Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

The VC was wrong about Breyer. Yes, he did listen to the liberals, and decided to retire with a Democratic President.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe he did, and maybe they announced it to force his hand. I suppose we'll find out today.

[not guilty]

Has Mitch McConnell figured out how to play Calvinball with this nomination yet?

[Michael P]

He just has to take advice from Laurence Tribe. According to Tribe, the VP cannot cast a tie-breaking vote on nominations. Or maybe Tribe has a new set of rules for this game of Calvinball.

[Krychek_2]

Tribe is entitled to his opinion but I think most scholars would disagree with him on that point.

But here's a more basic question: At this point we don't even know who the nominee is going to be, and already the Republicans are against it. Further, it's not even a nomination that changes the balance of the court since Biden will be replacing one liberal with another. Why can't the Republicans have an agenda other than simply keeping Democrats from governing?

[Brett Bellmore]

"At this point we don't even know who the nominee is going to be, and already the Republicans are against it."

Why wouldn't Republicans be against it? First, we know that the nomination is going to be a result of racial and sexual discrimination, because they're not even pretending otherwise. But setting that aside, there's basically zero chance that this administration is going to nominate anybody a Republican would think belongs on the Court.

"Why can't the Republicans have an agenda other than simply keeping Democrats from governing?"

Because Republicans think Democrats are trying to govern wrong. Not just badly, that they're actively trying to do things that shouldn't be done. Must not be done.

Remember Rush Limbaugh saying he hoped Obama was a failure? He explained that he thought Obama was setting out to do bad things, and why would he want somebody to successfully do bad things?

[Krychek_2]

So Trump's three all-white nominees to the Court should have been rejected as being racially discriminatory? Why is it only racially discriminatory when it benefits minorities?

The problem here is not so much which side has the better ideas for how the country is to be governed. Rather, the problem here is the precedent that neither side will be allowed to govern, and that's just not good for the country. Scalia was confirmed near unanimously because the Democrats understood that power shifts back and forth from one party to another; you really want the Democrats treating the Republicans the same way once the shoe is on the other foot?

[Brett Bellmore]

Did Trump announce in advance, "I'm only going to nominate white men!"? Because I think I'd have heard about it if he had confessed his intention to racially discriminate, the way Biden did.

The problem here is that Republican and Democratic ideas of how to govern aren't just different anymore, they're disjoint. There's no overlap anymore, at least on some topics. And judicial nominations are one of those topics.

Any judge the Democrats would think ideologically qualified to be on the Court has an ideology Republicans think morally disqualifies you from the job, and visa versa.

[OtisAH]

Pretty much, yeah. Although technically “no” so long as there was at least one POC on the FedSoc list of acceptable nominees he worked off of.

[Krychek_2]

He didn't have to. He had three nominations, he picked three white people. You seem to think that affirmative action is really, really bad when it's not benefitting white people. And what exactly is wrong with saying that no black woman has ever, in 230 years, served on the Supreme Court so maybe it wouldn't be so terrible to rectify it, especially given that for most of those 230 years, being white (and male) was mandatory?

And so what if there's a disjoint? The point still is that power shifts back and forth, and some day Democrats will treat Republicans the same way Republicans are now treating Democrats. You really think that's a good idea?

[Brett Bellmore]

"You seem to think that affirmative action is really, really bad when it's not benefiting white people."

And if it were benefiting them, too. Look, it undercuts the case against discrimination when you say, "Except if it's against THIS group, then it's totally fine!" It's much easier to get people to accept the notion that racial discrimination is wrong, than to get them to accept that racial discrimination is wrong unless it's against them.

[Krychek_2]

OK, you're missing the point. The point of appointing a black woman isn't that black women are better qualified because they're black women; it's that no black woman has ever before been nominated.

If someone said that whites are inherently inferior and therefore should not be serving on the Supreme Court, that would be racist. But that's not what's being said. What's being said is that after 230 years it's time a black woman got the opportunity. Sorry you disagree.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"some day Democrats will treat Republicans the same way Republicans are now treating Democrats. You really think that's a good idea?"

I sure wish Republicans would use Federal Institutions to target and oppress Democrats like the Democrats are doing now. I would love to see Democrat politicians spied upon by the DOJ, Democrat protestors locked away in political prisons, Democrat parents harassed by the FBI, Democrat tax payers oppressed by the IRS, Democrat veterans murdered by the VA, Democrat families targeted by partisan Congressional committees.

I would love it. In fact, I demand equal treatment.

[Krychek_2]

BCD, take two valium and let us know when you arrive back in reality.

[Bob from Ohio]

"some day Democrats will treat Republicans the same way Republicans are now treating Democrats. You really think that's a good idea?"

Go to Hell and ask Ted Kennedy that question. He started the current tit for tat.

[Brett Bellmore]

"OK, you're missing the point. The point of appointing a black woman isn't that black women are better qualified because they're black women; it's that no black woman has ever before been nominated."

I'm not so much missing the point, as unimpressed with it. If the most qualified person for the job is the first ever whatever, cool, but that's not a reason to commit in advance to picking the first ever whatever, when it's an important job that actually needs competence.

I mean, that sort of commitment trapped Biden into picking Kamala Harris for VP. Kamala Harris a heartbeat away from the Presidency, just to get the first black woman VP. So we know that race and sex isn't just a plus factor for this administration, it overrides merit.

[Sarcastr0]

If the most qualified person for the job is the first ever whatever, cool

There is no most qualified Justice. After a certain threshold, everyone is basically equal so far as anyone mortal can tell.

As for a Veep, well, hard to find any non-electoral requirements for them. Throughout history.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, I have it on good authority that Ted Kennedy is in heaven instructing the angels on the benefits of single payer health care. And while he may have tweaked what at the time were norms, Mitch McConnell is the guy who blew norms to smithereens.

Brett, Sarcastro is right; the number of lawyers in this country who would make perfectly fine Supreme Court justices is probably in the five figures, so why not pick someone from a group that's never before had the chance?

I will agree with you that Biden should not have boxed himself in. Had I been running for president, my answer to the question would have been that there are many groups that have not yet had anyone appointed to the Supreme Court -- Buddhists, Muslims, gays, transgendered, the disabled -- so I'm not going to commit to any one group, but I will seek to further diversify the federal judiciary at all levels.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

9 spots means that there are many many people qualified. In fact Trump wanted to pull Kavanaugh’s nomination because he didn’t like his comments about drinking beer…and there are many people equally or more qualified than Kavanaugh to take his appointment. Btw, Kavanaugh then stabbed Trump in the back because Kavanaugh is a Bush loyalist.

[bernard11]

Yet Trump explicitly chose Barrett because of her gender. He himself announced that he intended to nominate a woman.

But hey, no cries of "sexist" from the Trump cultists.

And the White House counsel at the time of Scalia's nomination says Reagan picked Scalia because he wanted an Italian on the court.

So stop with the "Republicans don't play identity politics." It's ridiculous.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But hey, no cries of "sexist" from the Trump cultists."

It was pretty clear you already knew Trump was sexist.

[bernard11]

I was talking about you and your cult.

All the complaints are BS. Like the folks - Ilya Shapiro for one - who are already claiming the nominee is unqualified. No matter who it is.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
Because what is wrong with Asian women or even Asian men. I don't see any of them on SCOTUS.

[not guilty]

Brett, did you oppose the affirmative action nomination of then-Judge Clarence Uncle Thomas in 1991? He was not fit to carry Thurgood Marshall's briefcase, but President Bush I needed to select a black Republican toady.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You can't reason with bigotry, superstition, or belligerent ignorance. It is pointless -- sometimes counterproductive -- to try.

[Brett Bellmore]

Thomas has seems to do a good job to me, but, yeah, I was rather disgusted about the idea of a "black seat", and that the nominee had to be black.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, I think you're confusing a threshold requirement for an optimization requirement.

At the top level, you can't a priori tell how most potential Justices will do. So using indicia of things other than merit doesn't change the quality outcome at all. So then what's wrong with using race or gender for it's symbolic/diversity benefits?

[not guilty]

It has been 30+ years since there was an authentic black voice on the Supreme Court.

[Ed Grinberg]

"an authentic black voice"
Another fucking racist.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know what authentic black means. Blacks are not a monolith.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've always assumed that an authentic black voice must mean Samuel L Jackson.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Thomas is definitely black and his experiences as a black man, especially one coming of age and into law during the sixties and seventies, definitely inform his views.

[Hank Ferrous]

All things being equal, presuming candidates are qualified, there is nothing wring, in my opinion with use of a candidate's race, creed, gender, or any other status for symbolic benefits. The issue rises when, as now, a significant population, generally left-leaning, take diversity based on the latter factors, independent of fitness for the position, as proof of qualification and simply understood as a positive.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"At the top level, you can't a priori tell how most potential Justices will do."

?? You can't tell if Clarance Thomas will rule differently than, say, Merrick Garland? This claim doesn't get more convincing the more often you post it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don't know what authentic black means. Blacks are not a monolith."

As 'not guilty' has repeatedly pointed out, blacks who he disagrees with are not authentic blacks, but Uncle Toms. Note his use of the slur in a previous post.

More evidence the Democrats are true racists.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're behind the times, nobody is an Uncle Tom these days, perhaps because the character was too heroic, in a non-violent way.

The term today is "Oreo".

[hobie]

Isn't nominating only Federalist Society members just another quota system itself?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Brett, did you oppose the affirmative action nomination of then-Judge Clarence Uncle Thomas in 1991?"

What affirmative action? IMO he was the best confirmable candidate out there. YMMV.

[Kazinski]

Actually I think Thomas is the intellectual guiding post for the court, his insistence that the court should get it right rather than blindly adhere to it's past mistakes.

His dissents to refusals to grant cert over the years are bearing fruit with Thomas leading the conservatives to grant revisiting Rapanos, Grutter, Roe and Casey, expanding Heller with NYRPA2.

It's easy to see why you don't like Thomas, but it's not because he's just taking up space on the court, it's because he's driving the agenda with his character and vision.

This is Thomas's court not Roberts.

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually tend to think Thomas might have been a less impressive Justice if not for the nature of his confirmation hearings; They left him a bit embittered, but purged of any inclination to go along to get along.

[Sarcastr0]

I believe and would hope that he is more professional than that.

[not guilty]

I remember that confirmation hearing well. Clarence Thomas to that point had made a career of toadying to white Republicans, but as soon as his path upward was at risk, he played the hell out of the race card. Remember "This is a high tech lynching for uppity black folks"?

The man showed himself to be a despicable opportunist, and he hasn't improved with age.

[Noscitur a sociis]

then-Judge Clarence Uncle Thomas

Jesus fucking Christ.

[Sarcastr0]

^

[LawTalkingGuy]

Concur

[OtisAH]

“‘It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists,’ Reagan said in a prepared statement to a news conference here. ‘I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench.” -WaPo, October 15, 1980

[Bob from Ohio]

Dumb then, dumb now.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. Women are just the WORST. Huh?

[Bob from Ohio]

Boxing yourself into it is the dumb thing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah: what if there aren’t any smart women!?!?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yeah: what if there aren’t any smart women!?!?"

Sure there are. Plus, as Strom Thurmond said, we like to look at them.

But a woman is only going to be the smartest candidate for a particular candidate about half the time.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Plus, as Strom Thurmond said, we like to look at them.

Upthread: Democrats are the REAL Racists!!!

Downthread: I'm gonna quote a sexist remark from a famously racist Republican.

[Sarcastr0]

At that level there is no such thing as smartest. There is qualified and there is not. Not many are qualified, but among those who are, ranking smarts is a fool's errand.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Downthread: I'm gonna quote a sexist remark from a famously racist Republican.

Well, I like to look at them too. Not you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"At that level there is no such thing as smartest. There is qualified and there is not."

Huh? There are literally no qualifications for SCOTUS, other than to be nominated with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Unless you mean "qualified" in some arbitrary sense, and then you should just make your criteria such than only the one best candidate is qualified.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm talking about practical qualifications, not constitutional qualifications.

As is pretty clear from context. SCOTUS nominee is not an optimization problem since you cannot tell one best from another; it is a threshold problem.

[not guilty]

Strom Thurmond liked to do more than look. Apparently his aversion to miscegenation didn't apply when it came time to shtup the hired help.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As is pretty clear from context. SCOTUS nominee is not an optimization problem since you cannot tell one best from another; it is a threshold problem."

You keep asserting that you can't tell one 'best' from another. I don't know about you, but I can almost always tell one 'best' from another, and the teams who pick the nominees most certainly can.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Apparently his aversion to miscegenation didn't apply when it came time to shtup the hired help."

He can schtup whoever he wants, you bigot.

[TwelveInchPianist]

LTG: "Upthread: Democrats are the REAL Racists!!!"

No comments about the racial slurs directed at Clarence Thomas, I see.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I actually did. I pointed out that Clarence Thomas is black and how is experiences inform his jurisprudence to rebut the notion he isn't "authentically" black. (Whatever that means)

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know about you, but I can almost always tell one 'best' from another, and the teams who pick the nominees most certainly can.

This is bullshit. Merely picking someone from a list does not mean you made a meritocratic decision.
Those short lists are not poured over by the President for clarity of thinking or anything like that.
And the short list creation involves more policy outcomes than any kind of comparison of the mind.

No way are you this stupid. You're just saying what you need to say to get to the dumbass condemnation of Biden you wanna do.

You're making a crap argument in order to be a tool, and it's mystifying to me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is bullshit. Merely picking someone from a list does not mean you made a meritocratic decision. Those short lists are not poured over by the President for clarity of thinking or anything like that."

Nobody merely picks somebody from a list, dumbass. You have a set of goals that you are trying to accomplish. You analyze the ability of the candidates to meet these goals, and pick the one that you think will help you best.

"No way are you this stupid. You're just saying what you need to say to get to the dumbass condemnation of Biden you wanna do."

Lol. You're the one who keeps making the stupid, unsupported, and ridiculous claim that the candidates are indistinguishable.

If you're going to get into name-calling, the least you can do is provide some support for this stupid claim.

[Sarcastr0]

You analyze the ability of the candidates to meet these goals, and pick the one that you think will help you best

Except that the actual ability of candidates to meet those goals are pretty hard to distinguish a priori. So this whole picking the one that you think will help you best ends up being arbitrary, no matter how hard we try.

Is this hard to understand?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Is this hard to understand?"

No, but it's wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

I explained why it was right - after a certain level of competence/political valiance, there is no way to predict how a candidate will perform as Justice.

What evidence of otherwise do you see? Or do you just really really want to make it so black people can't be Justices without compromising the otherwise super meritorious selection process?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"there is no way to predict how a candidate will perform as Justice."

There are plenty of ways. None of them are perfect, but there are lots of ways to predict what people will do.

"Or do you just really really want to make it so black people can't be Justices without compromising the otherwise super meritorious selection process?"

You don't think black people can be justices in a meritorious selection process?

[David Nieporent]

Nobody merely picks somebody from a list, dumbass. You have a set of goals that you are trying to accomplish. You analyze the ability of the candidates to meet these goals, and pick the one that you think will help you best.

Look, Jimmy the Dane might be this dumb, but you're not. That's not even close to how it works. There are of course factors to consider, such as age, confirmability, which politicians/groups a particular selection will make happy/piss off, projected ideological "reliability," etc. But it's not some sort of algorithm to compute which candidate will do "best," and no, there isn't any such thing.

They're not shortstops. You can't compute their Wins Above Replacement. (And even for athletes or others whose performance is quantifiable, you're just making an educated guess about how they'll do going forward.)

[bernard11]

I remember the outrage from National Review and others on the right.

[AmosArch]

Krychek_2 discovers the concept of politics. Tell me when in the last 20 years have Democrats not already made up their mind about a Republican nominee before they were even known?

[Don Nico]

It is pathetic.
The comments on both sides of this argument are so blantantly partisan.

[swood1000]

He just has to take advice from Laurence Tribe. According to Tribe, the VP cannot cast a tie-breaking vote on nominations.

What are the chances that 50 Republicans are going to vote against a black woman nominee solely on the ground that they think she is too liberal? Not going to happen.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think there is a good chance it will happen. We'll see.

[swood1000]

When one considers Collins and Murkowski, and further considers the existence of senators who remember and pine for the days when judicial nominees were confirmed solely on the basis of their judicial competence, as when pro-life senators would vote to confirm nominees who were known to favor Roe v Wade, and further considers the effect of an apprehension of being labeled racist/sexist, I can’t imagine 50 votes against this nominee unless something substantive is dug up. However, I do expect that, as in the case of Kavanaugh, any substantive objections will not make their appearance until just before the scheduled vote, in an effort to postpone the vote until after the election.

[OtisAH]

There is no bottom to your Ridiculous Barrel.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" maybe they announced it to force his hand. I suppose we'll find out today "

Birther Brett Bellmore rarely disappoints.

[Michael P]

Breyer is "said to be miffed" about the news leaking in the middle of the term: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-secrets/by-the-book-breyer-said-to-be-miffed-retirement-leaked

Was the leak yet another own goal by Biden's White House, a move by people who wanted to upaet the apple cart, or something else?

[Life of Brian]

Was the leak yet another own goal by Biden's White House, a move by people who wanted to upaet the apple cart, or something else?

The most obvious "something else" that comes to mind is the administration's ever-increasing realization that the Senate is likely to fall out from under them come November, and beginning the nomination process after Breyer announced at the end of the term (likely early-mid July) would be cutting it too close.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"and beginning the nomination process after Breyer announced at the end of the term (likely early-mid July) would be cutting it too close."

It might still be. Imagine, for example, that some sort of allegation surfaces mid-way through the election.

The time required to do a proper investigation could push the confirmation past the midterms.

[Brett Bellmore]

If they hadn't been doing proper investigations since at least last January, they're morons. Don't administrations maintain a file of potential, vetted Supreme court nominees, just because the odds of a nomination coming up during a Presidential term are fairly high?

The idea that they only started looking when Breyer approached them is an insult to Biden and his people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Far be it from me to insult Biden and his people.

I'm only saying that if an allegation of some sort were to surface during the process, the investigation would push the confirmation past the midterms.

[David Nieporent]

You can't do full vetting of hypothetical nominations. You can compile publicly available data to do an initial culling, but the rest has to wait for the opportunity to become manifest.

[swood1000]

I wonder what percentage of the adult population has a background impervious to dedicated attempts by an army of motivated partisans to dig up cause for suspicion.

[Michael P]

Judging from the 2020 election, only something like 46.8% of Americans.

[not guilty]

The Department of Justice has confirmed that it is reviewing fake Electoral College certifications that declared former President Donald Trump the winner of states that he lost. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/25/politics/fake-trump-electoral-certificates-justice-department/index.html
to
It's about damned time. The fraudulent actors in the various states are part and parcel of a conspiracy to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede the official proceedings of Congress on January 6, 2021 pursuant to the Electoral Count Act, contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1512(k).

[m4019597]

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you have erectile dysfunction. A healthy person wouldn’t write something so dumb.

[not guilty]

Do you have any substantive criticism?

[Michael P]

They can review any damn thing they want. It doesn't mean a thing, and most public statements by bureaucrats are self-serving political garbage. Courtrooms are where the rubber hits the road.

[apedad]

THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT!!!

Now tell it to the voting conspiracy assholes.

[not guilty]

How are the fake electors not part of the conspiracy to influence the January 6 proceeding of Congress? I suspect that some of them will cut a deal and testify about Rudy Giuliani's role in the scheme.

[Michael P]

How are Democrats' subversion of election law not part of their conspiracy to get Biden elected? I suspect that if there was real accountability for public officials, several would already be in jail.

[not guilty]

What statutes, please? If you are referencing that noted legal authority, Otto Yourazz, just say so.

[Michael P]

Ballot harvesting in Georgia, which is illegal: https://katv.com/news/nation-world/georgia-opens-investigation-into-ballot-harvesting-claims

[Michael P]

Destruction of election materials in Pennsylvania, and possible forgery to create an alternate record, described as a felony by the organizer: https://delawarevalleyjournal.com/new-lawsuit-videos-allege-delco-election-officials-destroyed-election-results/

[Michael P]

Advice from a county elections clerk in Wisconsin was illegal: https://www.courthousenews.com/wisconsin-supreme-court-orders-county-clerk-to-follow-absentee-voter-id-rules/ (and yet county clerks persisted in that advice)

[Michael P]

Wisconsin also used illegal drop boxes for elections: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072929277/a-wisconsin-judge-rules-absentee-ballot-drop-boxes-are-not-allowed-under-state-l

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, got any Democratic electors' signatures on fraudulent returns? Reason I ask is that we could grant you all your low-evidence hypotheticals, and still not come up with anything close to overturning Biden's victory.

