Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[santamonica811]

How many people here are playing Wordle?

[darkknight9]

Guilty as charged. 🙂 (although I'm not particularly good at it)

[dwb68]

thumbs up.

I'd like to see stats on how often the users (overall) get the answer, in how many tries. The expected value (based on information theory) is 4.

So far, I have missed only one. *IGHT. There are a lot of five letter words that fit that pattern.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm in the control group.

[susancol]

Yep.

I am grateful that the game only provides one puzzle a day!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Unfortunately there are a bunch of spinoffs to help people get their fix:

Lewdle: for dirty words
Jewdle: for Hebrew/Yiddish Words
Nerdle: Guess the equation
Quordle: Wordle x Four

And others. Also if you just started now you can go through the archives to play the games you missed...

[Ridgeway]

There is also worldle, where you get a silhouette of a country and have to guess it. It is harder than it looks, especially because there is no scale. Do you know what Eritrea looks like?

[Moderation4ever]

Strictly a Sudoku and KenKen fan.

[Archibald Tuttle]

Me too. I've also recruited my wife and my kids and my siblings. It's a great game. Fun. Your skills improve after only a dozen or so games, and that makes it more fun.

[Brett Bellmore]

My wife plays a word game on her phone, which I occasionally help her with. Pretty sure it's not this "Wordle", though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Word Trip!

[bernard11]

Every day.

Usually get it in four, occasionally 3 or 5. One 6, one miss.

[Paladin_44]

I am - but I'm waiting for the NY Times to monetize it shortly...

[MoreCurious]

Missed only one out of 19 so far. Got a 2 once, a 3 a couple of times, but mostly 4s and 5s.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm playing it, it's not bad. It's just a word version of the old game Mastermind where you had to figure out the color patterns. Apparently that game was a version of an old pen and paper British game called Bulls and Cows.

[Brett Bellmore]

I loved the board version of that one. It's such a great teacher of the difference between efficiently finding an answer, and relentlessly trying to immediately optimize.

I suspect Elon Musk must have played it a lot, he engineers like somebody playing Mastermind.

[Life of Brian]

Love Mastermind as well. A couple of interesting differences:

1. Wordle provides negative feedback (e.g., "E" isn't used anywhere in the word), where Mastermind would only provide positive feedback (e.g., correct color and/or location).

2. Wordle ties each piece of feedback to the specific letter at issue, where Mastermind only provided them in the aggregate (e.g., 2 are correct color and location; 1 is correct color but incorrect location).

Both utterly necessary given 26 possible letters vs. 6 possible colors, but it does make for a different rhythm and generally reduces the typical number of guesses.

[santamonica811]

My sister and I invented a game very close to Wordle, back in 1974, when we moved to England. We took the idea, of course, from Mastermind. But in our version, the 5-letter word had to have 5 unique letters, so no repeats (which Wordle does sometimes do). Was just something to pass the time while waiting to take the Tube into London, waiting for a bus, etc.. But I was about 10 and my sister was about 12, so not bad.

(Wordle brilliantly uses today's technology to allow us to share our results with friends, AND in a way that does not ruin the gameplay for others. That's the main reason, IMHO, why it's exploded in popularity . . . I've been playing only for a week or two, and I only found out about it by receiving many many daily updates/brags (LOL) from different friends, on Facebook.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose you could do mastermind with 26 different colors, but the games would take an absurdly long time to finish, even if you played optimally.

Well, I just broke down and got Word Trip for my tablet.

[not guilty]

The House January 6 committee has issued subpoenas for six more people in regard to the "alternate electors" submissions. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco las month confirmed that the Justice Department had opened an investigation into the scheme. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/28/january-6-capitol-attack-trump-electors-subpoenas

It should not be a difficult investigation. Falsely claiming to have been selected as a state elector and sending that claim to the National Archives would seem to be a slam dunk under 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(3). The concerted effort of the several bogus electors in each state, submitted to corruptly influence the Congressional certification of the electoral vote count, evinces an unlawful conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(k).

This is not rocket science. DOJ should indict some folks, and then negotiate with them for cooperation to hold to account the people who corrupted the bogus electors.

[Michael P]

Now do Antifa rioting, the Russia hoax, the Ukraine hoaxes, the WIV gain-of-function coverup, the lab leak coverup, etc. I look forward to you consistently applying your claimed standard.

[Sarcastr0]

Thoughts on Vince Foster? Who killed JFK? Is Soros a lizard person or part of the illuminati or both?

[Brett Bellmore]

Vince Foster committed suicide, but that 'suicide note' is incredibly dubious.

Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

Carville is the lizard person, not Soros. Everyone knows that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why did you omit birtherism, QAnon, Comet Ping Ping, stolen election nuttery, Jewish space lasers, and other right-wing delusions, Sarcastr0?

[Stephen Lathrop]

If those other issues are not included, on what principle do you think you see grounds for inconsistency? Are you saying the same laws were broken? Are you a lawyer?

And if the phony elector scheme did break the laws mentioned by not guilty, what is wrong with prosecuting the violations?

[Michael P]

guilty has a novel, creatively broad reading of those statutes. I am curious to see what double standards will come into play to say that there is some difference that excuses leftists from political persecutions.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In short, no inconsistency you can think of.

[Michael P]

Wrong. I fully expect inconsistency, but am giving guilty the benefit of the doubt because I am not a mind-reader.

Unlike you, I engage in good faith here.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Says the King of Whataboutism and spreader of lies.

Nothing you say here is in good faith.

[Moderation4ever]

How many investigations of Benghazi were held all yielded nothing? It is not whether you can investigate it is whether you can do a good job investigating.

[Brett Bellmore]

That would be none of them that yielded "nothing", unless it's only criminal prosecutions you think count. They yielded information, which is what investigations are supposed to yield.

[Sarcastr0]

Now do investigations of Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mostly they've yielded misinformation, like Shiff lying about what the witnesses were saying in the closed sessions. But I suppose there was some information, too. It was good to learn that the feds knew early on that it was bullshit, but conspired to keep the investigation going.

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever your dubious interpretations of the evidence, the point is that Congressional investigations are legitimate, even if they happen to Trump.

Good to know you think this. I'll make a note.

[David Nieporent]

Brett still hasn't read the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report.

[Kazinski]

Well actually I'm much happier having John Durham working on the Russian hoax.

And I think there is plenty of time after the November election to investigate the Wuhan Lab Leak.

Let the House run its Jan. 6th investigation, I don't think it will come up with anything more substantial than the Mueller investigation did.

[Sarcastr0]

You're less grounded in reality than I thought.

With Michael P it's funny.

With you it's disappointing.

[Commenter_XY]

What do you think will be found, Sarcastr0? Really? I would like to know what you personally believe the House 'January 6th Committee' will find.

I promise: I won't be snarky or anything. I just want to know what you truly believe.

[Sarcastr0]

You appear to be conflating speculation with certainty. Kaz and Michael are certain of things they appear to have speculated themselves into.

But that being said, speculation is a good Internet passtime. If I were to guess, they'll find
1) That Trump and a fair number of his circle intended to have the election go their way, regardless of how the people voted, and made concrete moves to assure that outcome. But Trump didn't intend violence
2) But once violence was happening in his name, Trump freaking loved it and refused to do anything to stop it for quite some time.
3) A bunch of GOP Congresspeople ignored obvious red flags about the kind of people they were coordinating with and encouraging to come to DC
4) Trump folks are planning a similar paper coup under cover of populist uprising in 2024

Will any of this be true? Hellifiknow. I don't tend to put a lot of stock in my political prognostication. I was super worried about Rick Perry in 2012. And in 2008? Fred Thompson. I am bad at this.

[Brett Bellmore]

1) I personally think Trump is actually delusional about who won in 2020, and genuinely believes that he was robbed, because, how else could he have lost?
2) Not much for him to do, he's not in charge of Capitol security. He could have asked people to leave sooner, though, he probably did find it a bit entertaining until he realized it was killing his prospects of challenging the election outcome.
3) It's not like Republicans have this long record of rioting, that came as a surprise to basically everyone.
4) Trump folks are actually planning on nailing down election laws for 2024 so that they can't be robbed. Because they do think they were robbed.

[bernard11]

Trump folks are actually planning on nailing down election laws for 2024 so that they can't be robbed. Because they do think they were robbed.

This is a ridiculous interpretation of what they are doing.

They weren't robbed. Trump attempted a robbery and failed, and now the Republicans are doing all they can to carry out a successful heist in 2024.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Because they do think they were robbed.

When they say the 2020 election was stolen, Trumpists are expressing their view that the votes of rival constituencies should not count, even though they understand, on some level, that they do. They are declaring that the nation belongs to them and them alone, whether or not they actually comprise a majority, because they are the only real Americans to begin with.
--Adam Serwer.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, you simply can't conceive of them actually disagreeing with your take on what happened.

No, they think the election was stolen.

Sure, stupidly, but they think that.

This is driving all their efforts to lock down the next election against being stolen.

[Sarcastr0]

You get your own opinions, not your own facts.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Hilarious that Brett Bellmore is trying to tell people there are different reasonable opinions on matters when he thinks he objectively knows more than everyone about everything no matter their expertise or lived experience.

But I think you misunderstand me and Serwer. Obviously we disagree with what happened. The point is WHY they disagree and Serwer nailed it: they have to tell themselves the election was stolen because they understand on some level that if all the votes are counted they’ll lose and the country as they think they own will be lost to them.

I mean it’s not a coincidence the cheating allegations were directed at majority black cities and counties. The Trumpist right understood on a deep level that if those votes counted the country didn’t “belong” to them anymore.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right back at you, Sarcastro. If you would look at the legislation actually originating from Republican state legislatures, you'll see a series of bills designed to close off various avenues for fraud and manipulation. Prohibiting ballot harvesting. Putting real teeth into election laws, so that local offices can't afford to violate them. Requiring better chain of custody for ballots.

They are literally trying to keep the next election from being stolen, which is exactly what you do if you think an election was stolen.

"they have to tell themselves the election was stolen because they understand on some level that if all the votes are counted they’ll lose and the country as they think they own will be lost to them."

They're not doing anything to keep all the legal votes from being counted. It is actually easier to vote in these states than many states dominated by Democrats.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "you'll see a series of bills designed to close off various avenues for fraud and manipulation"

"Fraud and manipulation" that exists on in the fevered imagination of the gullible. The less-easily-duped know these bills are designed to harass voters - to peel-off a small percent of the turnout that might prove decisive for the minority party. We had record turnout last election and that scared the hell out of the GOP. If there's one thing everyone knows, Republicans loathe voters.

