grade of homicide?

[Brett Bellmore]

Looks to me like the prosecutor is just desperate to pin the blame anywhere except on the school administration, and the parents make a good distraction.

They have some responsibility here, based on their conduct the day of the shooting, but no worse than the administration. And yet the prosecutor apparently went out of his way to get a flashy arrest, instead of letting the parents peacefully turn themselves in.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" What Michigan statute gave them fair warning that their bad parenting decisions could constitute any grade of homicide? "

I have not read the charging documents, but I would wager on an involuntary manslaughter statute.

These reprehensible losers are likely fortunate in this regard; involuntary manslaughter statutes customarily do not authorize the level of penalty the Crumbleys deserve.

[not guilty]

From what I have been able to find, manslaughter is not statutorially defined in Michigan. I surmise that there is a definition supplied by decisional law, but I haven´t been able to find it.

This is an unusual fact pattern. However reprehensible their decision making has been, I see fair warning/due process issues lurking.

[John F. Carr]

It is defined in the model jury instructions as, among other things, gross negligence resulting in death. Gross negligence is in turn defined:

M Crim JI 16.18 Gross Negligence

(1) Gross negligence means more than carelessness. It means willfully disregarding the results to others that might follow from an act or failure to act. In order to find that the defendant was grossly negligent, you must find each of the following three things beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant knew of the danger to another, that is, [he / she] knew there was a situation that required [him / her] to take ordinary care to avoid injuring another.

(3) Second, that the defendant could have avoided injuring another by using ordinary care.

(4) Third, that the defendant failed to use ordinary care to prevent injuring another when, to a reasonable person, it must have been apparent that the result was likely to be serious injury.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That sounds like more than enough legal foundation for a decision to begin work on the Crumbleys' prison uniforms.

I just hope the sentences -- four, at least -- are consecutive rather than concurrent, and that additional charges are filed to hold these substandard jerks to account for the injuries sustained by the victims who survived their substandard son's attack.

Is it right or wrong to view their status as deadbeats, gun nuts, and disaffected Trump fans as cause to root for maximum sentences?

[not guilty]

It night be different if there were safe storage requirements, which Michigan does not appear to have.

[Brett Bellmore]

From the accounts I've seen, nothing actually problematic happened until the day of the shooting, on which both the school administration AND the parents failed to take the situation seriously enough.

However... The notion that some kid went from totally inoffensive and unproblematic straight to murderous ideation and actual murder, in a day, is absurd. The school says the kid has no prior disciplinary record. I wonder if we'll learn that both the school and the parents were failing due diligence for quite some time prior to this?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Does anyone else get the impression, from the recordings or transcripts of oral arguments, that Justice Breyer isn't in his right mind? He often seems to be having rambling soliloquies with himself about some tangential issue. He seems extremely unfocused.

[Jimmy the Dane]

He is probably senile like Biden. Wouldn't surprise me at all...

[santamonica811]

Is that better or worse than senile like Trump? Asking for a friend.

[Krayt]

The Baby Boom generation is 20 years wide, but will have been in the presidency for 32 years come 2024, assuming you count Biden, who is actually pre-Boomer.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Don't lie. You don't have any friends.

[Brett Bellmore]

Worse, in the sense that really senile is worse than fictionally senile.

[Sarcastr0]

Check out Breyer in the early 2000s. This is just Breyer being Breyer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

View about who is in "right mind" from ostensible adults who fall for childish superstition are always a treat.

And a handy marker for whose ideas should be ignored and defeated in public debates concerning modern America's continuing progress.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Anyone remember the mass shooting in Las Vegas a few years ago where the guy appeared to be an ex-CIA spook, maybe used a machine gun, killed a bunch of country music fans, and we never heard about it again? I had sort of forgotten about it until all the hoopla with the MI school shooting.

[John F. Carr]

A few days ago that case hit the news when a state court ruled that gun makers are not liable for making guns even though guns can kill people.

[Ed Grinberg]

I found this theory plausible:
https://www.steynonline.com/8162/theory-of-the-case

[mydisplayname]

Fifty pre-citizens --- citizens yet to be birthed into our nation -- were killed today. How does the Washington Post distinguish these pre-citizens from others; that is, what is a "good, fully-entitled" pre-citizen and what is a "bad -- kill, Kill, KILL it!" pre-citizen?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/09/tractor-trailer-full-migrants-crashes-southern-mexico-killing-least-49/

[Martinned]

The Divisional Court in London, with a panel including the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Burnett of Maldon, has just overturned the judgment of Westminster Magistrates court regarding Julian Assange's extradition to the US.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/USA-v-Assange-judgment101221.pdf

While I have considerable sympathy for the Court's hesitation about the exact reasons given by the District Judge below - i.e. that Assange couldn't be extradited because in US prison he would kill himself - I think there really ought to be a rule that prevents extradition in such a blatantly political/speech-based case. And there may well be.

The case has been remitted, but Assange's wife has already said they will appeal. This is bound to end up in the UK Supreme Court eventually. (But first there is the Court of Appeal.)

[Whistling Willie]

Am coming to this thread late; hence my comment may be buried.

Several questions: How many states have passed resolutions calling for a Convention of the States? How many states must do so before the next step in the process? What are the legal requirements (specific language) for these resolutions to pass muster? What role do Congress/POTUS/SCOTUS/governors play in this process?

Whistling Willie

[Martinned]

I think you may have this blog confused with Google or Wikipedia.

[Whistling Willie]

To Martinned: Not al all. There is no consensus re some of the questions I have posed (e.g., the requirement for specific legal language in such resolutions). I am seeking insights from the legal minds who inhabit this blog.

Whistling Willie