The stuff you cite is just an excuse to keep your grievance going, with not a chance to make a substantive difference. Messing with the electoral college is a much longer substantive lever.

[Michael P]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Signature verification is racist and COVID pandemics empower unelected Democrat officials to declare such rules null & void.

[not guilty]

Michael P, I asked you for statutes. You replied with a series of linked articles which are bereft of a single statutory citation.

When and where did you get your legal training, if any?

[Michael P]

I've got better things to do than try to read the mind of the guy in Pennsylvania who acknowledged he was committing a felony, dude. You can look up the exact statutes from those sources just as easily as I can, but I provided you reference to the facts of the incidents as well as the laws.

The fact that you're dicking around over whether I explicitly cited laws by statute number just shows how unserious you are being.

[not guilty]

Your conspicuous avoidance of my question is duly noted.

[Michael P]

Your transparent attempt at an ad hominem was noted and handled with all due respect.

[not guilty]

You are desperate to talk about anything other than January 6, 2021 and the criminal conspiracy leading up to it. It is not hard to understand why. You are pathetic.

[hobie]

He is deflecting big time, isn't he. Looks like you don't have much to say about the election fraud conspiracy, Michael P. But that's alright. I've yet to see a GOPer who can make it go away.

[Don Nico]

Michael and ng,
The election was over more than 14 months ago.

[not guilty]

The investigation into the events of January 6 is not over.

[John F. Carr]

I don't anything in 18 USC 1512 that would prevent me from mailing my own electoral votes to Congress. It prohibits destroying, altering, or concealing documents, like if I got the official certificate and crossed out "Biden" and wrote in "Trump".

18 USC 1505 does not seem to cover a joint section of Congress, only committees of Congress.

18 USC 1001 is a catchall provision that could be used, but it requires proof that the defendant acted "knowingly and willfully". An honest belief that the election was stolen from Trump might negate criminal intent.

[not guilty]

18 U. S. C. 1512(c)(2) prohibits attempting to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding. Section 1512(k) prohibits conspiring to do so. The January 6 certification of the electoral vote is an official proceeding of Congress. Sending a phony slate of state electors corruptly attempts to influence that proceeding.

[Michael P]

There's one answer about what law Gingrich might have been referring to. Corruptly influencing an official proceeding, or conspiring to do so, is a very broad concept.

[not guilty]

How in tarnation are the folks investigating the events of January 6 violating that statute? Please be specific.

[Michael P]

The investigation is not constituted as an authorized committee or subcommittee. By continuing to operate in clear violation of the rule that would have established the committee, they are conspiring to corruptly influence the proceedings of Congress with respect to election integrity.

They can only hide some of their activities behind the Speech and Debate clause, and their underlings cannot hide behind that.

[not guilty]

Wrong. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017e-941c-d65f-a77e-ffbd82470000

[Michael P]

Spamming a link to a facially flawed decision does not make it right.

[not guilty]

I have provided authority on point. Do you have any supporting authority for your position? What official proceeding are you talking about? What facts evince scienter? Please be specific.

[Michael P]

Do you think that Nancy Pelosi and the nine members she appointed cannot count? Any of them? Or do you think it's sound to selectively ignore the authorizing rule's plain text?

[not guilty]

Again, do you have any supporting authority? If you don't, just say so.

[Michael P]

Appeal to authority. You're just full of fallacious arguments today, aren't you?

[not guilty]

I have provided on point authority. You haven't even attempted to do so. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

[hobie]

He's deflecting way into left field on this topic, not guilty. I think he's nervous.

[not guilty]

Appeal to relevant authority is much of what lawyers do. Do you have any authority on point? If not, be man enough to admit it.

[Michael P]

not guilty, when I pointed out that your authority can't count and can't read, you just stick your fingers in your ears and cried "authority" again. Maybe you should get better authorities to believe in.

[John F. Carr]

I missed the (c)(2) language. (c)(1) is the paragraph that doesn't prohibit forgery. So now the mental state is "corruptly" "attempts".

[Life of Brian]

18 U. S. C. 1512(c)(2) prohibits attempting to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding.

Gawd, not this broken record again. Did the eventual collapse of the Logan Act prosecutorial fad leave you with too much butthurt?

[not guilty]

Do you have any cogent commentary on the merits of a section 1512(c)(2) prosecution, LoB?

[Life of Brian]

Yes, and I've extensively expressed it in response to your prior snarky one-liner challenges -- your memory must be poor.

You on the other hand have said nothing at all of substance about why you're comfortable this isn't just another example of dusting off a cover-anything statute to prosecute conduct the regime at hand desperately wants to punish but somehow can't quite find anything else on-point enough in the sprawling domain of 18 USC with the desired bite. Instead you just fling your little pet statute around in thread after thread as a chimpanzee does its feces, peppered occasionally with a "go fish" link that requires no cogent effort on your part.

Ball's in your court, buddy.

[not guilty]

I never suggested that 1512(c)(2) is the only applicable statute. It is in my opinion, however, the most readily understood and easy to prove to a jury.

It is undisputed that Trump and Eastman on January 4 importuned Pence to unilaterally reject several states' slates of electors. It is plain to see from parsing 3 U.S.C.15 that the vice-president has no such authority. Trump was entreating Pence to violate the law. The purpose for this solicitation was to secure Trump a benefit to which he was not lawfully entitled -- a second term in office. The stench permeating this unlawful endeavor is corruption, showing the culpable mental state. Giuliani coordinated the bogus slates of electors fraudulently submitted to the National Archives -- further evidence of a corrupt scheme.

Trump, Eastman and Giuliani each ginned up the crowd on January 6 to intimidate Pence at the Capitol, and Trump remained silent for hours in hope that the mob would succeed in obstruction of the proceeding. Further evidence of Trump's corrupt state of mind.

You kvetch about my frequent mention of this cause of culpability, but you never offer a defense of Trump's conduct. The offense was completed on January 4 -- the attempt is as criminal as a completed endeavor.

[Life of Brian]

Wow, I got two whole sentences of "legal analysis" out of you this time! Let's see:

I never suggested that 1512(c)(2) is the only applicable statute.

And yet it's the only one you mention, and the only one prosecutors are leaning on for substantive sentences. Which is precisely my broader point: they're only turning to this dog-eared say-nothing nonsense because they have to. And that right there tells us volumes about the true nature of the conduct in question (as opposed to spittle-laced caricatures of it like your attempt here).

It is in my opinion, however, the most readily understood and easy to prove to a jury.

Of course, Sherlock -- because it's so frickin' broad it can cover just about any sort of interaction whatsoever with Congress or related to Congress. Which is my other primary concern I've endlessly voiced and you won't touch.

The rest of your histrionic spray above is just an exemplification of the old saw "if the law and the facts are not on your side, pound the table." If the conduct in question actually happened and is actually egregiously illegal, bona fide indictments will follow. That they haven't a year plus in, for a situation you believe is so exquisitely clearcut and based on generally public facts you claim are uncontested, should give you pause. Immense pause.

[not guilty]

You don't negate a thing that I have said. Trump and his minions corruptly attempted to influence the outcome of the January 6 proceeding of Congress. You haven't spooked the ink off the page, nor the pixels off the monitor. That it is an inchoate offense makes it no less criminal. Trump deserves prison time.

[Life of Brian]

You don't negate a thing that I have said.

Yes, yes, it's time for "la la la I can't hear you" again. You just can't admit that you have absolutely nothing substantive to say about the painfully problematic statute you're trying to ride to victory, can you?
After so many exchanges with this sort of vapidly empty response from you, I'm really starting to think you don't actually have a legal background and just aren't able to really dig in to the merits.

That it is an inchoate offense makes it no less criminal.

Case in point: I don't think that word means what you think it means, particularly given the fact that you think it responds to something I said. Prosecutors are eminently capable of charging inchoate offenses when the law and facts support doing so. Plug that back into my above comment re immense pause.

[not guilty]

There have been perhaps hundreds of indictments brought charging 1512(c)(2). To this point it has involved defendants who breached the Capitol, but that doesn't exempt those who conceived the corrupt scheme in the White House. While I am impatient with the ponderous pace of the investigation, I will leave that to those who are in the arena.

DOJ has recently acknowledged, albeit cryptically, that it is looking into folks who submitted fraudulent slates of electors to the National Archives. Rudy Giuliani was involved in that up to his eyeballs, so that line of inquiry may yet bear fruit.

John Eastman reportedly invoked his privilege against self-incrimination 146 times when he was interviewed by the House committee. He knows that what he and Trump importuned Pence to do was crooked. There might come a time to grant Eastman immunity and compel his testimony. (Attorney-client privilege is inapplicable to joint commission of crimes and frauds.)

Do you have any authority for your suggestion that 1512(c)(2) and 1512(k) are fatally overbroad? Ipse dixit pronouncements don't feed the bulldog.

The scienter requirement prevents application of the statute to innocent dealings with Congress, and it remains the government's burden to prove corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden is easily met here by the unlawful nature of what Pence was being suborned to do, which permeates the conspiracy. One whose conduct is clearly prohibited under the legitimate scope of a challenged statute cannot be heard to complain about hypothetical application to others not before the court.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, after that little hodgepodge I'm definitely going with the theory that you're not a lawyer at all, or else one that doesn't get out enough to understand "only guilty people plead the 5th" is just for TV, and that the same DOJ charging hundreds (or thousands, etc.) of people involved in the same incident under the same unconstitutionally vague and overbroad statute doesn't somehow magically make it constitutional. Or, I suppose, one that knows all that full well and is just being disingenuous.

Bonus points for use of "scienter" and "ipse dixit" in the same post, though. Very cute.

[not guilty]

So you don't have any authority supporting your claim of overbreadth. Fair enough.

[Hank Ferrous]

'Corruptly attempts.' Say no more, with your 'legal training.'

[Stephen Lathrop]

An honest belief that the election was stolen from Trump might negate criminal intent.

Carr, no matter what you believe happened in the election, how can any of it overcome your knowledge that you have not been appointed an elector?

[John F. Carr]

Trump and his team had a lot of people believing wild things.

[hobie]

Correct. As the Brookings Institute's synopsis of the criminal investigation in Georgia says, "a candidate who believes he has won an election does not enjoy any legal warrant to commit possible crimes in furtherance of that belief.... An electoral loser who believes he is an electoral winner must follow those procedures. It would be wrong and unprecedented to accept claims that a strong enough belief in electoral irregularity (even if wholly baseless) allows candidates to commit possible violations of Georgia’s criminal law."
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21068546-final-report-trump-fulton-county

[Life of Brian]

No offense to the big brains at the Brookings Institute, but how exactly does one go about committing "possible crimes" and "possible violations of Georgia's criminal law"?

If the alleged conduct is a crime, great -- charge it and move on. If not, their 100+ page ivory tower exercise is fruitless beyond an attempt to justify their salaries for the month and provide something for the masses to regurgitate (sans weasel qualifiers of course).

[hobie]

The Brookings article is a general overview of the evidence and possible crimes by seven private attorneys both federal and Georgia. It is not meant to be a charging document. Do please try to stay on topic

[Life of Brian]

The Brookings article is a general overview of the evidence and possible crimes by seven private attorneys both federal and Georgia.

As is self-evident from the document itself. But that was the very basis of my comment, as you know.

It is not meant to be a charging document.

Golly, thanks for clearing that up. Next thing you're going to tell me is that private attorneys can't charge people criminally. But that's also fully nonresponsive to my comment.

Do please try to stay on topic

Yes, I understand it can be inconvenient when someone actually questions the substance of quick a cut-and-paste job and appeal to authority rather than just fawning and falling into line. Sorry about that.

[Moderation4ever]

You are right. We know there was an attempt to steal the election. How many of those who called for swift action, who threatened election workers and officials, are now saying it was nothing let's move on? Their response is because of the fact that now we have evidence of the attempt by the ex-President and his supporters, when all they had was conspiracies.

[hobie]

Agreed. A complete criminal scheme to defraud the American electorate. There are videos, tapes, signatures, documents and confessions. In completely admitted collusion are Trump, Pence (possibly), Grassley, Powell, Manafort, Eastman, Giuliani, Clark, a large group of sitting congressmen, and GOP functionaries at the highest levels in 7 states. All Republican. All completely guilty. Investigations are now ongoing at both the state and federal levels. One of the biggest crimes in American history and I get to watch it all unfold. I get to watch the end of the entire Republican party in my lifetime.

[not guilty]

Give Pence credit for resisting Trump and Company's corrupt entreaties. If a 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) prosecution comes to fruition, Pence will be the star government witness against Trump, Giuliani, Eastman and the rest.

[Life of Brian]

All completely guilty. Investigations are now ongoing

LOL -- did you get something a bit out of order there? It's cute when you say the quiet part out loud.

[not guilty]

Do you really think the conduct of that crowd of malefactors is defensible before a properly instructed D.C. jury?

[Life of Brian]

Tell you what: you take a shot at reducing hobie's frothing verbiage above to an actual set of jury charges, and I'm happy to comment.

But the smart money says attempting that exercise will show you exactly why there won't be a jury trial forthcoming, and you just won't bring it up again.

[not guilty]

I don't have tons of faith in Merrick Garland's Justice Department to bite the bullet and bring charges. But any decision not

[not guilty]

I hit submit too soon.

Any decision not to prosecute would be based on politics and not on law. Application of law to facts here is not difficult.

[hobie]

I think we all know where this thing is going, Brian. I have my popcorn. You can squirm and huff all you want that I cannot give you the eventual charges at this point in the investigation. Patience Brian. It IS coming.

[Life of Brian]

I think we all know where this thing is going, Brian.

Absolutely agree. This thing is going just where all other exercises like it have gone for the past several years -- a politically-motivated sculpt-the-law-to-fit-the-distorted facts exercise to try to punish a political enemy.

The only difference between the two of us is that I'm willing to be candid about that.

You can squirm and huff all you want that I cannot give you the eventual charges at this point in the investigation.

Case in point. You KNOW for a fact liability is assured and charges are coming -- the marsupials involved just need to figure out what they are. Very sad.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I get to watch the end of the entire Republican party in my lifetime."

LOL Better stock a lot of booze for next November.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"LOL Better stock a lot of booze for next November."

Chickens, Baby Bob, chickens.

[hobie]

The justice department will continue to function regardless who controls the house, Bob. The executive and the judicial will take care of them scamps

[not guilty]

Newt Gingrich has been yammering. threatening that officials investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot could be jailed if Republicans regain control of Congress. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/24/newt-gingrich-january-6-committee-investigators-may-face-jail/9200720002/

Gingrich conspicuously does not identify what laws he contends have been or are being broken. Now, isn't that special?

[Michael P]

3% as special as you. We live in Ham Sandwich Nation.

Notably, the January 6th investigation is not constituted as an authorized committee or subcommittee. They're gathering up a lot of private information with very few protections for their victims, no current accountability, and arguably no authority.

[not guilty]

You can't identify any statutes that Gingrich was talking about, either?

[Michael P]

There's a huge difference between "can't" and "won't". In particular, I have no motivation to spend valuable time debunking you and your sophomoric, conspiracy-theory talking points. You didn't reason yourself into that position, and you're not able to be reasoned out of it.

[not guilty]

So you've got bupkis. I thought so.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Dude, just admit you don’t know.

[hobie]

He's even going to the 'no, you're a racist' crutch but is subbing 'conspiracy theorist'. Lame.

[Michael P]

Hi, you might want to review this comment thread to find the first four or five literal uses of "conspiracy" here. not guilty literally is propounding a conspiracy theory.

[not guilty]

Attempt is prohibited by section 1512(c)(2); conspiracy is prohibited by section 1512(k). If you knew how to parse a statute you would understand. Instead you run away like a scalded dog from any discussion of Trump and his cohorts' criminal conduct.

[Brett Bellmore]

I certainly can't.

[Armchair Lawyer]

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally comes to mind.

The "Committee" is representing itself as a lawful committee of Congress, when it is in fact, not one, as according to its own rules.

[not guilty]

How is it not a lawful committee of Congress? Do you have any legal authority for that proposition?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"One, the authorizing resolution for the committee says five out of the 13 shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader. Well, she didn’t take any of them. So that’s zero out of 13. She did appoint two nominal Republicans. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who are virally anti-Trump.

But they weren’t appointed by the Republican caucus and therefore they are not reflective of the Republican party. The reason this is significant is the way the committee does its business, it has to have a consultation with the ranking minority member.

And there isn’t one! It has to give the ranking minority member the ability to hire counsel to be a counterpoint in the questioning of witnesses. There isn’t one. That counsel is supposed to be given equal time according to the House rules and long-standing precedent."

[not guilty]

I asked for legal authority. You declined to provide any, but merely rattled off talking points. See, https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017e-941c-d65f-a77e-ffbd82470000

[Armchair Lawyer]

We will see. A friendly judge may not help you in the future.

The facts are clear.

1. The committee needs to have 5 Republicans appointed and on the committee, according to its own rules.
2. The committee does not in fact have 5 Republicans and on the committee.
3. The "Vacancies" have not been filled, which is required (2c).

This is not an accident or happenstance, but a deliberate abuse of the rules by the select committee.

There are many committees and boards throughout the country which require bipartisan representation. This type of abuse where that rule is abused, can result in overturning all of the decisions made

[not guilty]

"This type of abuse where that rule is abused, can result in overturning all of the decisions made"

You got any authority for that proposition?

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, he has all the authority which the passive voice can afford.

[Armchair Lawyer]

New Process Steel versus NLRB.

The board delegated its authority to a 2 member panel. This was in violation of its rules, which required at least 3 members for a quorum. This resulted in the overturning of over 400 decisions by the NLRB.

Likewise, the rules of the January 6th Committee require at least 5 Republicans, and for any vacancies to be filled. There are not 5 Republicans. The January 6th committee is in violation of its own rules for formation.

This is important for a variety of reasons. One obvious one is, that you could have a January 6th "Committee" of only a single person will free subpoena power, if people are free to violate the rules as shown. That would be horribly abusive.

[Kenneth Almquist]

1. The committee needs to have 5 Republicans appointed and on the committee, according to its own rules.”

Section 2(a) of the resolution states: “The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.” This rule doesn't require the committee to contain any Republicans.

Pelosi initially announced that she was selecting seven Democrats and one Republican (Liz Cheney) to serve on the committee, and that the rest of the committee would be appointed after she had consulted with Kevin McCarthy. McCarthy provided Pelosi a list of five names, and Pelosi agreed to appoint three of them, rejecting the other two. If McCarthy had come up with two replacements for the names Pelosi rejected, there would be six Republicans and seven Democrats on the committee. Instead, McCarthy then withdrew his list of suggestions and asked Republicans not to participate on the committee.

“3. The "Vacancies" have not been filled, which is required (2c).”

The rule states that, “Any vacancy in the Select Committee shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.” It doesn't specify how quickly they have to be filled. I assume that is intentional, to prevent Republicans from sabotaging the committee. If and when McCarthy proposes some additional Republicans to serve on the committee, I expect Pelosi will respond promptly.

[hobie]

It's congress' rules and discretion. Even the Supreme Court gives deferrence to Congress' deciding where and how they shall meet

[Armchair Lawyer]

Kenneth...

So, precisely how many members has Pelosi appointed? From your post, I see 11.... Not 13....

[Sarcastr0]

It doesn't specify how quickly they have to be filled AL.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro....

That's how you get abuse of the system.

Let's say there's a different panel. It requires 13 members. But Pelosi just nominates herself. Then uses the Panel to issue all sorts of subpoenas, edits, and recommendations using the power of Congress.

And when people object that "there aren't the other 12 member, it's wrong" Sarcastro says "Well, they didn't say how quickly they needed to be filled"

[Sarcastr0]

You're making an extreme formalist argument. You can't switch to a functionalist 'that's an abuse of the system' while maintaining such formalism.

IOW, if abuse of the system is an issue, then what McConnell offered was abuse, which the Committee cannot let stand.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro,

It seems you're the one making the extreme formalist argument, that "it didn't say how quickly they have to be filled". The reason? These seats have been open since the initiation of the panel.

I simply pointed out how extreme your formalist argument is and why your extreme formalist argument is flawed.

[Sarcastr0]

I met your formalism with formalism.

You switched to functionalism to rebut, thus abandoning your original argument.

[VinniUSMC]

I met your formalism with formalism.

You switched to functionalism to rebut, thus abandoning your original argument.