But voter harassment bills are rarely effective; that's not the main danger. Trump's attempt to steal a U.S. election might have become a major constitutional crisis but for Republican election officials who put ethical duty before party. Many of those election officials have since been targeted for retribution by Trump and his whores (aka, the GOP). Worst still, many election bills transfer final control of the certification process to reliably whorish actors, usually republican-controlled legislatures.

What do think the clowns in the Arizona statehouse would do if Trump demands they ignore the vote count in '24? What would have happened in the '20 election if all these new laws had been in place then? We'd probably have seen several states refuse to accept their own citizen's choice. With these new bills, Brett may get to see democracy crippled yet (even as he drones bullshit pieties on "fraud and manipulation")

[Michael P]

grb, these are basic clean-voting measures that are overwhelmingly common in developed democracies. For some reason, they are opposed by Democrats.

Probably because they know how much of their margin depends on places like Philadelphia.

[Queen Amalthea]

They think they were robbed based on what you yourself call a delusion pushed by their candidate. Not a good basis for laws.

[darkknight9]

Look, I know he was in Iron Eagle III and there was that appearance on Sex in the City, but that was no reason to fear Fred Thompson! He had a number of unmemorable roles I know but between Hunt For Red October and all those various episodes of different types of Law & Order I think he turned it around! 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

LOL. Yeah, I was young and dumb.

But I thought the celebrity and gravitas would give him crossover appeal.

Little did I know he kinda hated people and couldn't hide it.

[OtisAH]

Also, we learned he wasn’t near as bright as he seemed on Law & Order.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Uh uh....let me do Vince Foster.

The answer is Clinton Crime Syndicate!

[not guilty]

Michael P, how do any of the red herrings you mention involve writings containing false statements submitted to a federal agency, or a conspiracy to corruptly influence a proceeding of Congress? You are trying to change the subject because you know that the conduct of the bogus electors is indefensible.

[Michael P]

Antifa rioting- The FBI's ludicrous testimony to Congress that Antifa is not an organization just because it has cells that act autonomously. Prosecutors who lie to judges (often federal judges) to pretend that a defendant should be released or charges dismissed.

Russia hoax- It was an enormous conspiracy to corruptly influence the federal government to act as a wing of Hillary Clinton's campaign, with the explicit purpose of distracting from her own criminal behavior.

Ukraine hoax- Another conspiracy, including federal employees, to corruptly push Congress towards impeaching Trump over a very ordinary, diplomatic phone call. (If only more people knew then how deeply in bed Hunter Biden had been with Putin stooges!)

WIV GoF/lab leak cover-up- More federal employees coordinating a conspiracy to distract the public and Congress from investigating why the NIH was funding gain-of-function research at the lab where SARS-CoV-2 was apparently enhanced and released.

None of this is rocket science, just facts that you would rather ignore.

[not guilty]

Speculation now.
Speculation tomorrow.
Speculation FOREVER!!

[David Welker]

Prosecutors do not have probable cause for the charges you like. The statute you cite requires knowledge.

[David Nieporent]

You don't think the electors knew that they hadn't actually been certified as the winners?

[Michael P]

Were Hawaiian Democrats prosecuted after the 1960 presidential election?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I read an essay over at Election Law Blog, (Hardly a center of Trumpism!) relating those events, and pointing out that at least some of the 'electors' would have a good argument that they were just preserving the controversy.

But not all of them.

[David Nieporent]

In two states — I'm doing this from memory, but I think the numbers are correct — the fake electors sent a conditional document to Washington, expressly saying that they were just preserving it in case the outcome changed. In five states, however, the fake electors sent forged documents purporting to be the state's votes.

[Michael P]

According to Wikipedia, "Certificates for both slates' electoral votes were sent to Franklin G. Floete, the Administrator of General Services." That was when the state's certified results still had Nixon winning.

[not guilty]

I think Daviid Nieporent is referring to the 2020 election. He is correct that Pennsylvania and New Mexico included disclaimers, which IMO makes a difference from the five other states.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure the Hawaii electors made their filing conditional, but they were at least Kennedy's designated electors.

Some of the 'electors' we're talking about here were not Trump's designated electors. Those guys may be in real trouble. The ones who were may have a preservation argument.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, my reference to two states and five states was in reference to 2020, not not Hawaii 1960.

I should note that while Democratic Hawaiian electors did cast their votes for Kennedy even after the GOP electors had already done so for Nixon, (a) there was a valid, active legal dispute about who had won (and indeed, it ultimately found that Kennedy had); and (b) these Democratic electors did not sneakily pretend to be the certified electors. Indeed, the Republican governor of Hawaii forwarded the Democratic slate's votes before Congress met to count them. (Also, nobody cared overmuch since it couldn't change the outcome.)

[bernard11]

Oh STFU.

Something that did or did not happen in Hawaii 60 years ago has fuck-all to do with this.

Stop your idiotic whatabouttery.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's called "precedent". If if it can be done to help a Democratic candidate, why not a Republican?

BTW, note that Nixon himself made the call to have the slate of electors for Kennedy counted.

[bernard11]

Oh bullshit.

Some bank robber got away with it at some point in the past, so bank robbery is not really a crime.

Is that the way you think? Your "precedent" argument is ridiculous.

[Life of Brian]

Some bank robber got away with it at some point in the past, so bank robbery is not really a crime.

Well, no. It's more like the people that did it in the past were "liberators of the fruits of capitalistic oppression," and now the people doing the same thing today are suddenly "bank robbers."

[not guilty]

18 U.S.C. 1512 was created in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oakley Act, so it could not have applied to the Hawaii electors. If it had, the Democratic actors did not act corruptly. A recount was in progress at the time of the submission, (which resulted in a Kennedy victory,) and then-Vice-president Nixon accepted the Democratic electors as being valid.

Here multiple recounts and scores of lawsuits confirmed Biden as the winner.

[not guilty]

Excuse me. That should be Sarbanes-Oxley.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Congress does not investigate and prosecute crimes. That is not within their powers.

[Sarcastr0]

Prosecution, sure. But what was Ken Starr doing back in the day?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ken Starr isn't Congress. Ken Starr didn't work directly for Congress (look it up, on where his authority came from and who appointed him). Ken Starr didn't wield Congressional Subpoena power.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't see a distinction between investigating, and having a cutout do it for you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's called separation of powers. There's an entire chapter on it in your basic Government text book.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for the condescension, but it appears you are arguing Congress can delegate powers you also argue it does not originally have.

[Brett Bellmore]

How is that even slightly controversial? Congress does not have judicial or executive branch powers, but it writes the laws that the executive branch executes, and the judiciary enforce.

So, yeah, they literally delegate powers THEY don't have.

[Sarcastr0]

That doesn't appear to be what happened in the special prosecutor statute.

Starr wasn't appointed by the executive. He didn't execute stuff on behalf of the DoJ.

Maybe I should have asked about Benghazi instead. Point is, this sudden realization that Congress doesn't investigate is not true, and has not been true for quite a while. It's just another Trump sop.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh....

What you're talking about is part of the the Ethics in Government Act (since expired). It required the Attorney General to investigate specific instances of federal offenses by high ranking executive office officials. Note, it's not Congress directly investigating, but the Executive Branch investigating (Which is what the executive branch is designed to do...execute the laws).

If after 90 days, the AG found there was merit to the offenses, then a special prosecutor is chosen by a panel of 3 judges (again, not Congress...), and the SP worked in the DoJ, with the abilities of the DoJ. There were limitations on how the SP could be fired. But again, Separation of powers, the SP worked in the executive branch. Congress wasn't investigating.

Were there potentially issues with this? Yes. But it did separate out the powers, with the DoJ doing the investigation. Not Congress.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the case with Starr is that, at some point, Clinton's AG simply stopped implementing that law, and refused to call for any more special prosecutors, no matter how glaring the conflicts of interest got.

So every time a new issue came up where the DOJ had a conflict of interest, it would get assigned by the judges to Starr. Which is how he ended up investigating so many things.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm making a functionalist argument here - how is this whole rigmarole you talked about effectively different from Congress hiring someone to investigate, and saying the DoJ had to give them resources?

If you want to hide behind formalism, fine - I can dig it. But then you can't complain if Congress say they're not investigating on a criminal matter, they're investigating, and any other such fig leaf.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"I'm making a functionalist argument here"

Again, refer back to the previous statement. "Separation of Powers"

Please read the following review for starters.

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

[Armchair Lawyer]

And keep in mind... "Congress" hired no one.

[Sarcastr0]

You're disengaging, AL. I know what separation of powers is; there's no need to be a condescending asshole.

1) Investigation being a purely executive power is not clear. In fact, long practice indicates it's part of the legislative power as well.
2) But maybe you think that's wrong! If so, then you need to find a functional distinction for why Ken Starr and Benghazi are legit.
And no, Congress not directly hiring Ken Starr but pretty clearly deciding on him beforehand is not really a functional distinction.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"I know what separation of powers is;"

It's pretty clear you don't actually know what separation of powers really is or means from your comments. You keep conflating ideas, misinterpreting concepts, and misjudging things with the 100% certainty of an old guy who say knows exactly where he is going, while driving in the opposite direction.

Again. Educate yourself. Your examples are clearly different from the investigation of individual crimes from private individuals, and different in very different ways between Starr and the Benghazi select committee, which are themselves very different from each other.

[Sarcastr0]

Your examples are clearly different from the investigation of individual crimes from private individuals, and different in very different ways between Starr and the Benghazi select committee

Clearly is not an argument. And private individuals is both a new goalpost and a distinction without a difference.

Again. Educate yourself.
You don't need to be an asshole, you know. In fact, it helps your arguments.

[Randal]

In the end, though, although you're not willing to admit it, Sarcastr0 was right and you were wrong. Congress investigates things all the time that are reasonably, if not formally, described as crimes.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No Randal,

Sarcastro is deeply incorrect. This concept that Ken Starr was appointed by, and answered to Congress is entirely inaccurate. Starr worked for the Department of Justice, and was appointed by a court panel.

Congress does not investigate crimes. It doesn't have the power. There's a good reason for this, and it's related to how Parliament in the UK abused its power. Congress has OVERSIGHT privileges, but that's very different. Again, Sarcastro conflates the two incorrectly. Kenneth Starr worked for the DoJ investigating crimes. The select committee on Benghazi did not investigate crimes, but looked into oversight on how the Benghazi disaster occurred and the policy choices that were made, in order for it not to occur again. It was not a criminal investigation.

The current "January 6th" committee is breaking separation of powers illegally, by investigating crimes, especially that of private individuals.