"You can't triple stamp a double stamp!"

[Brett Bellmore]

The courts generally will not entertain evidence that Congress isn't following its own rules, as long as the (majority) leadership says they are. They just don't care if you have proof, won't look at it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And if the party in Congress changes, and says...look at the rules, they weren't being followed before?

Well, then the courts may pay attention.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, the courts can pay as much attention as they want. What they can't do is reduce a co-equal branch to subordination. And the courts know that.

You should try to learn that too. It is likely to have notable consequences during the years ahead.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are actual rules in the Constitution Congress is supposed to follow, it's not reducing them to subordination to require that they follow them if they want the resultant acts to have the constitutional status of laws.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And which of those rules are being broken, Brett?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, after the committee took the two members of the Republican caucus who actually were, "reflective of the Republican Party," the committee was stuck. There were none more to be had.

[JJJSSS]

Reread that statement- "the authorizing resolution for the committee says that five out of the 13 shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader."

There is no requirement for five of the 13 to be the minority leader's choice. The minority leader has to be consulted, but his preferences don't have to be honored. It's actually a very well written authorizing resolution.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, the only requirement they're actually violating is not having 13 members, they can technically comply with the resolution by consulting with the majority member, having a good laugh, and then appointing 5 more Democrats, if they want.

What they can't do is expect Republicans to respect the committee's work after what they pulled.

[bernard11]

"After what they pulled?"

Oh fuck off. First, the Republicans filibustered a proposed bicameral, bipartisan, committee to investigate the insurrection. But McConnell, terrified of what it might find, killed it.

Then, when the House set up a committee McCarthy wanted to appoint assholes like Jordan, so they could completely disrupt the work. So since most GOP'ers were totally uninterested in the investigation Pelosi went ahead with Cheney and Kinzinger.

And I note that you are not even willing to look at the committee's report before condemning it.

Yeah. Open-minded Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Minority party picks committee members majority party wouldn't have picked, news at 11.

[Sarcastr0]

That's reductive to the point of ad absurdum, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's not, Sarcastro.

The minority members of a committee aren't there to be responsive to the majority's views of what the committee is doing, they're there to represent the interests and views of the minority.

By definition, in doing so they're not going to make the majority happy.

Sure, as a procedural matter, the majority can just say, "Screw it, we're not letting you have any actual representation on the committee, we'll pick a couple of maverick member of your party to be figureheads, specifically because they WON'T represent you in any meaningful way."

The cost of doing that is that the minority doesn't have to accord the process any legitimacy.

[bernard11]

Not a question of making the majority happy, Brett. It's a question of actively disrupting the committee's work.

That was the plain intention.

You think Jim "See no evil" Jordan has any serious interest in investigating Jan. 6?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bernard,

I think Jim Jordan would serve as a counterweight and check on excesses....

Any good committee needs that.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

People who are likely to be witnesses, or materially-related to the subject don't get to take part in the investigation of their own wrong-doing.

Cry more.

[bernard11]

I think Jim Jordan would serve as a counterweight and check on excesses....

No he wouldn't. He would be the very soul of excess.

I agree that responsible Republicans are valuable. Now, the cult seems to have decided that neither Cheney nor Kinzinger is a "real" Republican, for no reason other than that they see through Trump, but that's the cult's stupidity.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There is a requirement for 13 members, and for vacancies to be filled.

This has not occurred.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

There is not a timeline for that to occur, so your statement is missing a key word:

"yet."

Imagine how much easier it would be to correct you if you bothered working on your comprehension.

[David Nieporent]

"One, the authorizing resolution for the committee says five out of the 13 shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader. Well, she didn’t take any of them. So that’s zero out of 13. She did appoint two nominal Republicans. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who are virally anti-Trump.

That's a bunch of lies. First, the authorizing resolution does not require a single Republican. It does not say that Pelosi has to "appoint the people suggested by the minority leader." It says she has to consult with the minority leader. She did.

Second, she did not "didn't take any of them." She in fact took 3 of the 5 McCarthy named. They just declined to serve. That's on them, not on her.

Third, there is no such thing as a "nominal Republican." Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans.

But they weren’t appointed by the Republican caucus and therefore they are not reflective of the Republican party.

Even if that were true, it has no legal significance. (But again: the "Republican caucus" doesn't get to "appoint" anyone. Pelosi makes all the appointments.)

And there isn’t one!

Yeah, there is. Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans and on the committee.

[not guilty]

The order rejecting John Eastman's challenge to the House January 6 committee, linked below, found the committee to be lawfully constituted.

[Michael P]

The Select Committee was supposed to have 13 members, not 9, and 5 are supposed to be appointed in collaboration with the minority leader, of which none were. It is indeed unfortunate that a Bill Clinton appointee cannot count and cannot understand bureaucratese.

[not guilty]

The rule calls for "consultation", which was had here.

[Michael P]

The rule also calls for 13 members, which it never had. It's funny how little of the rule you think actually matters.

[LawTalkingGuy]

How many bankruptcy judges went to jail after Northern Pipeline?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why wasn’t the NLRB arrested after Noel Canning? How come Richard Cordray isn’t in jail for running the CFPB as a Director? Why isn’t Chad Wolf or Ken Cuccinelli in jail for unlawfully running homeland security?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Prosecutorial discretion"....

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. It's actually because your interpretation of 1001 is bonkers and wrong. Armchair Lawyer indeed.

[PaulS]

If the committee obtains records that otherwise couldn't have been obtained without a court ordered warrant (which would require cause etc) - then could these records then become unavailable/unusable (fruit of a poisoned tree) for use in future prosecution. If the courts rule otherwise then this becomes a pretty big hole in all our rights ie FBI just "suggests" a congressional committee get records.... It may be a stretch - but no more so than it has been suggested in the past - but one could say that the whole committee investigation is Obstruction of Justice.

[not guilty]

The House Committee is not prosecuting anyone, and the DOJ has its own resources to gather evidence.

[PaulS]

The issue is if they "taint" the evidence making it unusable by the DOJ

[Sarcastr0]

Exclusion comes from violations of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Criminal procedure, in other words.

How is that applicable here?

[Brett Bellmore]

CRS Reports & Analysis
Legal Sidebar
The Fifth Amendment in Congressional Investigations

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing about the exclusionary rule in there, Brett.

Why do you think that is?

[not guilty]

How would such a taint regarding documents theoretically occur? The scope of authorized subpoenas is quite broad.

Now the testimony of immunized witness has been known to taint subsequent criminal prosecution, where the DOJ could not show that it had obtained its evidence independent of the immunized Congressional testimony. Oliver North comes to mind. But I can't hypothesize a problem with production of documents.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You know that argument is going nowhere, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Gingrich isn't worth listening to, he's just trying to regain mattering. Last time he mattered was back in the '90's, when he used that 'Contract' scam to make sure all the activists who pulled off that historic 1994 victory got nothing for their trouble.

[bernard11]

I agree with you about Gingrich being an utterly worthless POS. Total scum.

[Bob from Ohio]

The Contract was perfect for the time. Newt flamed out but was a giant figure in breaking the Dem congress monopoly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that he wasn't. The Contract was first announced barely more than a month before the election, and was used as an excuse to blow off all the activist groups that had actually accomplished that victory. It had basically nothing to do with that win, which was the hard work of a coalition of conservative groups such as Right to Life, and the NRA.

They then used the Contract as an excuse to not do diddly about those interest groups' priorities, and to rub salt in the wound, made sure that most of the contract would actually fail to be enacted. Newt's "I only promised a vote, not that any of it would pass."

[LawTalkingGuy]

I am more concerned with his belief that Republicans in Congress somehow get the power to jail people if they’re in the majority? They can’t charge anyone. I mean theoretically the sergeant at arms can hold them for contempt of Congress (after a vote) but they can’t be held there as punishment indefinitely. And they can’t sentence anyone to a definite term. I mean I guess Josh Chafetz would know for sure but I assume that Congress’s inherent contempt powers are limited to civil-style coercive contempts where it lasts only so long as the contemnor is unwilling to cooperate. Not criminal contempt. Because criminal contempt is a criminal proceeding in every sense of the word, they’d need counsel and a judge and everything.

And what happens when the courts inevitably say they can’t do that and orders them released? Refuse? Is Kevin McCarthy and the sergeant at arms going to be sitting in federal jail held by the marshals until he order the release of the Jan 6 committee from the Capitol police? Is he going to order the sergeant at arms to fight the marshals?

[not guilty]

Gingrich is channeling that noted Republican legal figure, Otto Hizass.

[swood1000]

Gingrich conspicuously does not identify what laws he contends have been or are being broken.

Well, there's always this one:

25 CFR § 11.448 - Abuse of office
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor if, knowing that his or her conduct is illegal, he or she:
(a) Subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or
(b) Denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

And what exactly is the illegal conduct these congressmen know they are engaging in? The logic here seems a little circular.

[swood1000]

That is what will be the subject of the formal inquiry by the Congressional committee that Gingrich is warning about. Witnesses could be called. They would be forced to respond to intrusive questionnaires and to employ counsel for this purpose.

[StellaLink_the dog]

If everything you dopes say about the committe is true, the Democrats are in violation of the House rules, not in violation of a criminal statute. Violation of House rules by members is a matter for the House to deal with in the manner that the House decides. Penalties may include expulsion. Read your Constitution.

If there is any authoritative precedent (and it would have to be SC) indicating that violation of House rules can be a criminal violation, somebody should present it.

SC intervention in congressional procedures is very rare. The only instance which comes to mind: when the House denied Powell of his seat though there was no doubt that he had been legally elected. My understanding of the SC result is that the House can't deny a properly elected member the seat but can expel with 2/3 vote.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

swood, I don't really understand what you are saying. What would the formal inquiry be looking into? What illegal activity is suspected? You are the one who cited that particular law, why did you cite it?

[swood1000]

This would be a committee organized to investigate whether or not there were violations of 25 CFR § 11.448. Such a proceeding is known as a “fishing expedition.” They would call witnesses and require people to respond, under penalty of perjury, to extensive interrogatories in order to determine whether this particular law had been violated. Does the Congress not have the authority to convene such a committee? On what grounds could a person who is asked to respond to a questionnaire refuse to do so? He could take it to court and already he is faced with hundreds of hours of high-priced attorney time. How likely is it that a Federal District court would step in and tell Congress that it may not convene such a committee? Courts are not quick to intrude into the internal affairs of Congress. Is a defendant likely to decide not to hire an attorney on the supposition that under the Biden administration the Department of Justice won’t cooperate? Maybe the next administration will have a different view. I doubt that many would risk it.

[swood1000]

Not all the defendants will have Congressional immunity. And the ones who do can be subject to an ethics inquiry, in which they are required to respond to extensive questions.

[swood1000]

Is it possible to believe that a congressional majority is powerless to exact political revenge?

[not guilty]

IOW, you have no idea.

[not guilty]

Stewart Rhodes has been ordered detained without bail pending trial on charges of seditious conspiracy. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21190289-rhodesdetrlgmjedtx012622

I am speculating here, but I wonder if Mr. Rhodes might seek an agreement to cooperate with the DOJ if he has evidence of coordination between the Oath Keepers and the Trump White House.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, that would be a very natural thing to do if he did.

If he doesn't, would that make you more inclined to believe that he didn't?

[Jerry B.]

Yep. "We can keep you in jail until you plead or agree to turn states evidence" is right there in the Constitution, somewhere, I'm sure.

[not guilty]

I don't know whether he does or doesn't have that kind of information. As noted, I am speculating. But I would not be surprised in the least.

Trump, Rudy Giuliani, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and others are being sued civilly for damages by numerous members of Congress for conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1985(1). A motion to dismiss has been argued before the U.S. District Court and taken under advisement.

[Michael D]

It is 3:30 in the morning. My back is killing me. I cannot sleep as a result. To make it all worse, my birthday is days away and it only reminds me I am getting old and my body is failing.

[FourteenFour]

Just look at it as your body's way of telling you to pay more attention to it.

[Michael D]

I wish I could correct the back injury but everyone I speak to says the surgery will only make it worse. Chiropractic has been the only care that provides temporary relief.

I fell from a ladder about 10 years ago and struck the edge of a concrete step right in the middle of my back. Care at this point can only reduce the pain a little.

[Brett Bellmore]

I had a similar fall onto a flat concrete surface, all those backwards pointing points on my vertebrae are flat on the end. The problem here is generally muscle spasms, I had a prescription for a strong muscle relaxant, when my back gave me trouble I'd take one, sleep like the dead for 14 hours, and wake up right as rain.

It gradually went away, but took years.

[Jacob Grimes]

I know clients that have had some success with spinal injections. The relief tends to last at least a few months. The procedure itself can be painful, though, because the needle has to get very close to the troublesome nerve.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I hope you can find something that gives you some relief. That sounds rough.

[not guilty]

A federal district court in California has rejected John Eastman's challenge to a subpoena to Chapman University seeking Eastman’s
documents relating to the 2020 election and the January 6th Capitol attacks. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017e-941c-d65f-a77e-ffbd82470000 Eastman reportedly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination 146 times when he was questioned by the Jan. 6 committee last month.

Perhaps the Department of Justice should grant Eastman immunity and compel his testimony before a grand jury regarding the attempt to persuade Mike Pence to unilaterally reject several states' Electoral Votes on January 6.

[not guilty]

The judges in Fulton County, Georgia have approved the District Attorney's request for a special grand jury to investigate the Trump team's efforts to overturn the presidential election results in Georgia. The panel will convene on May 2. (Why so late, I wonder?)

David French has identified the statutes creating potential liability for Trump. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/georgia-path-potentially-prosecuting-trump/621326/

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, I see: If you assume that he was guilty of trying to fraudulently alter the votes, you can make a case that he was trying to fraudulently alter the votes. Yeah, that makes sense.

[not guilty]

That's why we empanel grand juries and petit juries, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, and Trump better hope he's not a ham sandwich. Just noting that French was assuming Trump was guilty, and interpreting everything he had said in that light.

[not guilty]

I hope to see Trump brought before a jury in Atlanta, and denied bail pending appeal when he is convicted.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you really think two can't play at that game?

[not guilty]

It's not a game.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, right.

[not guilty]

When your hero Trump is fitted for an orange jumpsuit in Fulton County he won't regard it as a game. It appears that the DA there is taking Trump's crime more seriously, at least at this juncture, than the DOJ in D.C.is.

[Bob from Ohio]

Counting your chickens a bit.

[not guilty]

Trump dug his own grave in his phone call with Raffensberger. The chickens are merely coming home to roost.

[Rip Murdock]

Orange is the new Orange.

[Bob from Ohio]

"denied bail pending appeal when he is convicted"

Libs hate the “carceral state" until their enemy is involved.

[bernard11]

Do you honestly believe Trump wasn't trying to get Raffensberger to alter the vote count?

Really? Wow.

[Ridgeway]

I think there is a reasonable chance that Trump actually believed his own BS, and that if Raff would only look he would find all kinds of manifestly fraudulent votes that should be disallowed. That should be enough to prevent him from being convicted.

It is one of the big problems with being an egomaniac surrounded by yes-men and toadies.

[Sarcastr0]

He didn't use the language of someone who thought the votes were there - he said find the exact number of votes he needed to win.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't know, seems like a lot of interpretation and reading between the lines to me. Is it really clear enough to make a good case? I've got no sympathy for the man, but this seems a little thin.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, a criminal case? Not by itself. I guess I didn't follow the thread all the way up.

I haven't actually given a lot of thought about whether all the evidence fits into a criminal case against Trump, it's such a remote possibility.

[Ridgeway]

His defense will be that he was saying the following to Raff: "There are hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes out there - I don't need you to find every single one, because 11k is enough to put me over the hump. That should be easy to find."

If he genuinely believed that, then he wouldn't have the specific intent necessary for a solicitation or conspiracy charge, nor any "corrupt" motivation for any of the interference charges.

[not guilty]

It's not like there were scores of court cases litigated with Trump on the losing end? Any purported belief would need to be a reasonable belief. Willful blindness would not work. And a jury would be free to disbelieve Trump's claim as to what he in fact believed.

Cross-examining someone as buffoonish as Trump is about as much fun as a lawyer can have with clothes on.

[hobie]

Trump's subjective belief that he was trying to correct a wrong is immaterial to his conduct. If that were the case then all criminal law would fail.

[Ridgeway]

Sure it would -- it would go the the mens rea of the various crimes Trump could be charged with. He is not going to say that he wanted Raff to alter an accurate vote count because the vote was unfair. He is going to say he wanted Raff to make sure the count was indeed accurate and included only valid ballots.

[David Nieporent]

Brett always confuses "assume" and "conclude" when Republican crimes are involved.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You're spamming the forum.

[not guilty]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Kevin Smith]

Yeah, this isn't a forum (but you're still spamming)

[Brett Bellmore]

It does mean what he thinks it means. You've been spamming that comment.

[hobie]

He's been a little spammy, sure. But what he's bringing covers the most consequential crime in American history. It's all right in front of your eyes and none of you seem to be able to handle it very well. The whole threads up and down this post are graveyards of weak deflections and embarrassing dodges.

[Bob from Ohio]

"most consequential crime in American history"

Such a dumb comment.

[hobie]

You don't see just a little tiny modicum of coordination in this group of gentlemen, Bob?

[not guilty]

Mike Lindell and MyPillow are refusing to comply with formulating a discovery plan in the defamation suit brought by Dominion. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699.63.0.pdf The District Court has overruled motions to dismiss, and Lindell and MyPillow are purporting to appeal that ruling.

An order denying a motion to dismiss is ordinarily appealable prior to trial, and this defamation case presents no facts within the collateral order exception to that rule.

Why do the denizens of Trumpworld believe that compliance with rules of law is optional?

[John F. Carr]

According to the document in your link, the D. C. Circuit granted a motion to dismiss the appeal.

[not guilty]

Right. The appeal was and is frivolous, but Lindell apparently thinks it excuses non-compliance with discovery obligations.

Lindell has also asserted a counterclaim -- on what theory I don't know. His hijinks regarding discovery risks default judgment as to liability on Dominion's original claim and involuntary dismissal of the counterclaim.

I don't understand the mindset of flouting the rules.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's a nut, you expect him to act rationally?

[not guilty]

I expect his lawyers to exercise some client control.

[Brett Bellmore]

It doesn't get more hilarious than this. And that one woman yelling "Don't touch me!" while hitting him? You can't make stuff like that up.

[swood1000]

Despite the fact that the virus that causes COVID-19 is about 0.1 micrometer (µm) in diameter, and the holes in woven cloth typically have a diameter of five to 200 µm, it is claimed by the CDC that nevertheless such masks do have some protective value and are better than nothing. According to the ACGIH Pandemic Response Task Force, if the infected person is wearing nothing and the non-infected person is wearing a cloth mask, it takes 20 minutes to transmit an infectious dose of Covid-19. If the infected person is also wearing a cloth mask this increases to 27 minutes.

A story in August reported on 14 randomized controlled trials (RCT) that were designed to determine the effectiveness of masks:

In sum, of the 14 RCTs that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis, that masks might be useful. The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless—whether compared with no masks or because they appear not to add to good hand hygiene alone—or actually counterproductive. Of the three studies that provided statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis that was not contradicted within the same study, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're an idiot, and you don't even know why.

LOL. Priceless.

[swood1000]

Why don't you tell me why.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How many reasons would you like?

It starts with your argument about the size of COVID-19 versus the masks. It's as though you transported yourself back in time by two years to reiterate the same stupidity which has already been refuted.

[swood1000]

It starts with your argument about the size of COVID-19 versus the masks.

I got those numbers from this article, which delivers a strong argument in favor of the efficacy of cloth masks. All bunk? What are the correct numbers? Is the ACGIH Pandemic Response Task Force an anti-vax conspiracy group? Were the 14 randomized controlled trials misinterpreted? Are you able to participate in this discussion other than by spewing insults? Contrary to what you may believe, that approach does not enhance the credibility of your argument, but rather is known as the refuge of someone without facts to rely on.

[Don Nico]

swood,
The relevant dimension is not the size of the folded virus, but the size of the aerosol particle to which it is attached. That size is typically much larger than 1 nanometer

[swood1000]

First we need to clarify our terms. The virus size I cited was 0.1 micrometer (µm). One micrometer (also known as a micron) equals 1000 nanometers (nm). One study, Simple Respiratory Protection—Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials Against 20–1000 nm Size Particles, assumes that particles as small 20 nm to 1 µm can be exhaled. My comment did not deny that cloth masks decrease the risk somewhat. It merely pointed out that the scientific evidence for the filtration efficacy of cloth masks is not entirely clear, given the size of the pores in cotton masks, which was described by one study this way:

The pore size of masks ranged from 80 to 500 μm, which was much bigger than particular matter having diameter of 2.5 μm or less (PM2.5) and 10 μm or less (PM10) size. The PM10 filtering efficiency of four of the selected masks ranged from 63% to 84%. The poor filtering efficiency may have arisen from larger and open pores present in the masks. Interestingly, we found that efficiency dropped by 20% after the 4th washing and drying cycle.

[Don Nico]

"First we need to clarify our terms."
1) You did not clarify anything.
2) I did not comment about the filtration rate vs. pore size of multi-layer cloths vs. multi-layer synthetics filters. Or the effective total pore size of multi-layers.
3) We don't need instructions about the definition if SI units of length.
4) Your quote has little to do with the efficacy of 1-time use (or on-washed filters. However, I don't disagree with the comment.

[swood1000]

1) You did not clarify anything.

You said that the size of an aerosol particle “is typically much larger than 1 nanometer.” This led me to believe that when I said that “COVID-19 is about 0.1 micrometer (µm) in diameter” you were equating that with one nanometer, whereas that is actually 100 nm. If this is not what you were talking about, what did “1 nanometer” refer to?

2) I did not comment about the filtration rate vs. pore size of multi-layer cloths vs. multi-layer synthetics filters. Or the effective total pore size of multi-layers.

The “clarification” only referred to the sizes being referred to. Perhaps I should have begun a new paragraph with the sentence beginning “One study…” The subject under discussion is the size of the particles being expelled, and whether the size of the pores in cloth masks is sufficiently small to significantly impede these particles. Was your comment unrelated to that dynamic?

3) We don't need instructions about the definition if SI units of length.

I was not trying to offend you. See my first comment above.

4) Your quote has little to do with the efficacy of 1-time use (or on-washed filters.

The quote deals with washed and unwashed cloth filters, and presumably to their first use. But when we are talking about the efficacy of cloth masks as used by the population in general I don’t see the relevance of masks that are only meant to be used one time, if that is what you are referring to. Few people use a cloth mask that is only meant to be used one time. What is your point here?

[swood1000]

So, the size of SARS-CoV-2 is about 100 nanometers (nm). I read an interesting page on the NASA website pointing out that each primary mirror segment on the James Web Space Telescope has actuators on the back that allow control of the 6 spatial degrees of freedom with a precision better than 10 nm. According to this page, (a) one nanometer is about as long as your fingernail grows in one second and (b) a single gold atom is about a third of a nanometer in diameter.

[Ben_]

Because name-calling is the best that angry, intellectually limited people like Jason can do.

[Michael P]

Rep. James Clyburn apparently believes that centuries of US elections, including the ones that elected him, were illegitimate because Democrats had not nationalized election rules. And that Donald Trump is culpable for criticizing election processes.

[not guilty]

Where do you get that from Rep. Clyburn's remarks in the linked article? He was not speaking retrospectively.

Shelby County v. Holder, though, is this century's Korematsu. If in the hereafter John Roberts encounters James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, I hope they beat the stuffing out of him.

[Michael P]

The rules for 2022 look to be more open and make elections more accessible to voters than any time before 2020. If that makes them illegitimate, then previous elections were even more illegitimate.

Why are you so willing to accept inconsistent standards for legitimacy? Because you are afraid of what the American public will decide this year?

[Moderation4ever]

Is this any sillier than Republicans claiming fraud in the 2020 election in which they won their own race?

[hobie]

Then Clyburn is a fool, just like Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Some idiots banned teaching students using Maus.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That was going to be my thing!

But yeah, “idiots” is an understatement for the way the board talked about it. A 3 in the corner must mean it’s aimed at 3rd graders!

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/01/26/tennessee-school-board-bans-holocaust-comic-maus-by-art-spiegelman.html

Here’s a good thread that explains what’s actually in Maus and why it’s an important book interspersed with the dumbassery of the board.

https://mobile.twitter.com/janecoaston/status/1486468694540750849

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts we have a new law requiring teaching of genocide in schools. I think it was pushed largely by Armenian activists, but if you're teaching genocide you have to do Nazi Germany too.

I don't remember learning about the Holocaust in schools. Maybe it came up, but it was something everybody knew about anyway. Jokes like, "Did you hear about the new German microwave oven?" were current at the time. They wouldn't make sense if the topic was obscure.

[Sarcastr0]

I happened to learn it, but I want to a largely Jewish school.

No, the Holocaust isn't part of every HS/elementary curriculum.
Banning it is a whole 'nother thing though.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It must have happened at some point but I don’t have any distinct memories of learning about the Holocaust in elementary/middle/high school. I assume there was a lesson about it when we covered WWII in world history.

I do remember reading Number the Stars for class in 7th grade so we must have talked about it then. It’s interesting though, someone in the Jane Coaston thread I posted above sarcastically asked: is there a PG genocide story? And my mind jumped to Number the Stars. Since it’s about the escape of a Jewish Danish girl to Sweden it confronts discrimination and fear but not life and death in the extermination camps like Maus does.

Which is why I am very thankful I took a college class on the Holocaust (where I first encountered Maus incidentally). The scope of the Holocaust is enormous and touches on so many things. The crimes and the beliefs that led to them are staggering in the extreme.

And the historiographical debate between the intentionalists and the functionalists was really eye-opening and has some definite lessons for our own time about how to think about historical change.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure I first encountered the Holocaust reading my parents' encyclopedia while in kindergarten. We did certainly go over it in high school, though.

[John F. Carr]

My stepmother thought the diary of Anne Frank was really great. I tried a few pages and didn't care for it. One of the local schools uses it in 9th grade English class. I think if it's read at all it belongs in history class.

[LawTalkingGuy]

My Holocaust professor said it was "bad." Or at least bad in terms of understanding the Holocaust.

[Sarcastr0]

Frank didn't stick with much at all. The pics from the Army liberators did.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how the diary of somebody hiding in an attic COULD tell you about events happening outside it, except that she had something to hide from.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Did you ever hear about the production of the stage play "The Diary of Anne Frank" starring Pia Zadora? She was apparently so bad that in the scene where the Nazi troops enter the house, someone in the audience shouted "She's in the attic!"

[David Nieporent]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shes-in-the-attic/

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Dammit! Oh well, I guess I have to stop telling that one.

[Ed Grinberg]

Agree. (First time, I think.) I've read the comic book and think it was a mistake to ban it. Whatever they were worried about -- learning about the Holocaust from it is certainly better than not learning about the Holocaust.

[Bob from Ohio]

They are just replacing it with another book about the Shoah.

[Sarcastr0]

Monkeying at the political level with how you discuss the Holocaust seems a bad sign to me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. School choice would be better. But when you have the government deciding what kids get taught, it's political.

[Sarcastr0]

The incentives of a school board are pretty different from administrators/teachers.

As you well know.

Are you cool with this choice? I find it kind of telling this was an early target. We'll see where it goes from here; maybe it's not how it seems.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Are you cool with this choice?"

Idk, I'm not familiar with the book. But looking at the meeting minutes, it sounds like what they did was remove the book from the curriculum and try to replace it with a better one to teach about the holocaust, due to some concerns about foul language.

I'm generally unsympathetic to concerns about foul language, but school boards get to decide what their curriculum is.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't hide behind is this legal. We all agree it's legal.

You seem to lay the predicate for this being a bad idea, and then step back. So again: are you cool with this choice?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You seem to lay the predicate for this being a bad idea, and then step back."

Well, what's your question? Would I have made the choice as a school board member? Do I think the school board's choice is somehow fundamentally wrong in some other sense?

As I said, I'm not familiar with the freaking book, so I don't know, but I would not vote to remove from the curriculum a book that I thought was otherwise the best treatment of the holocaust because it had some foul language and a few depictions of violence.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus Christ, you really don't like answering this question.

[VinniUSMC]

Jesus Christ, you really don't like answering this question.

He answered your question. You just don't like the answer. Not that the question was of any value to begin with.

[David Nieporent]

I think it's a terrible decision made for moronic reasons.

But I also think these "school boards shouldn't interfere" are the left equivalent of the "take your government hands off my Medicare" protest that some right wingers purportedly yelled during debates over Obamacare.

[Sarcastr0]

I was under the impression this kind of curriculum decision is one school boards don't generally make, even if they are empowered to.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Monkeying at the political level with how you discuss the Holocaust seems a bad sign to me."

School board is responsible to the people. The people can get rid of them if they don't like it.

Your position is basically once a teacher/principal adds something to a course, its sealed in concrete.

[Sarcastr0]

You are again running between 'it's legal' and 'it's cool and good.'

These are not the same thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Some idiots banned teaching students using Maus."

That doesn't sound good. They should get rid of the books calling white people devils and showing kids having sex instead.

[Sarcastr0]

Your shitty whattaboutism is noted.

So is your being super troubled about a private school teaching a book with an edgy metaphor. And your fear about sex ed is like 40 years out of date.

As usual, you are taking a particularly uncharitable view of what's being taught because your sources are awful, right wing rags with an agenda and you've lost all ability to do critical thinking.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So is your being super troubled about a private school teaching a book with an edgy metaphor."

Edgy metaphor? They said that whiteness is a deal with the devil. You can't understand why parents of all races don't want their children taught that?

And the rest of the book sucks too.

[Sarcastr0]

It's an exercise about privilege and legacy. Which is easy to see. And also you would know if you bothered to Google reviews of the book rather than relying on whatever you dug this up from.

No one is saying white people made deals with the devil. You know that.

This is a distraction. Why are you defending this Maus thing with this kind of furious bullshit?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's literally what they're saying, gaslightro.

There's a youtube video of somebody reading to book allowed.

A kid sees a black guy getting shot by a cop on TV. The mom says, "The cop was just doing his job." The mom believes this because she has "whiteness", or because she is white. The kid realizes she has a choice: accept "whiteness" and white privilege, or accept that the shooting was unjust.

There's no discussion of looking at evidence to determine the facts of the shooting, because CRT rejects the objective use of evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

Literally, as defined by the NY Post's take? How the fuck can you take that rag seriously?

Here is the only quote I saw:

iOn one page, a red-tailed devil made of money offers a “Contract Binding YOU to WHITENESS.”
“You get: stolen land, stolen, riches, special favors. WHITENESS gets: to mess endlessly with the lives of your friends, neighbors, loved ones, and all fellow humans of COLOR for the purpose of profit.”
This is not calling white people devils. It's clearly an analogy.

The book, also recommended for students age 8 and up at the private Corlears School in Chelsea, presents a mother who “doesn’t see color” as wrong.
“Deep down, we all know color matters,” the book reads. “Skin color makes a difference
Calling out the 'lets alluva sudden be color blind' set is not really the bombshell you think it is.

Plus, THIS IS ALL WHATTABOUTISM.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Literally, as defined by the NY Post's take? How the fuck can you take that rag seriously?"

Literally, as shown in the screenshot from the book.

"This is not calling white people devils. It's clearly an analogy."

Oh, so it's analogizing white people to devils? Glad we cleared that up.

[Sarcastr0]

Like how Jesus analogized Heaven to a fancy pearl. Scandalous!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is not calling white people devils. It's clearly an analogy."

I mean, try it in another context:

"This is not calling black people gorillas. It's clearly an analogy."

[Sarcastr0]

No, when people do that they're literally saying black people are gorilla like. The above exercise is not saying white people are devil like.
Best you could argue is that privilege derived from whiteness is like a deal with the devil.

You are not this bad at reading comprehension.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You are not this dishonest.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Your shitty whattaboutism is noted."

While I'm at it, here's some children being taught that getting a double mastectomy is just like taking the SAT's, and if you change your mind later, no problemo, you can just get new tits sewed on.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not the comparison being made, you utter liar.

The SATs are used as an example of how positive and lifechanging developments aren't shared on social media much. So too this breast surgery when it goes well.

That is not comparing the two acts. The teacher said this was a life-altering decision, just not necessarily the wrong one or one they are not capable of making.

There are certainly some crappy teachers with overzealous agendas. This isn't it.

You're full-on lying here. Maybe even to yourself, otherwise why would you put some thing so easily debunked out there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. And that's why we call you gaslightro. As I said, she'd comparing the decision for a kid to take the SAT's with the decision for a kid to get an elective double mastectomy.

It's right there in the video.

[Sarcastr0]

That is not comparing the two acts. The teacher said this was a life-altering decision, just not necessarily the wrong one or one they are not capable of making.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And if you get it wrong, don't worry, you can sew on a new pair...

[StellaLink_the dog]

"While I'm at it, here's some children. . ."

Yeah, if "children" includes people over 50. It's not clear to me who she is presenting to, wag is it's some sort of professional group.

[StellaLink_the dog]

From the video's description:

'This was recorded at the "Professional Symposium" convened by the "Gender Spectrum" child transing organization, 6 July 2018, Moraga, California.'

[Sarcastr0]

Oh good lord, I missed that.

What a miserable propagandist TiP is.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am not intimately familiar with the eighth grade language arts curriculum in McMinn County, Tennessee, but I am confident that the vast majority of books ever published are not on it. Are all of those banned as well, in your view? If not, what's the distinction?

[Sarcastr0]

The school board making the decision to prevent it as a possible choice by the educational professionals.

Which is a departure from their usual practice. And an odd choice to make such a departure for.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just say it, you think they are anti-semites, despite no evidence of that. Because they are from Nowhere, Confederacy.

Its a comic book, not Night. Its being replaced with something else.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know. I just think it's bad.

As I said: I find it kind of telling this was an early target. We'll see where it goes from here; maybe it's not how it seems.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It's an autobiographical graphic novel that essentially retells interviews that Art Speigelman actually recorded with his Dad.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The interesting thing about Maus is that it is as much about Spiegelman's relationship to his Dad as about the Holocaust. It's an excellent graphic novel on a lot of levels. Regardless, the whole "Keep Certain Books Away From Our Children" thing has always been ridiculous. I just listened to Jon Ronson's piece about Alice Moore and her crusade in Kanawha County WV, in his latest podcast "Things Fell Apart."

[LawTalkingGuy]

Someone online speculated that could have been a reason for some board members antipathy towards the book: it’s about a complex parent-child relationship where the parent is sometimes in the wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

In 1492 George Washington and the Pilgrim Fathers came to America and peacefully set up the USA, and the Native Americans taught them how to grow corn and enclose land and then went down to Mexico so that they could come back illegally and also there weren't that many of them anyway, then the bad kingdoms of Africa said "hey want to buy some slaves?" and the Democrats, who are the party of Slavery, said yes, then there was a war between the South, who wanted States' Rights and flags that are just about culture, and the Democrats, who wanted Slavery everywhere. This was ended when Robert E. Lincoln, who was a Republican, freed all the Democrats' slaves, even the ones who liked being slaves, and in revenge the Democrats invented racism, which was defeated forever when Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, gave his famous "Don't Be Mean To White People" speech. Everything since then has been communism though, which is the fault of the Democrats.

[Michael P]

You should probably see a doctor for that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro appears to have a case of Biden-itis.

[Doug Huffman]

In elementary school I memorized; Ladies and gentlemen, hobos and tramps, cross-eyed mosquitoes and bow-legged ants. I stand before you to sit behind you and tell you something that I know nothing about. There will be a ladies meeting for men only, free admission but pay at the door. The talk will be on George Washington who sailed up the Chicky-chick River to discover China, with the Declaration of Indigestion in one hand and the Star Speckled Banana in the other. I think you.

Sixty one years ago we knew the truth and deeply inculcated it. I remember.

[Commenter_XY]

George Washington was born in 1731. It would be hard to go back in time to 1492 with the Pilgrim Fathers. 🙂

Good morning Sarcastr0....have some coffee. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Thank you for the serious comment on my serious post.

[Commenter_XY]

Happy Thursday, Sarcastr0. A snowy weekend awaits. Be careful shoveling.

[Sarcastr0]

Aye. Gotta stock up on cider and red wine for mulling.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"George Washington was born in 1731. "

True that. When George Washington was born on February 22, 1732, everyone in Virginia thought it was February 11, 1731. Well, maybe not everyone. Some recognized that the war between the Julians and Gregorians was over. But, in some countries the war raged on. Fun question: in which month did the October Revolution occur?

[DaveM]

Thanks, that was hilarious. I needed that.

[apedad]

"A dual Haitian-Chilean citizen was arrested yesterday based on criminal charges related to his alleged involvement in the assassination of the former President of Haiti, Jovenel Moise, on July 7, 2021.

Rodolphe Jaar, 49, is charged with conspiring to commit murder or kidnapping outside the United States and providing material support resulting in death, knowing or intending that such material support would be used to prepare for or carry out the conspiracy to kill or kidnap. Jaar is the second individual to be charged and arrested in the United States for his role in the assassination plot."

I didn't know we had a law specifically on, "conspiring to commit murder or kidnapping o̲u̲t̲s̲i̲d̲e̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲U̲n̲i̲t̲e̲d̲ ̲S̲t̲a̲t̲e̲s̲."

But we do: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/second-man-charged-connection-plot-kill-haitian-president

[John F. Carr]

The government has to prove an act within the jurisdiction of the US. A Chilean killing a Haitian does not ordinarily violate U.S. law, but if (for example) he stops in Florida to get the guns then he's in trouble.

[Kevin Smith]

For the conspiracy charge all he has to do is discus the plot over a café con leche while in the US

[John F. Carr]

The law requires an "act ... to effect any object of the conspiracy" within the jurisdiction of the United States. I read that not to include simply talking about the conspiracy itself.

[Brett Bellmore]

But predicate acts can be perfectly innocent acts that you might have some other reason for doing. Once they claim a conspiracy, the standards of proof get pretty lax.

[Doug Huffman]

When traces of Man are swept away, JWST will still remain there, testament to dreams.

Men may go to Mars, but Man will not go to space for the unabled demanding their pound of flesh from nearest the heart of Man for their stewpots.

[John F. Carr]

I doubt the orbit is stable in the long term. It's not hard to escape from an L2 halo orbit into solar orbit. I remember studying the potential well in college but I forget the details.

[Brett Bellmore]

Absolutely not stable; They were quite delighted that the launch left the probe with more fuel than expected, because when it runs out of fuel for station keeping, it will slide away.

The Lagrange points are like flat spots in space: Easy to stay there, but they don't actually attract anything.

[Stephen Lathrop]

That is nicely put, Brett. Even if you got it somewhere else, I appreciate that you brought it here. Thanks.

[Brett Bellmore]

I helped found a chapter of the L-5 society in college, in the 70's. I don't need to get an explanation of Lagrange points from somewhere else.

[Sarcastr0]

Yep, you have it right in my understanding, Brett.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Well, that makes it all the better.

[Michael P]

L4 and L5 are stable attractors, but the other three are not. L1, L2 and L3 are on the line between the centers of mass of the two large bodies, so intuition says that getting a little bit off that line is probably not good.

[John F. Carr]

If you are stationary near the L2 point you drift away, but if you're moving you can orbit. It makes more sense if you draw it in phase space instead of physical space.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, orbits get really strange near the Lagrange points, it's the only sense in which they're attractors. 😉

[Michael P]

JWST is in orbit around L2, which has an unstable equilibrium. When it runs out of fuel for stationkeeping, it will drift away, never to return -- becoming a (rather minor) navigational hazard for any future spacecraft unless we send it somewhere safe.

[Sarcastr0]

The tradeoff between longevity (and maintainability) and efficacy has swung pretty hard towards efficacy with current tech.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd like them to get over this fear of nuclear, and start using fission fragment rockets for station keeping. The thrust isn't all that great, but they run for decades.

But, yeah, with launch costs coming down the way they are, it's hardly even worth it to make a space telescope last that long. Cheaper to replace it when it fails.

I think the next development there is going to be ultra-large space telescopes made of free floating mirror segments with sub-wavelength precision station keeping. You'll be able to expand the mirror with new segments without shutting down the telescope, and just keep increasing its capabilities.

[Hank Ferrous]

I don't foresee this, post-industrial societies are irrational and fear-based. I suspect we will see an attempt at an electric launch system before we see fission.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, once the Cold War generation is out, we'll be less terrified.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's so much a Cold War thing, as a Greens thing. During the Cold War we were worried about actual threats, and had to be more than a little thick skinned. It was the next generation that turned anti-nuclear.

[Sarcastr0]

What next generation? It's the Boomers.