[Randal]

Repeating everything you've already said doesn't make it any more correct. If you think the Benghazi committees weren't keeping an eye out for crimes, not just by Hillary but also her "people," you're a nutter.

[not guilty]

I referenced a DOJ investigation, acknowledged by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco.

[darkknight9]

Obvs IANAL. But I'm having a little difficulty as a citizen looking something up and am hoping you folks can help.

I've been following an ongoing (years) case out of curiosity and the last scheduled action was going to be a hearing on Feb 3, 2022. My question is: How many differences are there from state to state when trying to find out whether or not the hearing has taken place? Are there any universal systems of filing or am I looking at 50 different sets of descriptors and abbreviations to have to learn? Also, is everything that happens during a day in court recorded? (Not going to ask if its all open to the public, I know some of it isn't) But if they rescheduled or cancelled a hearing would it show up on some record somewhere?

The specific case is that of Marvin Louis Guy and he had a 'status' (newspaper's term used) hearing scheduled on Feb 3 and I'm exceptionally curious.

Any help or pointing me to an applicable resource greatly appreciated.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Not only does every state have a different system, the system often varies significantly within an individual state.

[David Nieporent]

Yep; it can depend on both the jurisdiction (e.g., which county or district it is) as well as the court level.

[Doug Huffman]

See Public Access to Court Electronic Records - PACER, the largest with which I am familiar, though I don’t use it - fee for service.

If you dig I believe that each state and each court has some public access. I seem to find what I need in Wisconsin.

https://wcca.wicourts.gov

[darkknight9]

Thank you all for the replies! This looks like its going to be messy. 🙂

[Life of Brian]

Some level of online access for the Bell County court system is here. I was able to pull up the case using the Smart Search option and entering "Guy, Marvin" -- not clear if you can pull actual documents/transcripts/etc., but you can at least see the docket. Looks like either the status hearing was reset for March 3 or the newspaper got the date wrong.

[Michael P]

I think the case in question is in a Bell County (Texas) court, not a federal court, so PACER would not have it.

[Commenter_XY]

Did Judge Jed Rakoff swing the Palin trial verdict? Maybe. To many, it sure looks that way. The timing of the push notifications was....very peculiar.

My question to the lawyers: How would you argue that the judge did, in fact, swing the verdict?

(I am asking you to make the argument, not whether you believe it to be the case) - Hope to hear from David Nieporent (hint, hint!) since I know he works in the Second Circuit and probably has appeared before the judge.

[apedad]

Wondering the same thing and also:

1. Is it normal what the judge did?
2. Does a judge have that authority to overrule a jury's verdict?

[Brett Bellmore]

1. Don't really know.

2. Judges absolutely have authority to overrule a jury's verdict, but the judge can only overrule a conviction, never an acquittal.

Now, judges CAN declare a mistrial if they smell an acquittal coming, which is bad enough...

[Bored Lawyer]

1. No. Judges wait until later.
2. Yes. Rule 50, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

[rsteinmetz]

As I understand it the Judge was ruling on a motion which was before him. I think if he was going to let the jury deliberate he should have waited to deliver his decision until the jury reached a verdict. He could have received the verdict, delivered his ruling then delivered the verdict.

A number of jurors found out about his ruling before they reached a verdict, so I'd expect a motion for a mistrial and an appeal.

[not guilty]

The timing here is unusual. If the trial judge is correct on the merits of his ruling -- insufficient evidence of actual malice -- then the jury verdict is mere surplusage.

[Sarcastr0]

There's a whole VC thread on this. It explains why the judge did what he did, though not why he rushed doing it.

A judge can overrule a jury's verdict when the law is super clear ('judgment as a matter of law' or JMOL).
By both ruling and allowing the jury's verdict he insulates the decision from appeal, somewhat, since even if the appeals court overturns his finding, they would have to separately find the jury erred which is a high bar.

By announcing his JMOL early he gave something of an avenue to challenge the jury verdict, but the jury insisted the error was nonmaterial, so it's still a steep hill to climb.

And yes, most of that clarification/insight came from DMN 😀

[Brett Bellmore]

"It explains why the judge did what he did, though not why he rushed doing it."

The obvious suspicion is that he rushed so that there would be time for the jury to find out before they issued a verdict.

[OtisAH]

It won’t matter at all to you Brett, but the jury received instructions to avoid media same as expected. Main problem here seems to be that there’s currently no instruction to turn off push notifications. But again, this should have no impact on your “suspicions.”

[Bored Lawyer]

You seriously think that insulated them from hearing about it. This was, charitably, a dumb mistake by the judge.

[OtisAH]

It would have if they’d turned off their push notifications. That way when they picked up their phones there wouldn’t be a notice telling them. And if your response is going to be something like “They would’ve run to CNN or Twitter anyway” my response will be “then they’d be in violation of their instructions.”

[Sarcastr0]

Unlike you, I don't jump to partisan bad faith. Or, when I do, I tamp that shit down.

You? Your 'obvious suspicion' swiftly becomes your fervent certainty.

[Sarcastr0]

Also, Brett, he then announced it when the jury found out. Not a very well thought out plan.

[Bored Lawyer]

"if the appeals court overturns his finding, they would have to separately find the jury erred which is a high bar."

It is indeed a high bar, made somewhat lower by the judge's behavior. Had he waited until they reached a verdict, the bar would remain as high.

[Michael P]

Could the court have reasonably sealed the JMOL ruling until the jury announced its decision? That seems like it would have informed the parties (if timeliness was that important) while protecting the jury from foreseeable disclosure of it.

[Commenter_XY]

I read that thread Sarcastr0....it was very good (with one notable exception). That prompted my question this morning. Yeah, based on David's answers in that thread, I am hoping he chimes in. I learn from his responses.

[loki13]

I'm not DMN, but here's my understanding. Let me start by explaining the state/federal difference. In (most) state courts, trial practice works like this-
During trial (at the end of the opposing party's evidence), you can move for a directed verdict.
After the deliberations of the jury, you can move to set aside the jury's verdict with a JNOV (judgment notwithstanding the verdict).

Federal practice replaces the directed verdict with F.R.C.P. 50 (JMOL, judgment as a matter of law) and the post-trial motions such as the JNOV with F.R.C.P. 59 (a renewed JMOL, for example).

In this action, the Defendant moved for a JMOL under FRCP 50. The judge ruled it would be properly granted. Defendants win.

Here's where it gets complicated, and I don't know what the exact colloquy was between judge and counsel; what I do know is that what was reported was that the judge understood the the Plaintiff was going to appeal, and in order to provide the appellate court additional information, allowed the jury to continue deliberating.

The thing is- the judge's timing was proper. You are supposed to rule on the JMOL prior to deliberations. Arguably, that should have been the end of it- allowing the deliberations to continue was throwing Plaintiff a bone (and after the 2d COA overruled him on the M.T.D., the judge had seemed to be solicitous of Plaintiff- letting it go to trial instead of ruling on summary judgment). If anything, the error in judgment was allowing the jury to deliberate after the JMOL was granted to provide Plaintiff additional non-binding information.

The alternative would have been to deny the JMOL, and require the Defendant to renew it after deliberations.

(In my federal cases I have never had a judge "sit" on a JMOL from either side until after deliberations, because the purpose it to quickly rule on it- usually with a "Denied." I'm not saying that doesn't happen, or doesn't happen in SDNY, but it's not my experience.)

[Commenter_XY]

Hey, thanks for that complete response loki13.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not DMN,

Wait, really?

[Sarcastr0]

The accusations of sockpuppetry are rising around here, so one never knows...

[Michael P]

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-02-14/jury-resumes-deliberations-in-sarah-palin-case-against-new-york-times says "The judge ruled on the trial's eighth day while jurors were still deliberating", which does not sound like the ruling was made before deliberations.

[Ridgeway]

Not to be picky, but if the judge overrules a jury verdict, isn't it a JNOV (non obstante veredicto - notwithstanding the verdict)?

I thought judgment as a matter of law was summary judgment.

[Ridgeway]

Seeing Loki's response, it looks like things may have changed since I took Civ Pro

[not guilty]

Summary judgment is issued prior to trial. A Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law follows a jury trial.

[Moderation4ever]

The judge's rush seems to benefit the plaintiff more than the defense, so if he swung the jury who was trying to help?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Judge Rakoff's ruling made the jury verdict meaningless, didn't it? He wasn't trying to swing the verdict, he ruled that it didn't matter. In his opinion, Palin didn't prove malice. It seems weird to issue this ruling while the jury is actually deliberating, but perhaps that had something to do with the timing of the motion by NYT.

[apedad]

The Super Bowl halftime show received excellent ratings (except in Tennessippi).

I liked the set up as it had a LA-vibe.

The performances were OK but nothing special and as Israel (Izzy) Gutierrez (ESPN) said, a CD would have provided the same effect.

Oh, and the Prince show is #1.

https://sports.nbcsports.com/2022/02/13/ranking-the-10-best-super-bowl-halftime-shows-ahead-of-super-bowl-2022/

[Stephen Lathrop]

apedad, as I watched, it came to mind that I had never seen a Celtic music halftime show, or a Bluegrass halftime show—maybe Ralph Stanley singing, O Death. Or how about just a recording of David Oistrakh playing the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto, maybe with a few fireworks added?

[Moderation4ever]

I think the answer to your question is who the target audience is for the performance. The sponsor is Pepsi and if I recall their customer base skews younger. Ask your self this question, "would this year's halftime show be right for the Dayton 500"? Also not sure any of your suggestion would work there either.

[OtisAH]

In the middle of a spectacle event watched by tens of millions of people worldwide you’re hoping to someday see Ralph Stanley singing O Death? It’s the Super Bowl, not a State Fair.

[Brett Bellmore]

All I really want is for them to, just one freaking time, sing the entire national anthem. Can't you picture it? The singer belts out the first stanza, the orchestra starts to set down their instruments, and then the singer starts into the second stanza, and they hastily pick them up again... The whole schedule is confounded by the time the 4th stanza is done!

[Don Nico]

Again, I must agree with you.
And as for Thunderthighs in White Leather, anyone who thinks that is sexy needs new glasses or contacts. I have seen more shapely stumps on trees.

[Queen Amalthea]

The halftime show wasn't for me and I wouldn't go full Ben Shapiro on it, but I do think it shows a bit that the NFL is obtuse about where its at with its fan base, which I'm betting is more U2 or Toby Keith (or their modern equivalents) than Snoop Dog.

[Michael P]

Maybe the NFL is trying to expand its audience among hip-hop listeners who aren't already NFL fans.

Or maybe, uh, their appeal is becoming more selective, to coin an phrase.

[Commenter_XY]

QA....I took the easy out. During halftime, I reloaded my plate, busted out another IPA, took care of some kitchen clean-up. By the time that was all done, Q3 was starting.

It was a good game. Heartbreaking to see Cincy's pass defense give it up at the end, after playing a great game all night.

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't catch the game this time, but I tend to be a puppy bowl guy in halftime.

I like pop music fine, but I'm just not really visual...spectacles like that leave me cold.

[Bob from Ohio]

"more U2 or Toby Keith (or their modern equivalents) than Snoop Dog."

You should return that deck of cards, its entirely Race Cards.

NFL is extremely popular across all races and classes.

[Don Nico]

Wow, I did not realize that Bob is an anti-racist

[grb]

It was Bob's big chance to be anti-racist! Such a chance only comes once a generation for Bob. To his eternal credit, our hero grabbed at that opportunity.

[Don Nico]

Thanks for my laugh of the day grb.

[Stephen Lathrop]

About all the various states which have passed laws or executive orders (if any) to bar public school teaching of certain subjects related to race, or sexual orientation, or history—are those federally constitutional? Are there any protected category speech restrictions? Are there any state constitutional protections?

[Brett Bellmore]

I would assume that what public school teachers teach in the government's own schools qualifies as government speech, so, yeah, they'd be constitutional.

Now, if they went after private schools, or home schoolers, or even the public school teachers off the clock, it would be very different. But when the government is literally paying you to talk, they get to tell you what to say.

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you think governments can or should, say, regularly supply their public librarians with a list of books to not order/remove?

[Brett Bellmore]

Can perhaps, but only in extremity should.

[Krayt]

Don't both sides do that already?

Or is it "our side" does it for the right reasons, and the other side are censors?

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you think both sides doing it makes it right for any one side?

[Krayt]

Nope, my point all along.

I cannot begrudge an overreaction once the shoe is on the other foot. I can, however, lament it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you think governments can or should, say, regularly supply their public librarians with a list of books to not order/remove?"

Should government officials (public librarians) decide which books the public gets to read without input from the public?

[Queen Amalthea]

Input =/= not order/remove, but I get you're pretty desperate to square your tribal need for censorship here with your usual profession of opposition to censorship.

I mean, what, should a book be removed when 50.000001% of the public says it should?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I get you're pretty desperate to square your tribal need for censorship here with your usual profession of opposition to censorship."

Lol. Sure, it's my tribal needs, and not the simple fact that you can't have government-provided expression without the government picking and choosing what expression is provided. You're just quibbling over how the government picks and chooses.

If you want the government out of content selection, you're going to have to turn to non-government information sources.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Sure, it's my tribal needs, and not the simple fact that you can't have government-provided expression without the government picking and choosing what expression is provided."

That's only true in the most facile way, think of traditional public forums, government pays for everything there but they don't pick and choose the expression provided. The idea of academic freedom is another counterweight to that.

[Queen Amalthea]

Also, this would suggest governments could sanction faculty at their universities who speak 'outside the guidelines' they might require.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are they doing it "on the clock"?

[Queen Amalthea]

Your principle would seem to apply to them doing so. So if a professor teaches a verboten subject in a class session she's sanctionable? So much for all those Keith Whittington posts...

[Krayt]

So much for professors speaking on something political.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Also, this would suggest governments could sanction faculty at their universities who speak 'outside the guidelines' they might require."

The content of higher education generally doesn't count as government speech, precisely to protect it from the political process. You can argue whether that's a good idea, but that's the (more or less loosely defined framework.

[Brett Bellmore]

Could a state legislature create a new university for which it WOULD count, de novo, and then start defunding the others?

[Queen Amalthea]

I don't see why higher education should be protected from 'the political process' but not, say, high school AP courses.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd prefer to have strict separation of education and state, so that this would be a moot question.

[Queen Amalthea]

In that world lots of kids just wouldn't be educated. Given government schools allow them to get an education the question becomes should the government work to protect them from scary ideas or defer to education experts on what to expose them to.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, yeah, right, just like there's mass starvation because the government doesn't tax away everybody's grocery budgets, and run a huge system of soup kitchens.

[Queen Amalthea]

Before government schools a crapload of kids didn't get schooling.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don't see why higher education should be protected from 'the political process' but not, say, high school AP courses."

You can certainly make an argument for academic freedom in high school AP courses, but I agree with Brett about separation of education and state.

[Queen Amalthea]

Well, there goes that 'Beloved' nonsense.

[ducksalad]

Strange to make high school AP courses the example here.

Those courses tend to (and need to) have their content tightly aligned with the AP exams they are designed to help students pass.

A much better case could be made for high school academic freedom in purely elective courses.

[Moderation4ever]

The interesting thing is that most of this is not telling teacher what to say, but rather what not to say. The question is what are the limits? If a child sees the movie Glory and ask about it in a class on the American Civil War, can the class discuss it or does the teacher say the government does want me to talk about that subject. If a child asks about the history of Africans, Irish, Italians, Asians in American history, can the teacher recommend a book or are they prohibited?

Most of these laws are for show and don't actually address teaching.

[Queen Amalthea]

A school in Indiana just felt it had to go with permission slips for students to get a Black History month lesson.

Students whose parents deny permission will, I guess, get a safe space with coloring books within which to be protected.

[bernard11]

What? Censorship by the right? Not possible.

[Commenter_XY]

Canada, O Canada...is also on my mind. I love Canadians. They never get riled up about anything. Effortlessly polite. Play great hockey. Not so sure about curling (I mean, pushing a rock down an ice bowling alley?). Niagara falls is amazing. But whoa! What has happened to my placids neighbors....they turned into angry bears. Pretty amazing to watch. I have never seen anything like that in Canada before.

The Emergency Act that PM Trudeau has activated....It seems pretty comprehensive in stripping every right you have with no recourse.

Is there a US analogue to that law here, and can a POTUS use it in the same way that Trudeau has against protesters (and their financial donors)?

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's a pretty good substack on what's going on there.

I think he's on to something.

[Armchair Lawyer]

A large part of this, I believe, is that this urban liberal elite is generally unhappy with their lives. And because they are unhappy with their life, they feel the need to be superior to someone else. By feeling "better" than someone. And to enforce their will on other people on how they are "better" to show it.

This type of situation has been seen before throughout history. Whether in racial terms (white southerners needing to feel better than blacks) or religious terms (The supposed superiority of Protestants to Jews or Catholics or whatever). And of course now the urban liberal elite need to feel better than someone...and the working class is a target.

It's not a good thing.

[Sarcastr0]

I find it telling how often these days conservatives seek to insist city people are unhappy on behalf of all city people.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know that they're unhappy, but they do seem to be worried about people who don't live in cities having some say in their own affairs, and being permitted to transact outside the control of people in cities.

The point of the substack was that the economy has largely bifurcated into people who do physical stuff, living outside cities, and people who do information stuff, living inside cities. And that the people who do information stuff have captured control of many institutions, but are still mortally dependent on the people who do physical stuff. And are using their control of information stuff to coerce the physical stuff people.

[Sarcastr0]

You prove way too much. This 'city elites only passed this law to get at the rurals!' applies to any regulation by Congress. Your rhetoric could as easily have been on the floor of the Senate in 1908.

The city-rural populism is old nonsense. Slightly newer and dumber is the liberals have captured everything I could use to check the nonsense I want to believe and made it into liberal lies canard.

[bernard11]

It's the other way around, Brett.

State legislatures just love to tell cities they can't pass the ordinances they want.

Besides, you're confusing acreage with people again. If there are going to be statewide laws then maybe majority preferences ought to decide, as a general rule.

Look. Stop pretending rural folk are somehow more virtuous and right-thinking than urbanites. They aren't.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to see rural people being meddling busybodies, check out school boards now.

Colorado had a doozy of a hearing yesterday throwing out a Superintendent for no good cause in a chaotic shitshow.

[Queen Amalthea]

"And are using their control of information stuff to coerce the physical stuff people."

With the loosest definition of 'coerce' this side of Marcuse.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems to me Trudeau locking people's bank accounts is fairly coercive, and bank accounts are "information".

[Queen Amalthea]

That's not 'the people that do information stuff,' that's law enforcement/government. I mean, when under the Patriot Act things were spied on or seized it wasn't the 'urban information people' sticking it to the' rural physical people.'

[Voize of Reazon]

Here's a pretty good substack on what's going on there.

The author includes references, which is good, but it allows us to check and find he is misrepresenting them, which is bad.
For example, he writes

All the towing companies in Ottawa have refused to move the trucks. Because, surprisingly, it turns out tow truck drivers also drive trucks for a living.

But if you read the linked article it says that the towing companies aren't refusing because they side with their fellow drivers, they are refusing because they are afraid the operators of the rigs they tow will hold a grudge and it will damage their future business. In other words, they are afraid of being canceled.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a pretty dark reading of "We don't want to be forced to attack our own customers!" They're afraid of the grudge because the truckers are their normal customers, who else pays you to tow a big rig?

[Voize of Reazon]

That's a pretty liberal use of quotation marks.
Here is some actual text from the underlying article:

"The operators they've contacted worry about long-term damage to their businesses should they help police haul away protester vehicles, said Alberta RCMP Deputy Commissioner Curtis Zablocki," write The Canadian Press.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, the long term damage being that the truckers themselves are the operators' normal customers. And they don't want to piss off their customers.

[Voize of Reazon]

As I said, fear of retaliation not sympathy.

[Commenter_XY]

Physicals vs Virtuals. It really does neatly summarize the parties.

[Brett Bellmore]

As troubling as the Emergency Act, is the fact that multiple platforms and financial services companies were eager to aid the government in suppressing the protest, without even having to be ordered to. It's underscored that we've not only constructed all the pieces of a police state, but that most societal institutions are eager to see that police state arrive.

They seem to be establishing a regime where you can either submit, or proceed directly to violence, with nothing in between available. Do they even realize that?

[Michael P]

I suspect they don't realize how much more attractive Justin Trudeau just made some near-future generation of cryptocurrency.

[Michael P]

I'm pretty sure there is no US analog to it. For example, the executive branch cannot suddenly decide that a statute requiring certain entities to report specific financial transactions also applies to entities that are not listed. (See this case about the malleability of statutory text.)

[Commenter_XY]

That Yates case is pretty amazing. 30 days in the clink for tossing an undersized fish overboard? What?!