Anti-nuke got folded into the environmentalist movement driven by associations with Chernobyl and how atomic=bombs. All the anti-nuke protests and lawusits are in the 60s and 70s, with a few continued in the 80s and 90s, but generally by the same groups formed back then.

I don't think Gen X had the Chernobyl/nuclear annihilation experience. Certainly millennials have not.

[Don Nico]

C'mon, S_O, not all the citizens of Germany are boomers.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In today's NYT Thomas Edsall published a column pondering redistribution as a possible remedy for political polarization. He cited political scientists who posited that redistribution works better to prevent polarization than to reverse it. That makes sense, because once polarized, whoever controls power will make sure redistributive efforts thereafter benefit only his own side.

For those willing for the sake of argument to set aside anti-redistributive priors, my question is how much money might be available—on an annual basis—to fund redistribution in the U.S? I start with a premise that given the will to do it, about half the defense budget could go for redistributive purposes without much harm to national defense. I guess at least another trillion or so could be raised annually with a very small tax on financial market transactions. Other suggestions would be welcome.

If those kinds of numbers were sustainable continuously, I suggest there is evidence already (from pandemic relief efforts) that they would make a long-term difference which might ameliorate political polarization.

Any thoughts?

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, such a system might be possible* under a consumption tax based system, but there are huge trade-offs involved and significant up-front hurdles that would need to be addressed. But it would be possible, theoretically. Friedman discussed this in any number of papers, writings.

* I maintain it is possible because a consumption tax based system is far broader (touches more things) than income.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, my first thought is that redistribution is a progressive notion, and consumption taxes get criticized as anti-progressive. Are they at cross purposes?

[Commenter_XY]

Well, I'll say it this way. You posed a theoretical question, and you said lose your preconceptions (in a manner of speaking).

What I put out there was a way to achieve the revenue side of redistribution. Now how the pie gets divvyed up is a very significant hurdle, and there are huge trade-offs. But it could be done.

[Michael P]

We'll provide thoughts when you do. "Set aside your arguments against redistribution and let's start planning how to redistribute."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, as with so many other questions about factual stuff, this discussion may not be for you.

Does it even occur to you that one reason to ask the question is that it might turn up an answer that redistribution is impractical? Maybe there are not enough resources available to make a difference.

I have a suggestion. Before attempting more, make a quick inspection of your mental faculties. Do you find the levers sticky and hard to operate? Frames of reference ponderous, and stuck stubbornly in place? How about the sifting functions? Are they mostly clogged, with material going through only in a thin trickle?

Maybe I am unfair. It is pretty early in the AM. Why not just wait and see if things improve as the sun rises.

[Michael P]

Stephen Lathrop, as with so many other topics, maybe you should realize that explicitly begging the question is not a convincing way to start an argument (in the rhetorical sense of argument, not the everyday sense). Or maybe your internal levers and gears are too sticky to realize that.

I mean, you're not even specific on what it means to "fund redistribution in the United States". Is that the overhead expenses for a program of redistribution, or the actual resources being redistributed? Does it include existing income- and wealth-progressive programs? How are we supposed to meaningfully engage with your question when it's so ambiguous?

[Stephen Lathrop]

How are we supposed to meaningfully engage with your question when it's so ambiguous?

By choosing an aspect which interests you, and trying to formulate a cogent reply based on that?

[Michael P]

Why? You posed a question that seems formulated to have people talk past each other, just after demanding people pretend they don't know why redistribution is bad. If you want engagement on your chosen topic, ask clearer questions.

Also, show that you have enough understanding of organizational incentives and dynamics to identify 50% of the defense budget that is mostly "waste, fraud and abuse" (to borrow a phrase) that could be cut "without much harm".

However, you "guess" that a ~5% additional tax on the entire US GDP would be "a very small tax on financial market transactions", so I despair of you understanding anything that requires even a quick Google search to learn.

[Don Nico]

Michael,
All tailored distribution schemes are akin to political scams. Prefer the Universal Basic Income (UBI) and apply the obvious clawbacks eliminating large bureaucracies in the process.

[Kevin Smith]

I would agree with the political scientists Edsall is citing, that redistribution may be a vaccine, but it is not a cure. Even if redistributive efforts are not used to benefit one side, half of a highly polarized electorate will likely *perceive* it as benefitting one side, thus increasing polarization

At best (or worst depending on your political side) it would entrench the redistributing side in power and relegate the other side as a permanent minority

[David Bremer]

In a lot of ways, the spending you want to reallocate to redistribution is already just a form of redistribution.

For example, I'm sure we could cut military spending. But how much of that military spending goes to maintaining forces staffed by people who didn't have great job prospects to begin with? Or teaching skills that those individuals would have had to pay to get at college/tech school? Or funding otherwise unnecessary university research? My wife, for example, had her graduate school paid for by the Navy because she wrote her thesis on the effects of repeated movements (such as ocean waves) on steel. Did the government really need that research? I'm sure not. But the work paid for her master's degree (plus a small stipend).

I'm sure you can do this with lots of government programs. But at least wasteful programs generate something in return. I'm also not saying we should maintain wasteful programs. I'm just rejecting the notion that we're not already doing a lot of redistribution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thank you Bremer. I gave some thought to that when I wrote the question. I was hoping to save the trouble of laying it out, and you obliged. Those are points someone would have to quantify, probably again and again with regard to specific redistributions.

It seems entirely correct that it would be a mistake, for instance, to assume that taking 50% from the military budget would result in a net gain of the same dollar amount for the population at large. A more redistribution-focused question would be whether (or to what extent) the military budget gets spent on folks whose earnings are higher than those of others who need the money more.

[Don Nico]

"For example, I'm sure we could cut military spending."
we could but the savings are not nearly enough to do a wide amount of good.

[Ed Grinberg]

"[Redistribution] might ameliorate political polarization."
Ha!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Grinberg, the question seems predicated on a notion that polarization looks like division across the middle of the population, and gets reduced in proportion to the percentage of population in the larger remnant after the line of division is moved toward either pole.

It is true that smaller numbers have more wealth, and that their wealth can be spent to supply political vehemence disproportionate to their numbers. That strikes me as a fact more relevant to the problem of getting redistribution done than it is to whether redistribution would work to reduce polarization if it were done.

Of course none of that addresses the question whether meaningful amounts of wealth exist which could be redistributed by politically practical means.

[Ridgeway]

There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.

[Jacob Grimes]

I think the premise that political polarization is something to be remedied is questionable in itself. This country has been politically polarized since the beginning. How is that not part of the way our system is supposed to work?

[Stephen Lathrop]

How is that not part of the way our system is supposed to work?

Grimes, don't just ignore the fact that a large and increasing fraction of the population no longer believes the political system is working. And maldistribution of wealth is one of the leading complaints attributed to the alleged failure.

Of course it is legit to disagree, and argue everything is working dandy. But please, no tacit premise that a contrary opinion ought to be ignored.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"I guess at least another trillion or so could be raised annually with a very small tax on financial market transactions."

Every time I've encountered someone claiming that a "small tax" on transactions could yield big bucks it seems that the small tax would end up being very bigly big.

For example, consider https://www.selectusa.gov/financial-services-industry-united-states where we find:

"In 2018, finance and insurance represented 7.4 percent (or $1.5 trillion) of U.S. gross domestic product."

So, how do you get $1 trillion out of a $1.5 trillion industry (including insurance) with a "small tax?" How do you get such a tax enacted? How do you prevent the players in the financial markets from avoiding the tax, if enacted?

Half the defense budget would be (iiuc) about $360 billion. If you could capture 10% of the contribution of the finance and insurance industry to GDP you have a bit over $500 billion total. Maybe $1500 pc.

The only way that I see to finance a serious effort towards redistribution is to increase income taxes and that's not going to be easy, if at all possible. Even though, income taxes in the US are pretty low and, particularly if you include payroll taxes, skewed in favor of higher earners.

Personally, I think the only way to impact distribution is by enacting secret redistribution through something like the Democrats' current proposal -- well, most Democrats.

[Stephen Lathrop]

StellaLink, pretty sure you have the numbers wrong, by a lot. I checked your link, and agree it seems to say what you show. I could not figure out why.

It is easy to find multiple sources who agree, for instance, that the daily traded value on the corporate bond market is > $35 billion. That by itself sums to ~ $7 trillion per year. And that is a drop in the bucket compared to the value of treasury bonds, and securities traded on stock markets. Other kinds of traded securities would be added to those.

[Don Nico]

SL,
The most plausible scenario is a guaranteed minimum income of $20K/capita/year. That would cost about $6.5T depending on the formula for paying kids under 18.
If one eliminates all benefits except for veterans benefits and taxes the income, one can clawback $3.5T. For a total cost of $3T per year.
The Yang proposal would have cost $2T per year

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, we saw with pandemic relief and enhanced unemployment benefits that it takes an income increase notably less than 20K a year per-capita to increase family savings.

Not sure that addresses your point, because I am not sure I got your point.

[Don Nico]

SL,
My point is that if one wants a large scale program of redistribution of wealth some variant of a UBI is a means of doing it with the least room for shenanigans inspired by electoral politics.
I don't know how the US could manage to offset a $2T - $3T addition to the deficit per year, but the elimination of large bureaucracies would be an attractive feature.
Regarding savings from defense and intelligence budgets might same up to $0.5T per year, but I have need tried to estimate that.

[Commenter_XY]

Question for VC Conspirators...The Federal judiciary is roughly ~1,000 judges or so. They have differing skills, talents and abilities. They all have different philosophies and legal schools of thought as they approach the law, and decide legal questions.

How do we citizens benefit from the philosophical differences between these ~1K judges? Is there a benefit that you can articulate?

Much ink will be spilled in the coming months. But I would like to hear from the lawyers and law professors....how important is diversity in the sense I describe important to the federal judiciary as a whole? This is more of a 'systems' kind of question.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, I take it you are talking about diverse legal theory, and intend to exclude Intersectionality, Inc.? Or do I misunderstand?

[Sarcastr0]

No one knows what's right. A diversity of points of view is a more robust system, maybe not as right but with much reduced risk of being super wrong.

See also: federalism.

[apedad]

The diversity helps to prevent us becoming radicalized too far to the left or right.

It's (part of) what makes our nation the greatest and longest form of continuous government.

[Sarcastr0]

I do wish we were a parliament, though.

[apedad]

NO! NO! NO!

A parliament-style govt simply will not work in our (current) federal system.

Our current system isn't perfect (maybe just a couple of very minor tweaks) however, I can't think of anything better.

[Sarcastr0]

I could absolutely be wrong, so I'd like to dig into this.

Our current system is a representative system with a separately elected President and a crapload of veto traps.

How would getting rid of the separately elected President for one chosen from among the legislatures screw up federalism?

Also, too, what are your favorite tweaks?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Germany and Switzerland have federal systems. I think Switzerland’s is fairly strong too.

Canada is basically a federal system
although the federal government is responsible for all criminal law, which would be a big no no here.

Australia too (not sure how they do crim law)

UK is basically federal now that there are so many devolved powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. (Although there isn’t an English Assembly, and the so called “West Lothian” question which asks why it’s okay for the Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish (to the extent they participate) MPs still get to vote on English only matters.)

Tl;dr federalism is perfectly compatible with a parliamentary democracy

[bernard11]

Our current system is deeply flawed and inadequately representative.

I think the federalism issue needs to be looked at from two perspectives - national policy and regional/state level policy. It makes no sense to me to have usual national policies made by an unrepresentative Congress and a President who may have drawn fewer votes than his opponent.

There certainly are policies that can and should be sensibly made at the state/local level. (Though it's amazing how happy the champions of decentralized government are to see state legislatures overrule municipal government.)

[Brett Bellmore]

For a lot of issues, it makes no sense to HAVE national policies in the first place. Like, why would we have national policies on flow in shower heads, when the country includes desert regions, and areas where you can't dig your boot heel into the ground without water rising up?

I think there'd be a lot less interest in maintaining blocking power in the Senate if the federal government were still limited to jurisdiction over genuinely federal level issues, such as foreign policy.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"why would we have national policies on flow in shower heads, when the country includes desert regions, and areas where you can't dig your boot heel into the ground without water rising up?"

Because flushing potable water down the drain ( and often out to sea) for no good reason doesn't make sense anywhere in the US. If you can take your shower with the water that comes up from your boot heel (or the piss you pour out of it while reading the instructions on the heel) then that might be ok. But, probably it's coming from a limited source somewhere far from where your kicking shit and it's an expensive resource.

I'm not a big fan, but I can abide. Likewise the low flush toilets and the tankless water heaters. The LEDlights, though, that's magic.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Because flushing potable water down the drain ( and often out to sea) for no good reason doesn't make sense anywhere in the US."

See, there's your problem. You actually think that's true!

In fact, that's not true. Some areas of the country have effectively unlimited potable water, like Michigan. In other, desert areas, it's in radically short supply.

Plumbing systems are designed for a particular water to turd ratio, that's what sets the slant of the sewage pipes. If they don't get it, they block up.

You implement water savings protocols in the middle of half the potable water in the world, with the waste going into a system designed for regular flush toilets, you get problems, and you get them for no good reason at all.

But you actually think that the entire country needs their plumbing code to be suited to the middle of a desert. The notion that maybe these codes need to match local conditions doesn't enter your head.

[darkknight9]

Only if its Parliament Funkadelic baby!!

[Artifex]

How do we citizens benefit from the philosophical differences between these ~1K judges? Is there a benefit that you can articulate?

This seems more of a philosophical question rather than a legal one and I suspect any answer you get will revolve around the question: "What is the purpose of the law and why do we need a legal system in the first place ?"

If your answer to this question is along the lines of "We desire a consistent and predictable set of rules to live by.", diversity is an unmitigated evil. The more diverse your set of judges the less consistent and predictable your laws are. This is also going to vary depending on how you personally view the universe. Objective and subjective viewpoints are going to give you very different results.

Without really understanding more of your assumptions, I would simply think that the question is ill posed in its current form.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a fair distinction - I made a pragmatically-based response but there may be different ideologically-based responses.

[Commenter_XY]

Artifex.....It is both: philosophical and legal. I am interested in what I think you call the objective viewpoint.

Does this help? Tell me what you think.

[Jacob Grimes]

Others mentioned federalism and I think they're right. Presumably, the different perspectives will merge into trends or consensuses within each district over time, and then into each circuit, and then reconciled by the Supreme Court that will have the benefit of fully developed legal approaches if it has to decide a circuit split.
That seems analogous to states experimenting with their own approaches to solving problems that can then be duplicated by other states or adopted into federal law, depending on the area.

[not guilty]

A Wisconsin Republican legislator has introduced a resolution to retract the state's ten electoral votes cast for President Biden in 2021. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/its-just-plain-unconstitutional-wisconsin-gop-leaders-again-reject-resolution-to-pull-back-2020-electoral-votes/ar-AATa27G
There is no lawful authority for the state to do so. Why is that absence of authority no concern to Trump acolytes? When will the craziness end?

[Brett Bellmore]

Members of Congress introduce bills with no constitutional authority all the time. I don't see why "Trump acolytes" should be expected to be nutcase free, when no other group is.

[Ben_]

Have you noticed that openly racist individuals talk the same way about the other as these guys talk about "trump acolytes"? Nearly identical patterns of speech and thought.

Especially the obsession. Racists' favorite thing to talk about is the other. They can’t shut up. Look up and down today’s comment threads and you’ll see some examples.

[Krychek_2]

Now that her run has ended, I'm just as happy Amy Schneider finally got defeated. She, and Matt Ammodio, and James Holzhauer, and all the other big winners deserve all the accolades they are getting. But speaking as a fan, I like games that are close, that are exciting, that go down to the wire, that go into Final Jeopardy with no clear winner. Watching runaway game after runaway game after runaway game just isn't fun, and after awhile, I just stop watching.

I could watch the New England Patriots stomp a high school football team, but why would I want to? Here's hoping there isn't another super-champion for a long time.

[John F. Carr]

Your last sentence reminded me of a spring training tradition where the Boston Red Sox would play Boston College. The college team used aluminum bats.

Maybe it still happens. I haven't payed close attention to baseball for a long time.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Here's hoping there isn't another super-champion for a long time.

A friend of mine is about to go on Jeopardy so I can't 100% commit to that, but I agree with the rest of your points.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I very much enjoyed Holzhauer. Jeopardy is a game with tactical aspects which go mostly unexploited by typical contestants. For anyone paying attention, Holzhauer demonstrated comprehensive analytical mastery of the tactics.

Compared to Holzhauer, I thought Schneider was getting notably less out of her startling recall and pretty good button speed. She was not playing the game for maximal scores, nor for the most certain route to a win. She knows a lot, and was quick on the button. Give her Holzhauer's tactical mastery and she might have retired the game.

[ThePublius]

Having watched virtually every game Amy played, and having researched Holhauer's run, I am convinced of two things:

1. Jeopardy is rigged. It rigs games by making answers easier, making them harder, topic selection, and so forth. They can get rid of a winning contestant, or they can extend a winning contestant's run, within limits;

2. Jeopardy rigged Amy's run to extend it, as they wanted to have a trans champion. Topics consistently appeared that were in her knowledge wheelhouse.

[ThePublius]

Search "jeopardy is rigged part 2" on youtube.

[Ridgeway]

I did. That analysis is flawed. Looking at Coryat score doesn't make sense if you fail to control for the skill of the contestants. The reason JH's final game score was so high is you had two excellent players -- JH and the Emma Boettcher, who beat him. She went on to win several more games, so her win was not a complete fluke.

[Ridgeway]

I don't buy that at all. It does seem that they like to have "diverse" contestants, but there is no way they can rig the games for them. Too much randomness and luck. The actual make-up of the top 10 streaks bears this out. By my count there were 7 white men (one of whom, at least, was super gay), one black man, one white woman, and Amy.

Someone else did make a point, though, that the game is a bit biased toward the champion, because the being comfortable with the mechanics of using the clicker and buzzing in first, and knowing to read the question rather than listen to the host, is a genuine advantage that the new players tend not to have.

[Krychek_2]

That plus I thought a lot of her opponents were crappy players. They can rig it by deliberately sending up mediocre opponents.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The normal process is to do some interviews and mock games to screen out (at least to a degree) the players that are going to choke on camera. Apparently that was curtailed or eliminated for COVID reasons, so you may indeed be seeing some lower-caliber players than you might have a couple of years ago.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do any of the Covidian Cultists acknowledge that there are populations where vaccinated individuals hospitalized outnumber the unvaccinated?

If so, how do they reconcile that?

[Krychek_2]

Can you name any such populations?

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, I like to know where that is happening, other than in BCD's head.

[OtisAH]

How do people reconcile nonsense? They don’t bother.

[apedad]

Maybe in Gillikin Country?

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

[Michael P]

How carefully do your define "population"? I think if you have even remotely reasonable controls for Covid risk, and take care to distinguish between "hospitalized because of Covid" and "hospitalized with Covid", you find that vaccinations very significantly reduce the risk of being hospitalized because of Covid.

You might get other results if the elderly or infirm have much higher vaccination rates than the young and healthy (and you lump them all into one population), or if you count incidental Covid infections of people going to the hospital for other reasons as "Covid hospitalizations'.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol wow now I know why you people are hardcore Covidians, you're amazingly ignorant.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-54-of-hospital-patients-with-virus-are-fully-vaccinated-1.4670229

https://fullfact.org/health/economist-vaccination-status/

Next up:

Parses, ad homs, goal seeking rationalizations, one-sided skepticism

What's not next up:

Self-reflection

[Krychek_2]

Congratulations, you found an outlier. You are familiar with the concept of outlier, right?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The entire United Kingdom is an "outlier" folks.

lmao

[Kevin Smith]

Literally the second line (after the headline) in your first link:

"Rising proportion of vaccinated people in hospital reflects greater numbers in population getting vaccines"

Which is exactly what people here are telling you

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Scroll up, they were first telling me I was crazy because there could be no such possibility.

Now they're telling it's totes normal and they knew it all along.

lol you fkn ppl i swear

[Ben_]

That’s normal for them. They start by denying and then immediately switch to "so what" when the denials stop working.

Then you’ll get "nobody was denying…" gaslighting a few messages after that. See, they’re just strawman arguments 'cause "no one was denying …".

Then you get “But Trump”, or name-calling, or Sarcastr0 will say your posts are "telling" but he won’t say about what. Try to argue against vague, completely deniable innuendo.

[Michael P]

From the end of the first page you linked to: "About 90 per cent of the adult population has received a full course of vaccination, either two doses or one."

And you think that means it's a bad sign that 54% of hospitalized cases were fully vaccinated? It says the risk of hospitalization is about ten times as high if you're not vaccinated!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is that 54% of the hospitalizations contributing to the overburdening problem or is it only the 46%?

[Davy C]

Given the 54% and 90% numbers... it implies that we'd be at about 60% of the hospitalizations we're at now if everyone was vaccinated. But that number may not be completely accurate in that some people cannot get vaccinated and those very people are more likely to be hospitalized.

[Michael P]

The largest group of people who cannot get vaccinated (in the US) -- by far -- is children under 5, and they are almost the least likely to be hospitalized from a Covid infection.

An overwhelming majority of people who are not vaccinated, and are at higher risk of serious disease from Covid, could get vaccinated. If they did, it would greatly reduce the number of Covid-caused hospitalizations.

[Kevin Smith]

Would these "populations" be somewhere like NYC, where the vaccination rate is extremely high? Because a small percentage of a big number can easily be larger than a big percentage of a small number

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If there are more vaccinated filling the hospitals than unvaccinated, why are the unvaccinated to blame for filling the hospitals?

[Kevin Smith]

CON laws, population density, and the virus itself are responsible for filling up the hospitals. If you want a different take you'll have to ask a different commenter

My comment was directed solely at the mathematics of how vaccinated people can have a lower chance of being hospitalized, while still making up a larger percentage of those in the hospital

[Sarcastr0]

This is trivially true.

It is also you committing the Base Rate Fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy)

If there are 90% vaccinated, and vaccines are 80% effective, you'll still get a crapload of breakthrough cases just because your base pop is so large.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who is filling up the hospitals? Vaccinated or unvaccinated in those populations?

[Sarcastr0]

This is a fallacious inquiry.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No it is not. Who is filling up the hospitals? Vaccinated or unvaccinated in those populations?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes it is. You are asking a question that does not matter because you don't understand base rate disparities.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you make the same argument when people blame the unvaccinated for overloading the hospitals?

Of course not, you such your gaslighting mouth up.

If hospitals are being overburdened and a majority of the people in them are vaccinated, then it is not the fault of the unvaccinated.

Period.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes. Because the unvaccinated have a different base rate.

Good lord, I explained this to you three times already. How do you manage to do the simple arithmetic to pay for anything, you seem to affirmatively reject learning.

One more time: there is one thing that you can do to reduce your odds of being hospitalized: get vaccinated. If you are already vaccinated, you've done most of what you can do even if you defy the odds and get a breakthrough case.

If you are not, then you have not done all you can and are responsible for the effects, both primary, and secondary, of filling up the hospital.

Blindly comparing number to other number is not getting at anything but your own outcome-oriented obtuseness.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In your crazy Covid-addled mind, if 99% of the ICU is filled with the vaxxed and 1% is filled with unvaxxed, it's the fault of the unvaxxed that the ICU is full because they didn't get vaxxed.

wow that's nuts

Getting vaccinated is the only thing that's required to "do all you can"?

[Sarcastr0]

What else do you think people should be doing? There is nothing with anything like the cost/benefit of getting vaxxed/boosted.
Vaxxed people are not to blame for getting a breakthrough case. Unvaxxed people are to blame for if they take up hospital space, because they didn't act and they could have.

This holds true regardless of their different numbers of hospitalized. Because you're *still* comparing two numbers that are not comparable, and just pounding the table.

A bunch of really conservative people on here are pointing out you're a dumbass.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
The simple answer is Mute BCD.

[Stephen Lathrop]

BCD, your question is a red herring. It disregards the point of the inquiry—which is to identify policies useful to ameliorate the pandemic. Given maximal vaccination rates, increased vaccination is not a useful policy. Given underperforming vaccination rates, increased vaccination is a critically necessary policy.

What your question (advocacy, actually) amounts to is an assertion that there should be no public health policy to ameliorate the pandemic. That is why ideologically diverse commenters agree on correcting you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My question disregards the point of inquiry?

Dude, my question started this whole thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

The stats actually conceal how much the vaccine works, because about half the population has had Covid already, and natural immunity is comparable to vaccination.

That means the difference in risk between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is all due to the unvaccinated who have never had Covid. The actual risk difference between vaccination/prior infection and immunologically naive is twice as big as the numbers are suggesting.

I strongly suggest that if you haven't had Covid at this point, and you're not a young child, you get vaccinated. If you have had Covid already, do as you please, the relative gain from getting vaccinated isn't all that impressive if you've already had it. (Though I did get boosted back in December, just to reduce the chance of eating up some of my PTO on quarantine time.)

[Sarcastr0]

I see where you're going, but Omicron occludes that issue as well.

While 2 weeks ago I would not have agreed with you on those having had Covid not getting the vaccine, but that does seem to be better supported with the latest research.
But I still disagree! Given the low risk of the vaccine, I'd still advise to get it (especially as even natural immunity fades), get vaccinated and boosted unless you have an underlying condition. Period.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, low risk of the vaccine, low risk of the disease. I'm not saying they're equal, except for young people, but the difference is not so stark for people who've already had Covid that deciding not to get vaccinated is irrational. It's down at the level of risks people routinely take for all manner of reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

Except that that immunity seems to fade just as the vaccine-based immunity does.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not exactly. That's an artifact of measuring only antibody levels, which are easy to measure, and not B and T cell immunity, which are expensive to measure. The old "looking for the keys under the street light" problem.

Antibody levels always drop after a few months. As one scientist put it, if they didn't, by the time you were middle aged your blood would be like molasses from all the accumulated antibodies. What you retain is the ability to recognize the pathogen, and rapidly respond if it shows up again.

Too much focus on 'sterilizing immunity', which is something you only see for a short while after an illness or vaccination, when extremely high antibody levels literally result in the invading pathogens being tied up with bound antibodies to the point where they can't proliferate.

Normal immunity isn't sterilizing, it's just a very fast response if the pathogen is seen again.

[Sarcastr0]

Studies have looked at both groups, and found diminishing immunity. Not looking at anything in the blood, looking at who is getting Covid.

Besides, your logic would hold just as well for vaccines.

I don't think you're right about sterilizing immunity - it's a long term thing for plenty of diseases.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's complicated. Depends on the disease and the vaccine. Yes, there are some disease and vaccine combinations where the protection is life-long and essentially complete. More common is where re-exposure results in a rapid immune response.

[Sarcastr0]

I believe that the mechanism by which life-long protection occurs is exactly that rapid immune response continuing for said lifetime.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's primarily down to how fast the pathogen replicates, and how easily it is dealt with by the immune system.

Antibody levels basically always drop off after a while, that's basic. Antibodies don't just attack the pathogen, they enable identifying it, which prompts a build up of response, including restoring antibody levels.

If a pathogen is bad at evading immune response, and doesn't replicate fast, you get life-long total immunity, because even residual antibody levels suffice for a rapid enough response to shut things down before the infection gets anywhere.

A fast replicating and/or hard to fight pathogen can get a foot hold, or even make you genuinely ill, before the immune response has time to build up to an effective level.

[Stephen Lathrop]

News in the NYT today describes possible long-Covid diagnostic indicators. The research is preliminary, and likely unreliable. Nevertheless, it suggests why someone might be unwise to plan a personal Covid management policy without considering a good deal more than vaccination and/or previous infection.

[Davy C]

Did you know that vaccinated people are more likely to commit the Base Rate Fallacy than unvaccinated people?

[Sarcastr0]

No, that s...ohhh, I see what u did there.

[David Bremer]

If you're looking at raw numbers of people--as in there are 100 vaccinated people in the hospital, but only 90 unvaccinated--without accounting for the overall rate of vaccination (which exceeds 90% in many states), then do yourself and all the rest of us a favor and never use numbers again.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How does that rate factor in when in the context of overburdening hospitals?

[Sarcastr0]

The best way to unburden hospitals is still to get vaccinated.

But that is not a panacea, and maybe hospitals will nevertheless have issues.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How does that rate factor in when in the context of overburdening hospitals?

[Sarcastr0]

I just told you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

BCD, because if you understand the numbers you see at a glance that they mean you can cut the hospitalization rate almost in half by vaccinating everyone.

[Don Nico]

SL,
If you look at the the hospitalization and ICU burdans in countries with very high vaccination rates, you'll see that they are still burdened with very high numbers because of the extensive number of breakthrough infections. The result is that hospitalizations can still exceed levels at the peal of the Delta wave.

[Michael P]

To use numbers from your link up-thread, imagine you have 1,000 people, and 900 are fully vaccinated. 54 of those 900 end up in the hospital. 46 of the other 100 people end up in the hospital. That shows why getting vaccinated helps unburden hospitals: if those 100 people got vaccinated, and everything else about the groups is the same, you should expect about 40% fewer hospitalizations.

(Of course, the actual population is much larger than 1,000 total, and the hospitalization numbers were percent rather than exact cases, but I assume you can extrapolate the arithmetic.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Two hours ago you didn't think any vaccinated people were in hospitals, now you're a fucking expert.

lmao

[Michael P]

You are hallucinating or otherwise cognitively impaired. Do you smell burnt toast?

[Davy C]

If hospitals are overburdened when 90% of the people are vaccinated, then it's pretty much a given that there's no such thing as herd immunity with this virus - or, at least, that it can't be obtained with the vaccines currently being used.

[Michael P]

Imagine that 90% of people had a perfect vaccine, and the other 10% all got long-term illness. Hospitals are not intended to care for 10% of the people, so the hospitals would be overloaded. So even a perfect vaccine can lead to hospitals being overburdened.

The actual numbers are much smaller than that, of course. But hospital capacity is quite small compared to the population, and hospitals are usually at least half occupied for non-Covid reasons. A large disease outbreak can easily overwhelm an area's hospitals, even when most people are strongly protected against the disease.

[Don Nico]

Michael,
Whether hospitals are overwhelmed also depends on the number of beds (and ICU capacity) per capita. That level in the US is very small (~2 per 1000 persons) in the US as compared with numbers exceeding 10 in Asian countries

[Don Nico]

"there's no such thing as herd immunity"
That is highly likely, but unproved in either direction.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Zen Master Thich Naht Hanh died* Saturday at the age of 95. Thay, as he was often called, was a legendary peace activist, advocate for mindfulness, and spiritual leader who believed in socially engaged Buddhism. He spent much of his life in exile from Vietnam where the communist government opposed his activism. He founded a monastery in Plum Village in France and there a distinctive mode of Buddhist thought emerged. Thay eventually was able to return to Vietnam in 2005 and was permitted to spend the rest* of his days there in 2018, although he largely stopped teaching due to a stroke soon after.

*Thay emphasized the interbeing and continuity of all things, and taught the concept of “no birth no death, only transformation.”

[Moderation4ever]

There have always been rumors that circulated, but now we have the ability to circulate BS much more efficiently. Take the case in Wisconsin, where a legislative representative introduces a motion to withdraw Wisconsin Presidential electors. The motion is in the records but goes nowhere. Even the Republican leadership shoots it down. Now the internet is filled with reports that Wisconsin withdrew its electors.

Free speech is critical, but it is also dependent on people being responsible. If you are passing on this BS you are doing FoS a harm.

[OtisAH]

Ilya tweeting his preferred choice for USSC, then moping that the spot will go to a “lesser black woman” instead. Being as there is no nominee, Ilya plainly believes, and 90% of the VC will agree, that any black female nominee is lesser than whomever he thinks is the right choice.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean, they’re all up in arms saying it’s unconstitutional for him to SAY he’s going to nominate a black woman. But if he said nothing and did it anyway, these same people would just say: oh he’s only nominating her because she’s a black woman. And they’ll say she’s not smart either (Ed “Zillow” Whalen is already trying to do this to Jackson-Brown).

And then if he nominated some boring white guy they’d just say he’s radical (they wouldn’t imply racial preferences or lack of intelligence though. That criticism strictly belongs to PoC, because white is the default setting in their mind)

[OtisAH]

Whomever the nominee is will instantly become The Leftest Lefty Who Ever Communisted.

[FourteenFour]

the first rule of having a bias is not broadcasting it.

The sad truth is that Biden and Co effectively told the majority of jurist that they are disqualified because of race and sex.

I am just hoping he jumps the shark and picks a trans black person.

[OtisAH]

Considering the number of people who believe that any nominee who isn’t a FedSoc white guy/woman is automatically less qualified than a FedSoc white guy/woman, I am unsurprised you think saying a nominee will be a black woman is the same as saying all other possible candidates are unqualified. Silly as all hell, but unsurprising.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean we had 200+ years where this was the rule: everyone who is not a white man is not qualified. And now politicians positively say: black women ARE qualified and people take it as an attack on white guys. No it’s a positive affirmation of black ability and talent.

I mean these critics really need to ask themselves: why isn’t it a race and gender thing when you pick white men for jobs without saying that’s what you’re doing. If you don’t ask those questions for white guys…then you think they’re the default and norm.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"why isn’t it a race and gender thing when you pick white men for jobs without saying that’s what you’re doing."

Huh? If it happens, it is a thing. But to whatever extent it happens, people simply concede that that would be a bad thing, and deny that that's what they were doing.

[M L]

One side couldn't care less about a SCOTUS justice's skin color, whether the skin color looks like Clarence Thomas's skin, or Antonin Scalia's skin, or whatever, shouldn't matter in their view. The other side cares deeply and is militant about skin color.

[Sarcastr0]

The right sure as heck cared about Thomas's skin color, don't be revisionist.

Also it's easy to not care about skin color when you're white and the default is white.
The complaining when black faces come up puts the lie to 'don't care about skin color.'

[Brett Bellmore]

"I mean, they’re all up in arms saying it’s unconstitutional for him to SAY he’s going to nominate a black woman."

First amendment. It can't be unconstitutional for him to SAY it. Just unconscionable.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Coming from you that’s a huge compliment since your conscience is mostly terrible.

[Artifex]

The question is not the first amendment though. How is it that he doesn't run afoul of the 14th ? It would be illegal for me as a business owner to state that I would only hire people of a specific gender, color or religion. How is it possible that the supreme executive can do exactly that for one of the more influential jobs in the US ?

During the Trump years wasn't the argument that because Trump opened his mouth and revealed his motives the courts were allowed to step in, take Trump's motives into account and rescind his executive actions ? Why doesn't Biden run into 14th amendment issues here ?

[Brett Bellmore]

The answer is that it's not unconstitutional for him to say it, it's unconstitutional for him to do it.

For the business owner, it's not unconstitutional to do either, just a statutory violation, because unlike the 13th amendment, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the private sector.

Yes, if Biden were Trump, he'd be in deep legal doo doo over this. TrumpLaw is a real thing. Biden doesn't get in trouble over this because the Court isn't enforcing the 14th amendment as written, they're making an exception for well motivated racial discrimination.

At least for now, maybe that will change shortly.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Interesting how its NEVER a constitutional question to just put any white dope on the Court. But it becomes an issue any time a minority gets a spot. Telling, isn't it?

If Biden were Trump, he'd be in deep legal doo doo over this.

This is manifestly stupid because Trump promised to put a woman to replace RGB and then did. He was in literally no "legal doo doo"

[Brett Bellmore]

Half of all federal judges are white males, most of the balance are white women. So it's hardly statistically suspect that you pick a white guy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It's not racist if we only pick white guys for stuff because statistically most white people are picked for stuff! I am very smart and not at all racist!

[Brett Bellmore]

You're picking them from among existing judges, so, yeah, it's not suspicious when you get three white guys out of a candidate pool that's mostly white.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And why are there so many white judges Brett?

Seriously, your argument is that white people are the default setting. Any deviation from that is a race thing. Despite your protestations to being colorblind, that kind of attitude is manifestly racist.

[Illocust]

Age range. Younger lawyers and judges are more diverse, but also don't yet have the experience and track record to qualify them for a Supreme Court nomination. In twenty years the pool of candidates will look different.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, Trump would be fine with saying whatever in his choice for Justice. There would be no legal repercussions, just as there are none now.

TrumpLaw is not a real thing, it's nothing but counterfactuals by those yearning to blame being a loser on oppression.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol all the "There's TrumpLaw" people never say there's BidenLaw...that's just following the law apparently...even though some conservative judges are clearly just making shit up to thwart Biden.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The question is not the first amendment though. How is it that he doesn't run afoul of the 14th ? It would be illegal for me as a business owner to state that I would only hire people of a specific gender, color or religion. How is it possible that the supreme executive can do exactly that for one of the more influential jobs in the US ?

It's not unconstitutional for business owners to discriminate on the basis of race or sex: it's illegal because Congress passed a law saying it's illegal. Congress has not passed a law saying it's illegal for the president to discriminate on the basis of race or sex in making judicial nominations. (Whether such a law would violate the constitution is left as an exercise for the reader.)

[Davy C]

The 14th amendment (or at least the part of it we might care about here) only applies to states.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[darkknight9]

Although Biden was a harsh non believer at the time, tell me the USSC as a workplace wouldn't become the best setting for next fall's hit sitcom...

If his appointment were Anita Hill.

[Sarcastr0]

Shapiro or Somin?

[OtisAH]

Oh, excellent point. Shapiro. Sorry, Somin.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. That didn’t sound Somin. Somin doesn’t like AA but he’s also not an asshead.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol I just saw he deleted it after one of his future colleagues at Georgetown called him out.

[John F. Carr]

We aren't talking every black female on earth. There is a short list of candidates.

[OtisAH]

There is always a short list of candidates.

[Bob from Ohio]

"any black female nominee is lesser"

Biden issued the invitation to believe this, so people will accept that invitation.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Um no. Only racists will believe it. Normal people will believe there are highly qualified black women out there and that the Court has historically been extremely un-diverse, so it makes sense to put a highly qualified black judge on the Court to remedy that problem.

I mean...why don't people ask these questions about legacy Yale admit Brett Kavanaugh? Or son of the former EPA Administrator Neil Gorsuch? I mean they literally went to the same fancy DC Prep school courtesy of their wealthy and influential inside-the-beltway parents.

They were born on the fast-track but no one ever seems to question whether they're just idiots who won the birth lottery.

[Bob from Ohio]

"why don't people ask these questions about legacy Yale admit Brett Kavanaugh? Or son of the former EPA Administrator Neil Gorsuch? I mean they literally went to the same fancy DC Prep school courtesy of their wealthy and influential inside-the-beltway parents."

Plenty of people commented on those things, especially the same prep school thing. You just have a gnat's memory.

If you say you are only looking at one race/sex, you are saying you don't care about anything else, including qualifications.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Um actually you can care about both. Unless you think those are mutually exclusive. Do you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigoted, worthless people, sure . . .

[LawTalkingGuy]

Looks like Ilya Shapiro really stepped in it on Twitter.

Dean of Georgetown Law put out a statement. Law Professor Twitter is all over it. Popehat changed his handle to LesserHat*

Oh and even Scott Greenfield admitted it was a racist statement.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As I predicted (not that it was very hard), conservatives will find it very difficult to discuss this situation without making themselves sound awfully bad.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean…he deleted them and apologized (yeah it was a bit half-assed given what he wrote but that should be a signal for conservatives to stay out of it? And I get the impulse to go after Mark Joseph Stern or Milhiser but if some of the more middle of the road lawyers/professors are like: YIKES, then maybe that’s another sign to stay out of it.

Also the idea Sri is “objectively” more qualified than Kruger in particular is ridiculous on its face. Basically the same career except for ending up on California Supreme (who I think is probably much more influential on the law overall than many circuits) rather than the DC circuit. Oh and Kruger was EiC. Sri wasn’t. Gorsuch wasn’t. Kav wasn’t. Barrett wasn’t. Lol.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm reading 'How Long 'til Black Future Month?' and really enjoying it. 4/22 short stories in so far.

The intro is pretty interesting - it talks about how diversity in science fiction is a yes and thing, not a zero-sum game. It leads to plot structures and dialogue and styles that are fresh and new, but there is always room in the market for the tried and true elements as well.
And diversity for this purpose is not just race and gender and national origin. But it is also not not those things.
It reminded me of some other applications of diversity folks here don't think have any merit.

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually enjoyed reading Ethan of Athos, by Bujold, but yeah, there IS an element of zero sum present. To some extent the woke stuff is displacing literary merit, in that good writing that doesn't cater to it gets shelved.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think shelf space is really a limiting factor.

You like the square jawed space opera (and I do!), those are still being pumped out; they are not disappearing by any stretch.