[Voize of Reazon]

They do believe they have the power to deem by rule any thing exchanged that is of value a substitute for money and subject to FinCEN reporting, see https://www.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN-2020-0020-7391
Such a rule change is subject to the notice and comment requirement, though, so can't happen suddenly.

[Kazinski]

Whatever else Trudeau has shown himself a total hypocrite endorsing protests and blockades by Indian farmers, but calling Truckers, many of them Sikhs, Nazis and racists.

[Bob from Ohio]

He called a Jewish MP a Nazi too.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What Canada's government is doing is truly frightening. Almost like a pocket dictator.

Imagine peacefully supporting a peaceful protest with a simple donation. Then having all your bank accounts frozen. That's scary stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is there a financial equivalent to an anonymizing proxy? Because the doxing part of this is pretty scary, it allows private retaliation, up to and including illegal attacks, even if the government can't officially penalize you.

That's why I've never been impressed with the left's demands for "transparency"; It's a silly way of spelling "target list".

[Armchair Lawyer]

In fact, the crowdfunding site "GiveSendGo" was hacked, and the donor information released online. So, even if you try to anonymously support a protest, your information is leaked.

Twitter and Facebook don't seem to have shut down that though, despite a clear hack

[Brett Bellmore]

The rules at Twitter and Farcebook only apply to people they don't like, everybody knows that.

What I'm thinking is some system that takes payments, passes them on, and then promptly deletes all the data. Or are all financial companies required to maintain doxing records at this point?

[Illocust]

Pretty sure they are required to keep financial records. Though I don't believe anything says those records have to be kept online. Maybe could set up a system that prints the records then deletes all digital copies.

[Brett Bellmore]

That might be feasible.

[Queen Amalthea]

When a partisan says 'everybody knows that' they mean 'everyone who agrees with me knows that, making an actual case would require a lot of time and effort that I'm not interested in.'

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, then, you're in denial about that. Despite literal terrorists and dictators getting to keep their accounts, even as Trump was canceled.

[Queen Amalthea]

It has to do with the TOS, if a 'literal dictator' doesn't use the platform to violate them they're probably not going to be taken down, if a non-literal dictator does they probably will. Trump regularly violated them for years and then they finally tightened up on him.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have literally reported to FB Antifa pages which were discussing plans to commit battery, and seen them stay up. Spare us all the crazy notion they're impartially applying their rules.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Everybody knows" quickly devolves into personal anecdote.

Who saw that coming?

*For what it's worth I have 'literally reported to FB Q posts when they were banned and seen them stay up, so checkmate I guess!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm aware, BTW, that you can sort of anonymize buying prepaid cards with cash. I mean, something you can just install and forget.

[John F. Carr]

"Anonymizing proxy" = "tool to facilitate money laundering"

[Armchair Lawyer]

When the government freezes the bank accounts of anyone it disagrees with, without a court order....

It sadly may be needed.

[Brett Bellmore]

More to the point, when private citizens distribute the identifying information of people the government disagrees with, and threaten them with crimes, it becomes very important that it be possible to disagree with the government without being identified.

As I've said, what the left means by "transparency" is "target list".

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Add in half the population approving of it too.

There is no going back from where we are heading.

[Queen Amalthea]

Canadians aren't as funny as we are about their government, they tend to like it/trust it a lot more. They didn't have a revolution, remember. Have to say it doesn't seem to have worked out badly for them in general, it's nice up there and relatively free.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It "was" relatively free...

[Queen Amalthea]

We'll kinda have to wait and see how the powers are used.

[Michael P]

Martial law, rewriting laws. Exactly what are you waiting for? The Reichstag fire?

[Armchair Lawyer]

The gas chambers.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck is it with commenters here and trying to call their petty bullshit the Holocaust these days?

[Queen Amalthea]

The Right today has extreme difficulty talking without resorting to the highest hyperbole.

[Michael P]

Ottawa now has armed checkpoints. Not clear whether they just want to see your papers or whether they're looking deeper. So, what, are you proud that they have only reached East Germany levels and haven't gone all the way to Nazi Germany (yet)?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Just demonstrating where tyranny leads....

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. You're actually making bad and offensive historical comparisons that are repeatedly debunked by Holocaust experts like the curators of the Auschwitz Museum.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh please LTG....

The number of times liberals have compared to or called Trump a "Nazi" in the last 8 years...

And now we have a leader of a country actively freezing people's bank accounts for supporting a peaceful protest, which is much facist than anything Trump had done....

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, calling Trump a Nazi is bad. Saying Trump will lead to gas chambers would be worse.

Don't tu quoque yourself into devaluing the Holocaust.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oaky so its okay for you to make stupid, offensive, and ahistorical holocaust comparisons because liberals did it?

[Brett Bellmore]

"The number of times liberals have compared to or called Trump a "Nazi" in the last 8 years..."

Fun fact: Democrats have called every Republican Presidential candidate "Hitler" since Dewey. They'd have started sooner, but people would have been all, "Who's Hitler?"

[LawTalkingGuy]

Fun fact: Republicans also do that to Democrats. (Plus Mao and Stalin)

There was a Georgia Congressman named Paul Broun who went right to the Obama is Hitler thing in November 2008.

[Ed Grinberg]

"...devaluing the Holocaust..."
If I see someone say/do something that is, in my opinion, reminiscent of the Nazis, I don't see anything wrong in pointing that out. If anything, I am more concerned about the Holocaust (i.e., I really don't want anything similar to happen again).

[LawTalkingGuy]

If I see someone say/do something that is, in my opinion, reminiscent of the Nazis, I don't see anything wrong in pointing that out.

Well if your "opinion" isn't grounded in historical understanding then, yes, there is something wrong with making the comparison. The vast majority of Nazi/Holocaust comparisons fall short because they are made by people who don't really understand much about Nazi Germany or the Holocaust.

[not guilty]

I don't claim that Trump is a Nazi, but he has taken lessons on Nazi tactics, especially constant repetition of the Big Lie. Does the following seem familiar?

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must, of course, be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany [ellipses in original]

[Michael P]

guilty- Yes, that reminds us all of how leftists behave now. For example, Trudeau doesn't talk about 99% of what the protesters do, but goes on and on about how his opponents "stand with people who wave swastikas". Even Snopes admits that N-1 of those swastikas were doing nothing more than linking Trudeau's policies with those of Nazi Germany. The one actual Nazi flag seems to have been a lone crank.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Something I've been thinking about for awhile is how Holocaust historiographical debates may have shaped people's thinking without them really realizing it. Obviously none of the people making shitty Holocaust comparisons have ever seriously engaged with scholarship on the topic. But something about the way these analogies come out seems like a misunderstanding of functionalist theories: that every single possibly negative event is a step towards mass killing.

Although functionalists* have made major contributions to our understanding of the Holocaust (and I consider myself half-heartedly aligned with them sort of), sometimes I wonder if a renewed focus on intentionalism is needed to help counteract these bad comparisons. The evidence for intentionalism undercuts the idea that bad things just sort of turn into the Holocaust because it demonstrates that there was an early desire by top leadership to engage in extermination.

[Ed Grinberg]

"...petty bullshit..."
Telling you you can't leave your house. Stealing elections. Not exactly "petty."

[Sarcastr0]

You may have the luxury to live in your personal fictional landscape. Most of us need to stick to reality. To us, your fantasy world of 2020 trutherism and quarantines as oppression is indeed fictional bullshit.

[David Nieporent]

Allowing black people to vote is not "stealing" an election.

[Queen Amalthea]

That's silly, it's like saying 'OMG the US now has a standing army! That's tyranny right away!' It will depend on how its used as to whether relative freedom is impacted.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, he's already frozen the bank accounts of people he doesn't like, and conscripted people who didn't want to work for him. So I think it's clear relative freedom IS impacted.

[Queen Amalthea]

A handful of people have involved in an illegal protest had their bank accounts temporarily frozen? That's not great but it's as far away from actual tyranny as Pluto is from the Sun.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're remarkably comfortable about other people being oppressed, you know that?

[Ed Grinberg]

"...illegal protest..."
Remember all those assholes blocking traffic, smashing store-fronts, setting things on fire in the summer of 2020? I bet you were a lot more solicitous of them. Odd...

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, do you think none of those people were arrested for illegally protesting? None of them were pepper sprayed? None of them were beaten by the police (rather ironically proving some of the BLM thesis)

[Michael P]

Gaslighto reminds us again why he earns that name.

How many of those protesters had their bank accounts frozen? Who ordered payment processors to start collecting new records, with no basis in statutory law, because of those protests? Have leaders of Canada's parliament had a preening display in support of the freedom convoy in the middle of their capitol building?

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to have a very narrow view of what's off the table to deal with an illegal protest.

Beatings, arrest, tear gas? A-OK!
Freezing corporate bank accounts? HOLOCAUST!

Your knee-jerk partisan outrage is fun and all, but if you were taking this seriously, you'd have some coherence to what made you mad that applied consistently.

[Queen Amalthea]

"You're remarkably comfortable about other people being oppressed, you know that?"

No, you're remarkably unable to make distinctions.

For example, horrible examples of police brutality come to us all too much (ironically, that's the kind of 'other people being oppressed' you seem remarkably comfortable with), but that doesn't make the US not relatively free.

[Michael P]

Sign number 126(?) that Sarcastr0 realizes he is losing an argument: He tries to change the topic to faults he imagines in his disputant.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm faulting your argument, Michael, not you.

[Michael P]

No, your comment started "You seem to" and went downhill from there, by imputing to me ideas on topics that I have not addressed.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one who brought up what you considered a double standard between BLM and these truckers. I pointed out why that was not a working analogy.

Now you're sulking about it.

[Michael P]

Go back and read again. The double standard I complained about was all the stuff that happens away from putatively illegal protests. I did not make any comments on the measures used during supposedly illegal protests.

By your mode of argument: You seem to have a very narrow view of what's off the table to deal with political disagreements.
Murder, attempted murder, assault? A-OK!
Pointing out a double standard? KNEE-JERK PARTISAN OUTRAGE!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's relatively free so long as you don't want to do anything the government doesn't want you to do, and are glad to obey orders. That's true of most places.

[Queen Amalthea]

No, every government cracks down on things they can crack down, the question is, do they crack down on a lot or a little? Anyone who has been to Canada knows the answer to that is 'relatively little.'

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the answer to that is, "relatively little Queen Amalthea might want to do". Which is not at all the same thing, since we are not all Queen Amalthea.

[ThePublius]

Agreed. Like the outlawing and confiscation of around 1500 models of "military-grade assault-style weapons", mostly semi-automatic rifles in 2020. And I don't think it was done via Parliament, it was via an executive order (Order in Council) from that tin-pot dictator Trudeau.

[Queen Amalthea]

No, that's ridiculous. Canada is not going to drop down to North Korea in Freedom House's rankings because of this nor should it. You just live in a world of hyperbole and without distinctions. Canada is still, generally, a relatively free place the existence or invocation of this law to this point notwithstanding.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's a hell of a lot of room between relatively free and North Korea. By the North Korea standard, China is a free country!

[Queen Amalthea]

That's the point. Canada doesn't drop much in the rankings of relatively free at all with this. Compared to China today it's exponentially more free, and as you note compared to other nations China is exponentially free. Tossing around charges of tyranny and death of freedom casually is just the stock in trade of silly extremists.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would agree that Canada is still much more free than China, (Though significantly less free than they formerly were.)

That China is exponentially more free than North Korea? Eh, that I'm not so sure about. China is pretty damned bad.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That China is exponentially more free than North Korea? Eh, that I'm not so sure about.

You can leave China. You can't leave North Korea. I don't know if its "exponentially more free" but that strikes me as a fairly significant difference.

[ThePublius]

Isn't if "expodentially?" At least that's what POTUS says.

But seriously, that's not a very useful adjective in this context, but I understand it's part of the millennial vernacular.

Canada is not free, far from it. Any semblance of freedom is a thin veneer to sooth the population and the media.

Any country that can implement an Order in Council, which is a monarchial edict, any country can which can by such order outlaw huge swaths of firearms, any country which can seize funds and bank accounts without due process and a judicial proceeding, is not free!

[Queen Amalthea]

"I would agree that Canada is still much more free than China"

Well, there is some level of distinction making capability there (kind of like people think eyes evolved from light sensing forerunners)! Next in revelations Brett will tell us that he actually agrees that having an elephant sit on his chest is much more distressing than having a butterfly!

In the Freedom House rankings China was a *9* and Canada a *98.* Wow, sure glad Brett could spot that distinction!

[Queen Amalthea]

"Canada is not free, far from it."

That's the nuttery I'm talking about. If Canada is 'far from free,' what is China? Super, duper, uper far from free? North Korea? far from free plus infinity plus 1?

Extremists lose the ability to make meaningful distinctions.

[Voize of Reazon]

Publius, is any country free by your standard?

Surely not the US, if you have been following the news about civil forfeiture.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You can leave China."

This would come as a surprise to many Uyghurs. Or anybody who's been disappeared.

Yes, China is a bit freer than North Korea. Somebody's got to be worst, I suppose. They're still a totalitarian police state conducting ongoing genocides, with all that implies.

[ThePublius]

"That's the nuttery I'm talking about. If Canada is 'far from free,' what is China? Super, duper, uper far from free? North Korea? far from free plus infinity plus 1?"

One can imagine a continuum of freedom from totally free to enslaved. You needn't go off into infinity to place regimes on this continuum.

I'm saying that given Canada's PM's ability to rule by fiat, via the Order in Council, they are not much better regarding freedom than the CCP. Can they, and do they, enact sweeping rules and edicts without consulting the populace? Yes, they do. Do they seize accounts and funds without due process? Yes, they do.

Convince me otherwise.

[ThePublius]

"Voize of Reazon
February.17.2022 at 1:06 pm
Publius, is any country free by your standard?

Surely not the US, if you have been following the news about civil forfeiture."

We are headed down that path! Look at how the FBI and IRS have been completely politicized. Look at civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity. Look at the Biden crime family and the wealth generated by our supposed representatives in Congress and the Senate. How has no one been prosecuted over all the evidence just on Hunter's laptop?

[Queen Amalthea]

"One can imagine a continuum of freedom from totally free to enslaved."

Obviously one can, but you cannot, because you think Canada is far from free. Again, if they are 'far' from free where is China or North Korea on your continuum?

If your scale measures everything as 'heavy AF' it's a pretty worthless scale that says more about you than the world you're using it to understand.

[Krayt]

That's what China is doing. Your "piss off the government social credit score" drops too low, you can't rent, get loans, maybe even get on the bus.

This is ironic given Marx supposed the middle class burgoies would not aid in the revolution of the proletariat because the rich gave them some of the trappings of wealth, like loans and checking accounts.

And here the neo dictators in China and Canada, and those in the US are chafing at it, using those same techniques to control their "narrative" and punish financially.

Again, I call for Congress to pass a law that financial institutions that make a market in transactions (banks, CC companies, etc.) may not wothhold legal transactions.

The assumption was they were joining such a system, but not to control what money is used for. Like a data company or ISP joining the internet, locking up a region, then dictating what web sites you can visit. Sorry, that is not the design.

[Kazinski]

From what I can tell parliament has to confirm his invocation of the emergency powers act. And that's not looking like a slam dunk.

Here is Candace Bergen (no not that one) the conservative opposition leader: “Parliamentary approval is required in order for the prime minister to use this unprecedented sledgehammer,” she noted. “So can the prime minister tell us when will parliament be debating this? Will it be coming to us on Friday? And does he expect that we will look at it Friday, but then rise, take a week off, and not actually deal with this until March?”

Trudeau has a minority government, and he's even getting some pushback from his own party. The fact that the Truckers are polling better than he is could give keep him from getting his actions approved.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I believe Trudeau has 7 days of free exercise, before it needs to be confirmed.

[John F. Carr]

"Candace Bergen (no not that one)"

The image of Murphy Brown throwing darts at a poster of Justin Trudeau brought a little smile to my morning.

[Krayt]

Murphy Brown: Truckers, The People. People of the land. Literally the rangers of modern society, striking cross country as their very business. The workers. Our people.

Modern Woke Virtuals: Your enemies.

Murphy Brown: My enemies!

[Sarcastr0]

I like the Canadian people and culture a whole lot. But yeah, their government was built by folks less skeptical of government than ours was.

It's generally served them well enough. This action doesn't bother me - the capital must flow, after all.

I used to like our current really robust 1A restriction on defamation, though. Canada doesn't have that, IIRC. But nowadays I'm beginning to be brought around on the cost-benefit there as well.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, but what is the law, Sarcastr0. Do we actually have a US analogue?

[Sarcastr0]

Doubt it. But in extremis, I could absolutely see a court finding a similar inherent Article II power.

[Queen Amalthea]

Uh, look at the powers many thought Bush W could claim because of the 'War on Terror.'

[Krayt]

It takes two to tango. Congress lies supine, hiding. If they stop him and something happens, they get blamed. If he does something that works, anyone who suggested slow down gets blamed.

So it's little to gain, much to risk getting in the way.

[Commenter_XY]

That would be good if there is no US analogue. I was concerned. Personally, I think that scale of power is simply too tempting to any leader, regardless of party.

We learned a lot (about ourselves as a people) from this pandemic.

[Krayt]

George Lucas built the prequel intrigue around the sordid historical fact that granting emergency powers to a leader yielded collapse as the leader never gave them up.

Sometimes the menace was phantom, sometimes real as barbarians at the gate.

It's perverse, but the intelligentsia is the first one on the chopping block, yet here they are supporting the neo dictator's emergency powers.

Have they learned from history and gone frkm kowtow to abject abasement in fear?

[Sarcastr0]

Weird, you weren't out front on Trump's executive expansionism leading to a Galactic Empire.

(There may be arguments that this is not a power executives should be able to ever wield under any circumstances, but a broad slippery slope argument based on fiction is not a very good one)

[Krayt]

THE FICTION WAS BASED ON REALITY. Ancient Rome, ancient Greece, 1930s Germany, Venezuela and Turkey and Russia more recently.

[Sarcastr0]

1) then maybe use the reality,
2) there are lots of counterexamples so even that wouldn't work, and
3) ancient Greece doesn't track.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"I'm beginning to be brought around"....

Imagine Sarcastro, if you will... During the BLM protests, in violation of various pandemic restrictions against people congregating... Trump decides to freeze the bank accounts of all people who participated in the protest, as well as all those who donated... Under some terrorism law or some other extreme nonsense.

What would your response be?

[Sarcastr0]

I clearly said I was talking about defamation, you yutz.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I notice you didn't respond to the hypothetical. Do you support freezing the truckers bank accounts, and their supporters?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's Canada, that question could have been more carefully phrased.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well played.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know enough about how disruptive they've been to have an opinion.

I'm not fundamentally against the government using such methods, but I can't tell the cost-benefit.

[Krayt]

Cost benefit of freedom?

Or cost benefit of corruption and family wealth growth becsuse you used harsh tricks to remain in power?

"Freedom doesn't need beta testing." -- A wise man during the gay marriage debate

[Sarcastr0]

Cost benefit of freedom?
Oh, cut the Patrick Henry act. We restrict freedom all the time for commercial and other purposes. Shameful sophistry.

[Krayt]

Cost benefit is the sopohistry. The reality is backroom waggle fingers.

[Sarcastr0]

This is ideology, not evidence.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ha!

Never underestimate the ability of Sarcastro to avoid the question.

[Sarcastr0]

Admitting you don't know enough to answer is actually a pretty good practice. You should try it sometime.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That would be a lot more convincing an excuse if you didn't claim to know enough about it to make a judgement in every other sub-thread in this entire post.... For example February.17.2022 at 8:49 am, but not exclusive to it.

As it is, you just look like your usual deceitful Sarcastro...

[Sarcastr0]

You mean where I said 'This action doesn't bother me - the capital must flow, after all.'
And then I later specified 'I'm not fundamentally against the government using such methods.'

I think it's pretty clear I was talking about the legitimacy of the account freezings, not whether I thought it was a good policy in this instance. On that, I reserve judgement.

I think a lot of what I do in this blog is tell people they are too certain of things. I probably go too far myself sometimes, but it's amusing to me how often people assume I'm just a mirror image of themselves, but on the left.
I'm a filthy moderate on most leftist forums.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Imagine Sarcastro, if you will... During the BLM protests, in violation of various pandemic restrictions against people congregating... Trump decides to freeze the bank accounts of all people who participated in the protest, as well as all those who donated... Under some terrorism law or some other extreme nonsense."

I don't know about Sarcastro, but I'll definitely support such action during the next BLM/Occupy/Union protest. We could have saved ourselves a lot of hassle in the past.

[Queen Amalthea]

He's going all in now I see.

[Michael P]

That's the funny thing about precedents. The left shows little signs of understanding it, though.

[Queen Amalthea]

Michael's guiding precedent of 'they did it first' is not surprising.

[Michael P]

One again, QA demonstrates a deep-seated need to consult a dictionary.