Jemison vibes with my own idiosyncratic tastes, so she may not be the best example. But check out Nnedi Okorafor. Or even Octavia Butler. I think it's hard to argue the are less meritorious than white dudes, nor that their innovations in theme, mood, plot structure, are not but-for caused by their blackness.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't think anyone would complain about Samuel Delany taking up shelf space, he's one of the best of all time. There's also a very under appreciated sf writer named Milton Davis, if you are looking for an excellent black sf writer.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah - we read Delany's Nova in book club. I have Dhalgren on my personal list.

And anything called the Steamfunk! Anthology I will need to check out...

[Brett Bellmore]

Einstein Intersection is a favorite of mine. Never read Dhalgren.

[apedad]

Teen Brothers Beat Stepfather to Death Using Brass Knuckles for Alleged Sexual Abuse of Their Sister, His Daughter: Police

"Two teenage brothers in Texas are behind bars after police say they brutally beat their stepfather and left him in a field to die after the man’s 9-year-old daughter accused him of sexual assault. Alexandro and Christian Trevino, ages 18 and 17, were taken into custody along with 18-year-old Juan Eduardo Melendez for allegedly killing 42-year-old Gabriel Quintanilla, Weslaco ABC affiliate KRGV reported.

In a press release, Pharr police said that Quintanilla’s death was the result of a 'family situation.' Per the release, Quintanilla’s 9-year-old daughter, whose name was not released, caused an 'outcry' after alleging that Quintanilla inappropriately touched her at an RV park located in the 1200 block of East Moore, about 15 minutes east of McAllen. The girl allegedly told Alexandro and Christian about the alleged inappropriate touching.

When brothers Alexandro and Christian Trevino found out, they became enraged and confronted Gabriel Quintanilla at the residence. A physical fight ensued between the three and the victim Quintanilla left the location on foot,' the press release stated."

Tough situation....

I guess the only mitigating factor for them will be if the police interview the little girl and can determine her allegations are truthful which might ease any sentencing.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/teen-brothers-beat-stepfather-to-death-using-brass-knuckles-for-alleged-sexual-abuse-of-their-sister-his-daughter-police/

[Bob from Ohio]

Maybe the jury won't convict.

Assuming he did it, justice was served so it would be not guilty as far as I'm concerned.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Good lord but you're a despicable piece of shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

"9-year-old daughter "

I dare say a very large number of Americans [maybe a majority] are despicable pieces of shit who would agree with me.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Most people actually aren't so personally thirsty for violence. You'll notice that this doesn't happen often despite the large numbers of sexual abuse cases that occur.

Also if you don't want them convicted they're going to need a talented lawyer. One they can't afford because they're teens. Gideon not looking so bad now, eh?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Gideon not looking so bad now, eh?"

Are we talking "talented lawyer" or "public defender"?

The overlap is quite small.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"The overlap is quite small."

Fuck you. You are absolutely contemptable. You'd get your ass kicked at trial by any of the defenders I know (and you know it too). Absolutely destroyed. I'm not a sadist like you but I would love to watch you break down in tears as you get embarrassed at every turn by one.

And HTF would you know? You're clearly a civil litigator. (And if Arthur is right, a relatively small time one at that).

As I've said before Public Defenders are 10x the lawyer you think you are and 100x the lawyer you actually are. You are truly a disgrace to the entire profession.

Please everyone with some sense: ratio this contemptable ass.

[Bob from Ohio]

Arthur is never right.

[LawTalkingGuy]

But I am of course, as I notice you didn’t dispute what I said other than that. You would get your ass handed to you at a trial by a PD.

Seriously though: people who hate on public defenders embarrass and discredit the profession. You fail to live up to its highest ideals and bring us all down. It also indicates you disrespect the norms of justice and fair play in litigation generally.

I would not be surprised if judges and counsel find you to be as contemptible as I do.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I support severe punishment for those who sexually abuse children, including capital punishment, after they are fairly tried and convicted.

I do not support summarily torturing someone to death as soon as they are accused of sexually abusing children. Nor do I support jurors violating the law to favor criminals they find sympathetic.

And I have too good an opinion of my fellow citizens to believe that any significant number of them have views that resemble yours.

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit has become the second after the Ninth to opine on the effect of the ban on using DoJ funds to interfere with state-legal medical marijuana.

Defendants charged with running a large scale grow op asked the District Court to stop their prosecution citing Maine's medical marijuana law. The government asked that defendants be required to prove strict compliance with state law. The First Circuit said that something like substantial compliance was good enough. It is too easy to accidentally go outside the bounds of what state law allows. Maine law deals with minor violations by threatening license revocation for repeat offenses. Replacing a warning letter with federal prison would interfere with state law. But defendants had a large scale grow, far beyond the dozen or so plants allowed by state law. There was no conflict between state and federal policies. Defendants are not entitled to have their prosecution enjoined.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-2292P-01A.pdf

[F.D. Wolf]

In 2021 Vice President Kamala Harris used her tie-breaking vote in the Senate fifteen times, which is twice more than Mike Pence cast in four years as vice president. In fact, her 15 votes are the most cast by any vice president since Schuler Colfax cast 19 votes during President Ulysses S. Grant's first term. (Henry Wilson served as VP during Grant's second term). Her 15 votes rank fifth-most all time. (Pence's 13 votes rank 8th).

John Calhoun, who served as vice president under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, cast 31 tie-breaking votes, the most ever. In January 1832, Calhoun cast the tie-breaking vote AGAINST Jackson's nomination of Martin Van Buren (who was serving under a recess appointment) as Minister to Great Britain. The tie vote had, in fact, been engineered to allow Calhoun the symbolic "no" vote (a "no" vote being merely symbolic, as an equally divided motion, lacking a majority, is defeated). Calhoun thought it would kill Van Buren's political career, but it actually killed Calhoun's. Jackson would replace Calhoun on the ticket with Van Buren for his second term, and Van Buren would succeed Jackson as president.

[Kevin Smith]

Its unsurprising that Harris would cast more tie-breaking votes than Pence, since she presides over an evenly divided Senate and Pence over a slim majority (less so after 2018)

[F.D. Wolf]

That is obviously so. She'll likely cast more during the rest of Biden's term, perhaps approaching the record.

I would be interested in looking into why Colfax had to cast so many. After all, during Grant's first term there were few Democrats as the Southern states were still under military rule. His first term began with a 57-9 Republican majority and ended with a 54-17 Republican majority.

[apedad]

I'm not into mj but I can't wait until the feds drop mj as a Schedule I drug with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.

[apedad]

Supposed to be a reply to John Carr.

[OtisAH]

It’s 2022 and you still know nothing about marijuana. Doesn’t stop you from having an opinion on it though.

[apedad]

I meant I want the feds to drop mj as a Schedule I drug.

[OtisAH]

And I meant “… a Schedule I drug with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.”

[apedad]

Yeah, that's just the federal description (not my opinion).

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd like them to reschedule Modafinil to OTC.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Drug scheduling and restrictions in the United States are wholly stupid. Go to about any other country in the world and you can get 20% or what we restrict over the counter without having to pay the needless transaction fee of having someone write you a permission slip to obtain it.

[apedad]

Leader of Neo-Nazi Group Sentenced for Plot to Target Journalists and Advocates

"Kaleb Cole, 25, a leader of the Neo-Nazi group Atomwaffen Division, was convicted by a federal jury in the Western District of Washington of one count of interfering with a federally protected activity because of religion, three counts of mailing threatening communications, and one count of conspiring with other Atomwaffen members to commit three offenses against the United States – interference with federally-protected activities because of religion, mailing threatening communications, and cyberstalking.

'Kaleb Cole helped lead a violent, nationwide neo-Nazi group,’ said U.S. Attorney Nick Brown for the Western District of Washington. 'He repeatedly promoted violence, stockpiled weapons, and organized ‘hate camps’. Today the community and those Mr. Cole and his co-conspirators targeted, stand-up to say hate has no place here. He tried to intimidate journalists and advocates with hate-filled and threatening posters, tried to amplify their fear. Instead they faced him in court and their courage has resulted in the federal prison sentence imposed today.'

'The defendant sought to intimidate journalists and advocates working to expose anti-Semitism, but that effort failed,' said Assistant Director Timothy Langan of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. 'Cole’s intended victims fought back but not with threats of violence; they fought back in a court of law. The FBI will continue to do our part by aggressively investigating cases involving threats or acts of violence.'

I simply don't get it.

What leads a bunch of amateur, wanna-bee, mouthbreathers in the backwoods of Washington to take concrete action against Jewish people?!?

Yeah sure...the Jews are taking over the banking system.

Or is it they killed Jesus?

SMH....

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-neo-nazi-group-sentenced-plot-target-journalists-and-advocates

[apedad]

GOP Governors Under Attack From MAGA Monsters They Helped Create

"Brad Little is no RINO.

During his first term as governor of Idaho, Little enacted a number of archconservative laws on abortion, transgender rights, and gun safety. More importantly to the Republican faithful, he was a solid ally of former President Donald Trump, who called the governor a 'terrific gentleman' at an event last year.

By most standards of the modern GOP, Little has done everything right. And yet still, in the eyes of some hardcore conservatives, Little has earned the dreaded label of a RINO—Republican In Name Only—and what accompanies it these days: a primary challenge.

Last year, Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin—a Trump-loving, COVID-skeptical anti-vaxxer who attempted to overturn Little’s modest public health restrictions when he left the state for a conference—launched her bid to unseat the governor in the GOP primary, slated for May.

And in November, McGeachin’s challenge got the ultimate seal of approval in today’s GOP: the coveted 'Complete and Total' endorsement from Trump himself."

HA!

What's the opposite of RINO?

RFUTA?

Republican Firmly Up Trump's Ass?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-governors-under-attack-from-maga-monsters-they-helped-create/ar-AATbXpp?ocid=msedgntp

[Brett Bellmore]

Coronavirus restrictions spark mutiny against GOP governor

The issue appears to be Covid mandates.

[Jimmy the Dane]

If this were a headline about how Progressives are occasionally a pain in the ass to mainstream Democrats it would tout how diverse the party is and why that is good for America...

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why do people on the left want people like Neil Young to decide what podcasts they're allowed to listen to?

I mean, I like the guy's music, but maybe it is better to fade away.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Ends up the guy doesn't even own the rights to his music, so can't do jack about the distribution. Now that is Rockin' In A Free World!

[Bob from Ohio]

He may have retained rights. Spotify removed them so he "won".

That sure showed Rogan!

[Jimmy the Dane]

I've listened to most of Rogan's supposed "disinformation" and at most it is controversial. He explores what are essentially experimental treatments and hypothesis about vaccine side effects. Neither are "disinformation" maybe not generally accepted, but not false.

[M L]

CNN: Why should Americans care about what's happening in Ukraine?

Biden's Deputy National Security Adviser: "borders should be inviolate . . . sovereignty should be respected"

https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1486286493228404740

Um . . . . . What?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you really think if Putin pulls something it'll be because Biden's quotes aren't quite right?

This is the own the libs philosophy and nothing else.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So what foreign wars is the left OK with us getting involved in these days? I'm asking because I'm confused. Is there some sort of test or is it just as long as a Republican didn't start the war first?

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of ways to apply pressure other than going openly kinetic. So your question is kind of a false choice.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is a lot of hand waving to provide a false reason not to answer such a direct question.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I don't make a habit of accepting false choices as a premise.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So explaining exactly what wars the left are cool with getting into is a "false choice".....ok....

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's just a really dumb question.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So you are cool with almost starting World War 3 because Biden....Russia....blah blah blah.....got it. I know that is hard to explain, but being a partisan party hack for a group that has no real idea what they are doing is also difficult.

[Sarcastr0]

Back to the false choice, I guess.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Not answering a question because it will reveal that you are a standardless, partisan hack, full of hypocrisy and double standards is not a "false choice". It is not a "fun choice" but far from false.

[M L]

I see you've missed the point.

Our own borders are practically nonexistent and being violated in record numbers yet again in the past year. Every year brings new record high amounts of illegal immigration.

The fact that we won't secure our own borders but we'd consider sending American lives to die in Ukraine makes us a laughingstock.

[Sarcastr0]

Illegal immigration is not the same as invasion, quit with that nonsense. Sorry I read you charitably as not being such a neo-Confederate neo-Know nothing.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Sarc - "I can't refute your point so I'm just going to call you names!"

[Sarcastr0]

Illegal immigration is not the same as invasion seems a pretty good refutation to me.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Not really.....

[Bob from Ohio]

Ref·u·ta·tion
/ˌrefyəˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
the action of proving a statement or theory to be wrong or false

He made an assertion, you made a counter assertion. Neither is proof.

[Sarcastr0]

If ML said butts are heads, I don't think I need to go into gross anatomy to explain that his initial assumption was wrong.

Illegal immigration is not an invasion. Words mean things. Unless you're a nativist asshole who cares more about hating the people they wanna take than real world word use.

[Bob from Ohio]

in·va·sion
/inˈvāZHən/
noun
noun: invasion; plural noun: invasions

an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

You mean #1, he means #2

So you haven't refuted anything.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Now the dictionary will just change the definition....

[Sarcastr0]

He is comparing what Russia will do to the Ukraine to illegals entering America,.

He means #1, chief.

Weak.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Millions of unvaxxed illegals coming across the borders and being spread out across the US in the middle of a pandemic that’s claimed an alleged near million lives is totes not an invasion guys.

[Sarcastr0]

Mexico has a dang near 60% vaccination rate. Plus, no that's not an invasion.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Funny how all of a sudden you don’t care about the hospitals being full of selfish unvaxxed. I bet it’s pretty neat to have such gerrymandered principles.

[Sarcastr0]

The discussion in this thread is about whether illegal immigration is about like Russia invading the Ukraine.

Try and keep up.

[Brett Bellmore]

Russia literally started their invasion a few years ago with a campaign of illegal immigration into Ukraine. That's how they generated 'public support' in Eastern Ukraine: By planting supporters there.

[David Nieporent]

No.

[Brett Bellmore]

NPR: Amid Escalating Tension, Ukraine Bans Russian Men From Crossing Its Borders November 30, 20188:29 AM ET

"Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko on Friday barred Russian men of military age from entering the country, saying the order was needed to prevent an infiltration in what appeared to be an allusion to Moscow's 2014 takeover of Crimea from Ukraine.

...

In 2014, Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms infiltrated Crimea, taking control of Ukrainian ships and military bases on the peninsula as Moscow insisted its forces were not involved.

The Kremlin has also backed an ongoing separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine."

Pre-infiltrating an area you mean to invade has become SOP for Russia.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I've really enjoyed the media articles that feature "resistance fighters" that take the same tack and flare as when the media would profile anyone who was "fighting Trump" but instead discuss a random Ukrainian that has a military style firearm (privately owned) that they plan on using against the Russians when/if they invade. I don't think the media has enough self awareness to know exactly what they are doing....

[M L]

When it's your border . . .

When it's Ukraine's border . . .

https://twitter.com/grandoldmemes/status/1486204589531705347

[Jimmy the Dane]

Maybe that involves an Obama red line or something like that....

[Andrew Langer]

We had fun talking with Professor Eugene Volokh yesterday on Andrew and Jerry Save The World!

Check out Episode 6: Andrew and Jerry Save Free Speech!

https://savetheworldpodcast.transistor.fm/episodes/andrew-and-jerry-save-free-speech

[Andrew Langer]

Also, two weeks ago we had a fantastic conversation with Professor Ilya Shapiro about the politicization of the Supreme Court!

https://savetheworldpodcast.transistor.fm/episodes/andrew-and-jerry-save-the-supreme-court

[hobie]

Clarence Thomas has consistently voted against civil liberties Obergfell, Lawrence, Bostock etc. etc. And based on his strange dismissal of Loving v Virginia in Obergfell, and his own marriage aside, I truly believe he could not allow himself to vote for Loving if the case were before him today. It's things like this that make him truly the worst justice on the court. He needs to retire.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Wow....racist much? Oh it is OK because you are mocking Thomas. Never mind.

[apedad]

How is what hobie wrote racist?

Justice Thomas is black; his wife is white.

The Lovings were a mixed couple who wanted to marry but VA law prohibited that.

hobie's just saying Thomas would have denied the right to his own marriage.

Ironic but not racist.

[hobie]

You reflexively went to the 'no, you're a racist' card when it wasn't appropriate. Need to read more carefully, JImmy.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Racism has no objective meaning anymore. It is a non-term so I treat it as much. Just throw it out on occasion and let people chew over it. It is a fun activity. Give it a try. Has kept SJW busy for the last 5-6 years.

[Sarcastr0]

Jimmy again declares liberals have made him angry enough he now loves lying.

When partisanship becomes pathological.

[Jimmy the Dane]

How did I lie?

[Sarcastr0]

You reflexively went to the 'no, you're a racist' card when it wasn't appropriate
Calling someone a racist when there is no reason to think so is a lie.

When called on it, you didn't claim it was appropriate, you just said 'libs have abused it, so I'm gonna do so.'

Which is not an excuse, it's a rationalization.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Calling someone a racist when there is no reason to think so is a lie."

Good lord. No self awareness at all.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't Jimmy being wrong, this is him admitting he's wrong, and not caring.

[Jimmy the Dane]

No it is a demonstrated on how a non-term an be used (and as the left has abused). Just because people walked into the trap doesn't mean I lied.

[Sarcastr0]

Funny you discovered that only after you were called out on misusing it.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Step 1 - set up trap.
Step 2 - watch people walk into trap.
Step 3 - laugh at people who walked into trap.
That is how is works. We are at step 3.

[Sarcastr0]

Jimmy, trying the puppetmaster defense?

That's pathetic.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You dance like a monkey puppet every time though....

[hobie]

You didn't lie, Jimmy. You simply shook your Magic 8 Ball of rightwing retorts and were given the wrong one. And you dutifully wrote it down. Now, are you going to talk about Thomas and Loving or shall we just continue to victimize you?

[Jimmy the Dane]

No I used a non-term to get a reaction from the lefties. It worked. All too well.

The question about Thomas and Loving is dumb. A worthless thought exercise meant to "get" him. Also by leveraging his race against him, which is a pastime of the left to do to conservative people of color.

[hobie]

We've been talking about his jurisprudence the entire time, Jimmy. Not his race. Go back to Newsmax. You cannot keep up here

[Jimmy the Dane]

Maybe you should just stop being racist.

[Noscitur a sociis]

While there's plenty of criticism of Thomas that is clearly racist (you can find some in this very comment thread!), I fail to see any even arguably racial animus in hobie's admittedly stupid observation.

[hobie]

Ahoy! A thinker here. Finally. And what is stupid about the idea that Thomas would vote down Loving, Noscitur? Do you have any reason that he wouldn't? He's consistently voted against minorities and gays his entire tenure.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Maybe he was voting for the Constitution.

Never thought of that did you.

[hobie]

Equal protection is in the constitution too, Bravo. Thomas has railed against it his entire career. Separate but equal has been his touchstone

[loki13]

Reading the comments on the VC generally makes me sad.

But I was going to add something I thought was interesting. I think it would be helpful for ... well, a lot of the VC ... to actually listen to what "the young people" are really like. Of course, they aren't a monolith, but they are surprising, and different, in a lot of ways compared to teens as I remember them when I was growing up. Some observations-

1. They are generally much more open and comfortable with issues of gender identity, sexuality, and non-standard relationships. For many (not all), it's not even a "thing," just the way things are.

2. There is also much more of a "capitalist" understanding, which surprised me. For example, I chaperoned a group going to see a traveling version of Rent (the musical) and ... yeah, the reaction I got was, "Why didn't they just pay the rent?" Trying to explain the concept of "selling out" to people raised on instagram influencers and twitch streamers is a lost cause.

3. Most of them work much harder than we ever used to, and earlier. Especially if they are on a college track (as more are today). I can't imagine being as oversubscribed as a lot of these kids are.

4. Tech is very much a tool for them, like a car. They all know how to use it (always much better than the adults), but very few know how it works. It's similar to how everyone drives a car, but very few people are able to explain how the car really works (let alone perform work on it). There used to a be a much higher correlation between knowledge and use when it came to computers etc.

There's others, but I thought I'd put that out there. It gives me hope- given that the old codgers are busy pwning each other with stupid comments, it's good to see there is a generation that, hopefully, will be less stupid.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Reading the comments on the VC generally makes me sad. "

Try looking at the bright side . . . this is the best our vestigial right-wingers can muster.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Next generation's response to your hopes and dreams -
Let's eat Tide Pods and make a new Tic Tok!

[loki13]

Thanks for proving all the points.

Most people here would be better served paying a little attention to what other people are doing, and less attention spreading BS around without really understanding what's going on.