[Krayt]

"[Use bank account seizure] at the next BLM"

Cue the left writing yet another column that starts, "Oh no! The right is learning to use our tricks against us! [shocked and offended emoji]

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This action doesn't bother me - the capital must flow, after all."

Sure, it's generally good to prevent protests that infringe on the rights of others, as opposed to those merely expressing an opinion.

But there seems to be a lack of consistency with respect to support for suppressing disruptive protests.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I really wonder what Trudeau is going to do if the second act is a general trucker strike. Because if there is a second act, that's what it would be.

[OtisAH]

Considering we’ve known for weeks that the vast majority of actually working truckers have been working and not hot tubbing in front of Parliament, a general trucker’s strike is unlikely.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree, especially since the provinces are actually giving the truckers what they wanted, Trudeau is the one digging in, and not with a lot of support, either.

I'm just saying that if he really goes postal on the convoy, and the rest of the trucking community get their backs up, that's what you'd see. At this point it looks unlikely, unless Trudeau does something really stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for strawmanning me into a speculative double standard.

MLK was rightly put in jail for protesting illegally. Not all protests are legal. And that includes no small number of the BLM protests. But sometimes the proper response is not the maximum force allowable by law.

More importantly, LOL if you think the BLM protests were anything like as disruptive as what these truckers are doing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"More importantly, LOL if you think the BLM protests were anything like as disruptive as what these truckers are doing."

Burning down buildings, including a police precinct, sometimes with fatalities? Occupying a section of a major city for weeks, to the point where the cops couldn't access a murder scene to conduct an investigation?

How many people have died as a result of the trucker protests?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Large-scale looting?

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing you just mentioned is on the scale of a danger to the economy.

My understanding (and I haven't done a dive into this story) is that the truckers are using their trucks to do exactly that.

Economic danger effects many more people than stymying a murder investigation.

[Krayt]

So you cheer on Reagan firing the air traffic controllers.

Got it.

[Sarcastr0]

That was before my time. I don't much like union-busting; that doesn't seem economically necessary.

What were the Controllers' demands, and what are these Truckers' demands?

[Don Nico]

Hey, Krayt. It worked for Ronnie

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nothing you just mentioned is on the scale of a danger to the economy."

Are you kidding? The protests linked to George Floyd alone cost something like $2 billion. City blocks were destroyed, people put out of work, etc.

[David Nieporent]

The U.S. GDP is $21 trillion. $2B is just 0.01% of that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, $2B here, $2B there, pretty soon you're taking about real money. Any evidence the trucker protest is costing significantly more?

[LawTalkingGuy]

"City blocks were destroyed"

You know my large city had a large protest turned riot in June 2020 that included some fires, broken windows, and looting. Everyone was walking around the City in a few days and the damage was quickly repaired. I don't think you know what "destroy" means.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Burning buildings isn't destruction now?

Are the guys that got killed going to come back to life?

Do you guys even listen to yourselves.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you? You said whole city blocks were destroyed...that is obviously false.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Officials responded to 37 fires in Kenosha on 2nd night of protests, 1 'nearly leveled several city blocks'

[Sarcastr0]

TiP, your link failed, and you know lots of fires responded to is not the same as 'City blocks were destroyed.'

You've overpromised and underdelivered when called on it once again.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I believe the BLM protests, including "CHOP" literally took over several city blocks....

That would be considered much more disruptive in my opinion.

[Sarcastr0]

You need to look harder at what the truckers were blocking.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What are they blocking? You claim not to know enough, yet suddenly you do?

[Sarcastr0]

The border. You know, where a lot of commerce goes on.

I don't know how much we're talking, but I do know it's a lot more than a few blocks in Seattle.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gotta tell you, the truckers were not actually blocking "the" border. They were blocking one bridge over it. Just one. There were other routes across the border available, such as the Blue Water bridge in Port Huron.

[Randal]

What exactly is your point? That their attempt to disrupt the economy was ineffective? Because that's obviously wrong. Or are you making some totally ridiculous and irrelevant grammatical point about the phrase "the border" as a dodge?

Disrupting the economy was not a BLM tactic.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The border. You know, where a lot of commerce goes on.

I don't know how much we're talking, but I do know it's a lot more than a few blocks in Seattle."

Sarcastro was playing it up as bigger than it was. Like the whole border had been shut down, and not just one of several border crossings in Michigan alone.

[Randal]

You think he thinks the entire length of the US / Canada border was blockaded? Wow. Is that with or without Alaska?

Now you, on the other hand, like Armchair, have obviously never been to a major border crossing if you think that excluding police from a few Seattle blocks is even comparable disruption-wise.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This action doesn't bother me"

Says a lot about you.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't get to take much of a moral stand on anything, given how you think such things as morality and principles are for suckers.

[Bob from Ohio]

"morality and principles are for suckers"

For politicians yes. [actually "losers"]

Are you or I a politician?

[Sarcastr0]

No, you never so limited it. You endorsed every policy and tactic the GOP politicians used while Trump was in office as a good use of power to get what they wanted. And you were not then a politician either.

No new goalposts.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you never so limited it"

Prove it.

[Sarcastr0]

Read the rest of my post.

[OtisAH]

Ours weren’t skeptical of government, either. They just didn’t want the king taking their stuff.

[John F. Carr]

Under state law there is. If my governor declares an emergency he can wield every power that the legislature could have given him and disobeying any of his orders is a misdemeanor. If protesters gathered outside the State House contrary to his emergency order he could have them all arrested. Some states have more limited emergency power laws.

[Longtobefree]

It doesn't matter if there is an analogue in the US.
They can do whatever they damn well please.
See CDC rent freeze, mask mandates, experimental vaccine mandates, etc.

[rsteinmetz]

I have come to the conclusion that the Canadian nation character has a strong streak of passive aggressive behavior. Canadians are nice and polite until you challenge their view of themselves. they generally can't conceive anyone will take exception to them or their government.

[apedad]

Justice Department Files Suit to Prevent Missouri from Restricting Enforcement of Federal Firearms Laws

"The Department of Justice has today filed a lawsuit to prevent the State of Missouri from enforcing House Bill 85 (H.B. 85). Signed into law in June 2021, the Missouri law declares five categories of federal firearms laws “invalid” and deters and penalizes their enforcement by federal, state and local law enforcement officers."

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-suit-prevent-missouri-restricting-enforcement-federal-firearms-laws

I wonder how this is different - or is it the same - as when certain areas pledged not to support Trump's immigration authorities, i.e. sanctuary cities.

I agree states are not constitutionally required to support federal programs, so perhaps MO has a good case.

[Brett Bellmore]

Looking at the actual state law, it doesn't appear to do anything at all the state isn't constitutionally entitled to do under anti-comandeering doctrines.

[David Nieporent]

Is that your professional legal opinion as someone who can't read?

Perhaps you missed 1.450 and 1.460.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, if you want my professional opinion, you'll have to ask me about stamping tooling.

That's my layman's opinion after, yes, reading the whole statute.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So you're just illiterate then?

[Michael P]

The Constitution does not explicitly protect illegal immigration, so that's one clear difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would be a nice way to tee up a constitutional challenge; Theoretically, only constitutional federal laws benefit from the Supremacy clause. As a matter of practice, though, the Court has interpret it to apply to policy decisions, even if they're decisions that contradict a statute.

[Absaroka]

My IANAL reading of the law is that it might go beyond 'shall not cooperate' when it says:

"1. Any entity or person who acts knowingly, as defined under section 562.016, to violate the provisions of section 1.450 or otherwise knowingly deprives a citizen of Missouri of the rights or privileges ensured by Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States or Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri while acting under the color of any state or federal law shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
2. In such actions, the court may award the prevailing party, other than the state of Missouri or any political subdivision of the state, reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
3. Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such actions."

My sense is that the sheriff can be too busy to help the FBI out, but you can't sue an FBI agent for enforcing federal law in your state. If you could, we might still have Jim Crow.

[apedad]

Yeah, I was wondering about that part too.

[Michael P]

The list of persons and entities included in section 1.450 suggests that the law is not intended to apply to federal agents.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So it becomes a law to require citizens of Missouri to obstruct federal agents?

[Brett Bellmore]

Just not aid in any way. It doesn't go as far as that California law requiring active obstruction of federal immigration enforcement.

[Michael P]

Are you a lawyer? Who said anything even remotely suggesting that the law created such a duty?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's Lathrop, the voices in his head suggested it.

[Absaroka]

In "No entity or person, including...", does the 'including' limit 'No person' to the types listed as included?

i.e does "No fruit, including lemons and limes" apply to apples?

Me not lawyer, so me not understand all the rules of interpretation 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

There is, IIRC, a rule of interpretation that a statute has to be interpreted in a manner that doesn't make it unconstitutional, if such an interpretation is available.

Since there's a plausible interpretation of this statute which would be constitutional, it has to be used.

[John F. Carr]

It's a guideline, applied depending on whether the judge wants to save the law. I remember the top court in New York striking down a capital punishment law by picking an unconstitutional interpretation.

[Kevin Smith]

The MO law has an explicit severability clause (Sec. 1.485) so I don't think they can use that to kill the whole thing

[Brett Bellmore]

Cue the announcer from Spongebob.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What about the language suggests that to you?

[Absaroka]

Just that the 'No fruit' part includes every kind of fruit, so 'No fruit, including lemons', is redundant. As opposed to 'No vegetables, including tomatoes', which specifically includes tomatoes as vegetables, to avoid the botanical pedants saying tomatoes are actually a fruit, not a vegetable.

So I'd think 'any person' would include any FBI agents who were people in addition to being FBI agents.

(Thanks, I'll be here all week)

(and I'm not sure I'm following the threading right, if so nevermind!)

[Michael P]

The fact that they include people and entities associated with the state government and its subdivisions, but not federal government entities or employees. As Brett mentioned elsewhere, the next section explicitly addresses federal employees, so I think the "all" is best read to mean all private and state/local individuals and entities.

Otherwise, the "including" clause is superfluous.

[Randal]

Getting rid of some superfluous language yields:

Any person who knowingly deprives a citizen of Missouri of the rights or privileges ensured by Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri while acting under the color of any federal law shall be liable to the injured party in a proper proceeding for redress.

It's hard to read that as not applying to federal agents. Who else would be acting under the color of federal law?

[David Nieporent]

I think one could argue that it was meant to apply to state officials who try to enforce federal law. But I don't think one could argue that it wasn't also meant to apply to federal officials who try to enforce federal law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, there's no question that it reads as though all of it applies to federal agents, if you get rid of all the language that suggests otherwise.