If it makes you feel smug and superior, good for you. Doesn't make you right, and it's makes you kind of a jerk, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I agree.

We also skipped a generation of elected officials and party leaders - the leadership is in their 70s and 80s while the 60 and 50 year olds have noped out to other jobs due to no upward mobility.

So soon there will be a switch of generations that kinda skips one. Which will mean some fun double change.

I agree, the kids are alright, and I'm interested in what they come up with. I'm sure I'll hate some of it. But by then I'll be old, and I hope I become only grumpy, not Internet-poisoned reactionary.

[loki13]

I'm cautiously optimistic about what the kids will be coming up with.

Wait- I should say WILDLY optimistic. After all, it can't be worse than what we're doing right now.

[Sarcastr0]

I try not to be so cynical - change for change's sake is the voting for Trump in 2016 philosophy, but part of me is exactly there.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Haven't been around enough younger people have you. Under 30 largely support Trump because they are tired of liberalism and equate it with being a Boomer. Your new age of Aquarius ushered in by Gen Z'ers is going to not only happen, it could be the wholesale rejection of the liberalism that has plagued this country for the last 80 years.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Under 30 largely support trump? LMAO, citation needed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There might be enough half-educated, bigoted young people straggling out of a revival meeting in stupid red hats to give a delusional hayseed like Jimmy the Dane the impression that younger Americans are suddenly turning conservative.

Carry on, bitter and bigoted clingers.

Without the support of America's younger, educated, accomplished, reasoning Americans, though. No matter what a knuckledragger claims he sees.

[Jimmy the Dane]

AK's heart is really hate filled these days....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't like bigots.

I am optimistic about America's future, unlike disaffected, bitter, antisocial conservatives.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The thing is…the kids are often alright! Yes even the boomers were at one time when they were kids more alright than their elders. Plus they didn’t pass down all their pathologies to the millennials either.

[Brett Bellmore]

"We also skipped a generation of elected officials and party leaders - the leadership is in their 70s and 80s while the 60 and 50 year olds have noped out to other jobs due to no upward mobility."

I've commented on that myself: The Democratic party's gerontocracy fratricided what would have been the next generation of Democratic politicians, in order to secure their own positions. So now you've got this bizarre situation where the only alternative to the doddering ancients are too young to have appropriate experience.

It really leaves you with a shallow bench for Presidential nominations.

You haven't seen that so much on the right, the GOP, for better or worse, has a more normal age distribution in leadership. (There are path dependence reasons for this, it's not due to any special Republican virtue...)

[LawTalkingGuy]

Tide pods? Dude that was four years ago, get a new reference.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Don't misgender me! Now let me go send naked pictures of myself to a random person online and complain to the police when they show them to a third party!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Jesus. WTF? Do you violate people’s trust like that?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah naked pictures of your mom are pretty nasty.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Here you are bemoaning the youth when you’re clearly 12.

[hobie]

Go back to Newsmax, Jimmy. They appreciate that kind of commentary there. This is a blog for bigoted scholars. And you definitely ain't a scholar.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I've got a diploma from the School of Hard Knocks. It is right over here....

[David Nieporent]

That’s a concussion, not a diploma.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did you see that Reddit mod get interviewed by Jesse Watters?

You’ll change your mind, I’m sure.

[Sarcastr0]

That person speaks for all younger people?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Nope, just typical of them. The Leftist ones that is.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL.

OK, Boomer.

[F.D. Wolf]

Last year Neil Young reportedly sold the rights to half his music catalog for $150 million. Of course, he recently demanded Spotify either remove Joe Rogan or Young's songs, and Spotify chose to remove the latter.

Obviously, this has devalued his music catalog. Would last year's purchaser have any cause of action against Young?

[John F. Carr]

I'd have to read the contract first.

[hobie]

That's a good question. Contract aside, did he injure catalog holder?

[Ridgeway]

I heard NY get interviewed by Howard Stern recently, and I am pretty sure he said he retained full control over his catalog, even if he had sold a portion of the economic rights.

[Kevin Smith]

He would have to retain some amount of rights, otherwise he wouldn't have been in a position to demand Spotify remove his songs, but I think that would make the situation that much more actionable for the owners of the economic rights. Lacking some specific clause absolving him I would think Young would be bound by a common-law "good faith" understanding to protect the value of his catalog.

On the other hand, I'm not sure Spotify alone contributes a great deal to the value of his catalog

[Rip Murdock]

From today's WSJ:

Warner Music Group’s Warner Records is the licensor to Spotify and legally has control over how and where Mr. Young’s music is distributed. However, a label often takes into account the wishes of a major star such as Mr. Young.

Publicly traded music investment firm Hipgnosis Songs Fund Ltd. , which last year said it purchased a 50% stake in Mr. Young’s songwriting catalog, bought publishing copyrights that don’t include control over his distribution to Spotify.

[Rip Murdock]

More:

While Hipgnosis investors benefit from a piece of the royalties generated when Mr. Young’s music is streamed on Spotify or on other services, the company owns thousands of other song copyrights, so its fund and its investors aren't uniquely reliant on Mr. Young’s streaming revenue. They still stand to gain from when Mr. Young’s music is used in a commercial, or covered by another artist, or when streamed or played elsewhere than Spotify.

[hobie]

Interesting research. Good report.

[apedad]

Newsmax Host’s ‘Not Far-Fetched’ Theory: Breyer’s Exit Is a Plot to Install Hillary as President

"Newsmax host Grant Stinchfield not only embraced the outlandish theory that President Joe Biden will nominate Vice President Kamala Harris to the Supreme Court, but on Wednesday evening he added his own laughable theory to the mix.

According to Stinchfield, it is 'not far-fetched at all' to view Justice Stephen Breyer’s exit as the first step in an intricate plot to finally make Hillary Clinton president.

He continued: 'Joe can’t win. Neither can Kamala in 2024. So, with her out of the way appointed to the Supreme Court, he can tap a potential contender through the Democrat bench, though that's a bench that is very weak.'

And then came the Hillary Clinton anti-fan-fiction.

'But what if, folks, what if he picked Hillary Clinton to be his vice president? Oh boy,' Stinchfield exclaimed. 'Then what if he picks Hillary Clinton and then decides to resign a short time later? Hillary gets the White House, and then ultimately the chance to run as an incumbent.'"

YAAAAY!!!!

Well...at least Republicans would have fun impeaching Hillary once a quarter.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/newsmax-host-s-not-far-fetched-theory-breyer-s-exit-is-a-plot-to-install-hillary-as-president/ar-AATcXcV?ocid=msedgntp

[Kevin Smith]

There's no way Hillary gets approved by the Senate without a tie-breaker vote. Hell there's pretty much no way anyone gets approved, which is of course why the "Biden nominates Harris" narrative is ridiculous

[Jimmy the Dane]

Betcha old Chuckie Smuckie is on his knees in Machin's office right now begging him not to leave the party.....

[Don Nico]

Hilary is too old. It would be a wasted appointment

[Jimmy the Dane]

Lizard people live well into their 100's.

[hobie]

Sleep it off, Jimmy. You're either drunk or strange

[Ben_]

China gets one right:

China Won't Disturb Its Citizens' 'Normal Life' to Meet Carbon Goals

Meanwhile, across the world and here in the US we have greens who go out of their way to make day-to-day life worse for people. Thinking that extreme, disruptive climate measures show them as pious and devout, greens seek out opportunities to interfere, destroy, and impose hardships upon others.

[Aaron]

I don't think its a problem that the President announced beforehand that he plans to appoint a Supreme Court Justice of a certain demographic. The President can appoint however he wants, so regardless of what he says publicly or privately, his call is his call. I'm pretty sure President Reagan announced he would appoint a woman to the Court when he ran in 1980 and President Trump told everyone that he was going to appoint a woman in 2020. (Of course, everyone knew who Trump was going to appoint well in advance.)

Since the President has committed to appointing an African-American woman and since the President is certainly going to appoint someone with different political preferences than me, I would prefer Justice Kruger over Judge Jackson for the sole reason that I think the Supreme Court would really benefit from someone with state law experience. On the other hand, Judge Jackson would be a fine choice because it would be nice to have another Justice of the Supreme Court (beside Sotomayor) who was once a judge at the trial court level.

[Don Nico]

It will be Kruger. She is younger.

[David Nieporent]

On the other hand, Judge Jackson would be a fine choice because it would be nice to have another Justice of the Supreme Court (beside Sotomayor) who was once a judge at the trial court level.

Jackson was also a public defender, which is nice.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How long do the Covidians think they will need to get boosted, wear masks, and socially distance?

[Sarcastr0]

https://mailchi.mp/nationalbutterflycenter/v4jla7bmp9-5505325?e=15f8f8f2a5

We were alerted to this event on Friday, Jan. 21, following a visit by a congressional candidate from Virginia. She appeared with a friend, who claimed to be a Secret Service agent, and demanded access to the river so they could "see the rafts with the illegal crossing" our property. (See fake photo of rafts at our dock composed and disseminated by Kolfage & crew.)
...
As the Virginia candidate fled the center, she tried to run over Marianna's son, who was filling in at the visitor's pavilion. Nick was trying to close the front gate to prevent the candidate and her friend from leaving with Marianna's phone, which they had taken from her after knocking her to the ground outside the pavilion. All of this was caught on our security cameras, and the visitor who witnessed the attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on Nick called 9-11.
...
Marianna was advised by the former state official (whose daughter is the Hidalgo County GOP chairperson) that she should be armed at all times or out of town this weekend, because the We Stand America events include a "Trump Train"-style, "caravan to the border." He said the National Butterfly Center would likely be a stop on this "take action tour," and she and the center are targets.

Leftist candidates say cringey stuff on Twitter. Why can't conservatives do the same on gab?

[Jimmy the Dane]

I love how it is perfectly fine to assume that the activists here are going to be violent. But if this was BLM and someone made the same assertion they would be called "racist" or something.

[Ben_]

It's their ignorance and fear of the other.

[Sarcastr0]

She tried to run over Marianna's son, having stolen a phone presumably to prove some dumbass fake conspiracy theory about illegal immigrants.

You don't need to defend every violent asshole on your side.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Sounds like they were trying to falsely imprison her by closing a gate. Probably shouldn't try to take the law into their hands. That is what we have police for and stuff. Or that is the line you use when it is BLM looting or BLM shoplifting.

[Sarcastr0]

She was stealing a phone, and that use of deadly force is completely unjustified.

BLM shoplifting
LOL, you suck dude.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now looting and arson are "shoplifting", got it.

Anyway, looks like BLM is being wound up, the leadership have vanished, and the address given on their tax filings was fake.

[David Nieporent]

LOL. Washington Examiner are such clowns:

"Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, the legal entity that represents the national BLM movement"

They are a prominent organization involved with BLM, and they have raised a lot of money (which they will need to account for). They do not "represent" anyone or anything, though, least of all a "movement." Nobody elected them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody elects anybody in any left wing organization, from what I've seen.

[Jimmy the Dane]

As opposed to the usual clown show that is the MSM....

[Jimmy the Dane]

False imprisonment is a form of kidnapping and the use of deadly force to evade kidnapping is usually justified. Not enough here to say for sure, but yeah....

Wasn't "there are police for that" the main non-legal argument used against Kyle Rittenhouse who was keeping looters and vandals from burning cars? Maybe the left ought to follow their own advice.

[Ben_]

Covidians want to make you get boosted, wear masks, and socially distance. For themselves, they plan maskless parties, outings and events. The serving staff must be masked though.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Folks are familiar with the story of Jason Kilborn, suspended for teaching a hypothetical that included the redacted slurs n_____ and b____.

Appearantly part of the punishment was to attend sensitivity training. Some of the training materials explained that white people who support colleagues "of color" are called "n----- lovers". They didn't say anything about b______, so I guess that's something.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The difference is one used a "-" and the other used "_". Much less problematic.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The urge to sing "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" is always just a whim away.

[VinniUSMC]

How did this go totally unappreciated for this long?!

A whim away? A whim away.

[Hawaii Bob]

I know back in April 2020 Eugene wrote that covid travel restrictions would likely be upheld. I wonder if that would still be the case now.

I live in Hawaii and Gov Ige renewed his emergency order yet again. It's been like two years straight now.

Eugene wrote:
"When there really is an epidemic, and people from outside a state seem to pose a higher risk than people within the state, I think that (for instance) stopping all cars at the border or all cars with out-of-state plates, and perhaps ordering them to quarantine themselves for some days if they are from outside the state, is likely to be seen as a reasonable seizure."

The problem is now Hawaii has the 10th highest infection rate in the county. Is it really still legal for them to be doing the vax pass thing at the airport two years into this?

Hawaii was hit hard by both the Delta and the Omicron waves. I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that people coming from other states are more dangerous now.

I am sorely tempted to fly out of state, fly back in and play lawyer.

"My name is 'x' and I am a resident of Hawaii. I am now invoking my fifth amendment right to remain silent."
"Am I being detailed."

Rinse and repeat...

I really wonder how it would play out in court if they even could make charges stick?

[hobie]

Is it really that hard to get a free vaccination, Bob?

[Brett Bellmore]

No harder for Rosa Parks to take a seat in the back of the bus, I expect.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Or a minority to submit to a quick police frisk because they happen to live in a crime ridden neighborhood where a lot of people care illegal guns.

Funny how the left thinks one minor abridgment of freedom is fine while other ones are sound the alarm bad.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, those are pretty stupid analogies given that a vaccination is a benefit to the recipient while the things you and Brett named were not.

[Ben_]

Hawaii's Covid policies have been the most baffling. Tourism industries must be hurt tremendously by the restrictions. And it should have been obvious by about June 2020 that none of the policies accomplished much of anything.

If lockdowns were going to work anywhere in the US, they were going to work on islands. But they didn’t.

It’s amazing to hear that Hawaii's government still hasn’t figured it out. Are they really that dumb? Or have they become insane over the last two years?

[Hawaii Bob]

It's not just the government, but a large chunk of the populous.

Although I am starting to wonder if the Democrats may have finally done themselves in this time.

After Omicron it's really hard to justify any of this, if it wasn't already hard enough.

I do think actually it kept infection rates way down before they started exempting the vaccinated mid 2021. Once they started doing that it has really been nothing other than theater.

[Hawaii Bob]

Let me say. I would gladly try the above if I had pro bono legal representation. The question is who would I ask for this? Doesn't seem like something IJ would be interested in and certainly not the ACLU.

[David Nieporent]

Hawaii's Covid policies have been the most baffling. Tourism industries must be hurt tremendously by the restrictions. And it should have been obvious by about June 2020 that none of the policies accomplished much of anything.

If lockdowns were going to work anywhere in the US, they were going to work on islands. But they didn’t.

It’s amazing to hear that Hawaii's government still hasn’t figured it out. Are they really that dumb?

Hawaii ranks 49th out of 51 states+DC in cases per capita and 51st out of 51 in deaths per capita. Between you and the governor, I think it's pretty clear who's the dumbass.

[Ben_]

They never controlled Covid. They delayed it getting to some people. Those people have the opportunity to get it now, after losing 2 years of their lives spent in hiding.

Meanwhile Hawaii strangled the industry that makes up 1/5th of the state's economy.

We all know you don't care about the victims of the lockdowns. Lawyers work from home, never miss a paycheck, and get deliveries from people you think of as the servant classes.

[David Nieporent]

Those people have the opportunity to get it now, after losing 2 years of their lives spent in hiding.

You know who lost more than 2 years of their lives? A million people around the country.

[Ben_]

And they could have died in 2022 from Covid instead of 2021 and you consider that a big win?

[Hawaii Bob]

That's because they avoided the initial strains with the test or quarantine policy. It no longer is reducing anything that they started allowing exemptions for the vaccinated.

[Hawaii Bob]

I'm double vaxxed. I am just sick of my rights being trampled on. If the TSA wasn't bad enough.

I refuse to get boosted simply because Ige is trying to twist my arm. There's been talk of requiring that next, even though only 30% of Hawaii's population is even "boosted".

I could argue as to why I believe it's not necessarily a great idea for 100% of the population to get boosted, but I'll save my breath.

[Don Nico]

Bob,
If you not already now, you'll be essentially unimmunized in a couple of months

[Hawaii Bob]

Antibodies, not T-Cell.

The antibodies created by the vaccine doesn't really do much for Omicron anyway.

[David Nieporent]

I refuse to get boosted simply because Ige is trying to twist my arm.

"You can't make me!", the cry of 8-year olds everywhere.

[Publius_2020]

Who feels sorry for Ilya Shapiro?

And who is thinking "how long did you think about that whole 'fall on your sword' bit, Ilya"?

[hobie]

What's the reference? I'd like to read it.

[swood1000]

It is described here. His argument was that Biden should nominate Sri Srinivasan who, according to Shapiro, checks all the necessary liberal boxes and is intellectually superior to any of the black women being considered, but that he will end up nominating a “lesser black woman.” He later apologized, calling his phrasing “inartful.” The assertion by his attackers may be that he was implying that all black women are “lesser.” Or perhaps it is that the only reason he devalues these nominees is that they are black women. One response that Shapiro referred to was:

Mr. Shapiro, as one of your future Georgetown colleague, I am curious: is your phrase “lesser Black woman” meant to describe a particular Black woman or do you intend “lesser Black woman” to encompass the general set of Black women under consideration for the seat?

I am not sure whether both of these options are equally unacceptable, or what is wrong with believing that Srinivasan’s qualification exceed those of the black women under consideration for the seat.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not at first.

He tweeted something shitty. People were like WTF? A future colleague at Georgetown simply asked what he meant by “lesser black women?” Got a lot of attention. He deleted it and did a half-assed apology. Dean notices, condemns the statement. Life goes on.

Then this is where I start to feel bad for him. Some brave person came to his defense. Who was this great man?

Why it was Dan “Haha isn’t it funny how Biden’s good dog died and the bad one is alive like how his good son died and his bad one is still alive”McLaughlin.

Truly heartbreaking when that’s the top man on his side. My empathetic soul can’t help but feel bad for him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Legitimate law school faculties continue to make the mistake of associating with bigoted right-wingers in modern America. How many apologies and regrets before our strong schools recognize that it is wrong to emulate the fourth-tier schools that hire plenty of movement conservatives?

Speaking of which:

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This White, male, conservative
blog has operated for

FIFTY-SEVEN (57) DAYS

without gratuitous publication
of a vile racial slur and for

TWO (2) YEARS
without imposing hypocritical,
viewpoint-driven censorship.

CONGRATULATIONS?!?

(UCLA, Georgetown, and a
few others must be so proud)

Carry on, clingers.

[swood1000]

Just out of curiosity, what was the gratuitous publication referred to? Was it a reference to use of the N-word where the actual word was spelled out?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yes. This blog loves that word, to the point of engaging in strenuous gymnastics to find ways to use it (with plausible deniability, of course, because today's bigots no longer wish to be known as bigoted, because liberals ruined it for conservatives).

[Hawaii Bob]

I really am looking for pro bono legal representation to mount a new legal challenge to Hawaii's test/vax or quarantine regime.

I no longer believe it would be upheld given that you can't claim those travelling in from outside of the state are more of a threat considering Hawaii at times has had the 10th highest infection rate in the nation.

I'm willing to play asshole assert my rights at the airport if that's what it takes to get standing.

I do know I would not be able to mount a successful legal challenge without pro bono legal help though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Get a job, loser, and quit panhandling and whining.

[Hawaii Bob]

I'd take a month off of work and hope for the best.

Good lawyers are way out of my price range, especially after buying a house in Hawaii.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How you became a freeloader isn't so important as the point that you are a beggar.

[Hawaii Bob]

Please! Help those in Hawaii who still care about our rights fight for them!

I live in a lava zone, the only place I can afford in Hawaii.

I'm not made of money. I'm willing to put myself at risk if it would help with a legal challenge.

[Brett Bellmore]

BUSTED: Government Spending Mad Stacks on App to Study the Sex Lives of Gay and Trans Boys as Young as 13 Who Have Sex With Grown Men

And not to throw those men in jail, either.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Have you considered sourcing your 'news' from better sites?

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean, like sites that would avoid covering something like this?

I actually took a bit of time to follow up on this, the story is perfectly legit, even if it's the sort of thing the sites you prefer would never think to report on. They didn't make anything up here, they just reported the aspects the sites you like would downplay if they even deigned to mention this. The statutory rape, the lack of parental notification, the failure to report felonies to the police...

As has been said, modern journalism is all about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving. Democracy dies in darkness, as the WaPo likes to say, and they should know, they deal out enough of that darkness.

I guess you LIKE the darkness.