[Randal]

I didn't get rid of any determinative language. Just some "or" clauses. If something applies to state or other officials, it's not limited to state officials.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I read it, that part only applies to state officials, 1.450 says, "No entity or person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state", while section 1.470 applies to "Any person acting as an official, agent, employee, or deputy of the government of the United States""

So the only penalty for federal officers is becoming ineligible for future state employment as law enforcement, the lawsuit portion applies to everybody else.

I think that's how it would have to be read, because reading it otherwise would have constitutional issues, as well as rendering 1.470 redundant.

Though I question whether federal officers are really as immune to state law as all that; Horiuchi, as I recall, was prosecuted for murder under state law, for killing Vicki Weaver on the job. While they removed the case to federal court and had it dismissed, that doesn't imply that he wasn't subject to the state law, just that they had a mechanism for circumventing it.

[John F. Carr]

I think the bill may be ambiguous, but in practice a lawsuit against an FBI or BATF agent would be promptly removed to federal court and dismissed by a federal judge.

[OtisAH]

The cities in question never said anything about federal immigration laws being invalid. They said they weren’t going to use municipal personnel and resources to enforce federal immigration laws on behalf of the feds. And I’m sure this has been explained to you dozens of times over the last few years.

[Brett Bellmore]

California's law actually went so far as requiring private employers to warn employees when ICE were making inquiries.

[OtisAH]

For simplicty’s sake, and for simplicity’s sake only, I accept your understanding of that and answer “So?”

[Brett Bellmore]

"They said they weren’t going to use municipal personnel and resources to enforce federal immigration laws on behalf of the feds."

California did, in fact, command actual obstruction. From the private sector, even. Which goes beyond not using state resources to assist. That was my point.

As it happens, Missouri is making the case that the laws in question are unconstitutional, not just bad policy. This, I think, is a stronger case for resistance than the sanctuary jurisdictions present, not worse.

[VinniUSMC]

sanctuary cities.

As it happens, Missouri is not a city. A state can, and should, have the ability to challenge Federal authority, and the Federal government is appropriately fighting against it. Who will win? It's hard to say. Hopefully the Constitution wins, and "shall not be infringed" is weighted properly.

If St. Louis decided it wanted to attempt to declare Federal law invalid, it should be rightly derided, as a city is merely an arbitrary subsection of a state, and does not have the power of a state. Federalism is Fed vs State. Not Bigger Government vs Littler Government.

[Moderation4ever]

Some recent news stories highlight the question of when do you settle a lawsuit?

The first is the case of Andrew Windsor who recently settled a case where he was accused of having sex with a minor, Virginia Giuffre. There was no way this case was going to end well for him and the question is should he have settled earlier. He would be embarrassed and likely lose his royal status, but quickly. Either way he is likely to face internal exile. His reluctance to settle just drew out the embarrassment for longer.

The other case of interest is the Trump Corporation's tax case. Trump and his company have been in trouble before and usually settle, if possible, with an NDA included. The recent investigations into his taxes should have been settled quickly, likely with the company paying up. Just a cost of doing business. The company has not really had any success in courts and last week the company's accounting firm quit, but not before casting all Trump's documentation into question. This leaves Trump's company not only subject to questions on the taxes but may also jeopardizes existing loans based on now questionable documents. All this before the company need to refinance existing loans of close to 1B. Again, a quick settlement would have been costly, but likely cheaper in the long run.

So, what slowed these settlements, poor lawyers who thought the cases could be won, or bad clients having unrealistic expectation of winning.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're missing an option, which shows up where politics enter the field: Lawyers who don't particularly want their client to do well.

[Moderation4ever]

Wouldn't that be covered by a poor lawyer? If you are taking the client's money you should be doing your best for them. Which might include telling them to settle.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would think a "poor" lawyer would indicate incompetence. I'm talking more about malice. You sometimes see actions by law firms that appear to be so motivated, when politics becomes a factor.

One of Trump's major mistakes, IMO, was hiring law firms that were run mostly by Democrats, on the assumption that they'd be professional enough to not let politics enter into their decisions.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No his mistake was being batshit stupid and expecting lawyers to violate professional ethics. The ones he ended up with are trying to appeal sanctions orders right now.

[Moderation4ever]

Did he hire the firm when he was a Democrat and simple not change firms when he changed parties? Did he hire a Democratic firm because he thought they had local political connections that would benefit him.

Your suggestion now supports the second case that the problem was a poor client who picked the wrong firm.

[bernard11]

Right, Brett.

It's a conspiracy, like always.

[David Nieporent]

One of Trump's major mistakes, IMO, was hiring law firms that were run mostly by Democrats, on the assumption that they'd be professional enough to not let politics enter into their decisions.

None of this happened outside Brett's conspiracymind.

[ah....Clem]

Right. Trump's problem is not so much that he has bad attorneys (although some of them are not exactly top drawer) it's that he's a bad client.

A client who insists that his legal team make arguments that will never ever fly in a court of law, and when they try to tell him that it just makes him more determined to make them press those absurd arguments.

One thing his legal team is good at is delaying and running out the clock with specious but at-least-in-theory arguments that the courts have to take seriously long enough to have their delaying effect.

And then there's the fact of his habit of non-payment which doesn't exactly attract the best and the brightest.

Blaming his legal problems on the supposition that his law firms are run by his political opponents out to screw him? Wow. That's out there, even for Brett.

[John F. Carr]

Settling a case works better if the enemy is looking for money. They want $X but will settle for $Y. Throw in the cost of money to the defendant, the cost of trial, and the odds of winning and a little bit of game theory determines the settlement. New York prosecutors are out for blood.

[Bob from Ohio]

"New York prosecutors are out for blood."

AG wants to get a scalp for her eventual senate/governor run.

[bernard11]

Of course, Trump couldn't actually be guilty of serious tax crimes, could he, Bob?

I mean, he has such a record of probity in his personal and business life.

[Brett Bellmore]

It seems unlikely. People in his financial situation are under continuous scrutiny, it's actually significantly riskier for them to commit serious tax crimes, than folks with more ordinary incomes, because the potential payout from catching them at something is high enough to have full time staff auditing them.

Amended returns are not unusual in his tax bracket, but actual tax crimes? Likely not.

[bernard11]

Brett,

We've discussed this before. There is a big difference between an ordinary tax audit and a fraud investigation.

[Brett Bellmore]

And there's a big difference between being convinced that a politician you hate MUST be a criminal, and their actually having committed crimes.

[not guilty]

Uh, IOKIYAR is not a maxim of statutory construction. At least, not outside Brettworld.

[Bob from Ohio]

The AG promised to get Trump in her campaign for AG and already had an aborted brief governor run,

She's already told us who she is.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Of course, Trump couldn't actually be guilty of serious tax crimes, could he, Bob?"

He could, but given that his business dealings are dealt with by a phalanx of accountants and tax lawyers, I am dubious. Unless they are on the take.

[not guilty]

Trump's accounting firm just fired him.

[bernard11]

Unless they are on the take.

Whether they are depends on your definition of "on the take."

They're getting paid, after all, and don't really like pissing off big clients by telling them something they are doing is illegal. Most likely they are getting all sorts of CYA documents from Trump and then doing what he wants.

Anyway, you don't expect him to hire honest people do you?

[not guilty]

Mazars referred to a non-waivable conflict regarding the Trump Organization. I wonder if that means the accounting firm is worried about its own exposure.

[John F. Carr]

He's every bit as innocent as the guy with the FTP bumper sticker and a cop on his tail.

[Moderation4ever]

But doesn't this suggest that the best course of action is to settle and quick. Just issue no contest plea, what do we own in taxes, and here is a check. The longer this goes on the more information comes out.

The former President has cheated on his wives, cheated his investors, cheated contractors, and tried to cheat in an election. Do any of his voters care if he cheated on his taxes? I don't think so.

The people who care are holding his mortgages and that who his company needs to worry about. So, a quick settlement seems best.

[Bob from Ohio]

You know there has been no settlement discussions?

It takes two to settle.

[bernard11]

One guess is that the amounts involved mean that anything approaching a reasonable settlement would mean practical or actual personal bankruptcy for Trump. So maybe you fight on as the only hope.

Alternatively, there could be issues of actual tax fraud, civil or criminal, which make it much harder to "settle," since there is more at stake than just money.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or alternatively, the only purpose here is to prepare to indict him in October 2024.

[not guilty]

I expect it will be sooner than that. A state court judge ruled today that Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka must give depositions in the NY Attorney General's civil investigation. https://nypost.com/2022/02/17/donald-trump-ivanka-and-don-jr-must-testify-in-ny-ag-probe-judge/

[bernard11]

Are you sure he doesn't deserve to be indicted?

I'm still amazed he wasn't indicted over the Trump Foundation business.

[Brett Bellmore]

Am I sure he doesn't deserve to be indicted? In a three felonies a day country, I'm sure that by looking closely enough you could find something to indict him on, and legitimately.

And all the people who you didn't deploy the all seeing eye of Sauron against would skate.

[Queen Amalthea]

It's interesting how many people on the Right, particularly so many of those drawn to conspiracy theory type thinking and rhetoric, also seem to want defamation laws to be 'tightened up.' If your stock and trade is making hyperbolic and overconfident libels regularly you might want to re-think that (see OAN, Fox, etc., having to walk, nay, run back much of their Trump election 'fraud' stuff).

[Brett Bellmore]

There's no contradiction where people actually think they're right. Your mistake is in thinking that, just because you think somebody is dealing in lies, THEY think they are.

They may be pretty foolish to think they aren't wrong, occasionally, but forget this notion that they don't actually think they're championing the truth.

[Queen Amalthea]

There may be no contradiction, but it's a massive case of obtuseness. Let's just say a person who regularly rushes to take hyperbolic claims about partisan opponents is going to have trouble convincing a court and/or jury that they weren't reckless (or whatever even lower standard any 'defamation reform' might land on).

I mean, Tucker's standard defense now is 'hey, I'm so hyperbolic know one could take what I'm saying as an actual statement of fact!' Is that going to work well for all the Tucker 'dittoheads' out there when the standard is ratcheted down? Extremists love to make, well, *extreme* charges about figures they don't like, the kind that are much more likely to appear defamatory.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Tucker 'dittoheads'"

Nobody is regularly suing randos. No money in it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I mean, Tucker's standard defense now is 'hey, I'm so hyperbolic know one could take what I'm saying as an actual statement of fact!'"

Lol that is not his 'standard defense'. You guys will just believe anything those left-wing propaganda sites print, won't you?

[OtisAH]

Thanks, Brett Costanza.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I believe that is also Sidney Powell’s position in appealing her sanctions to the Sixth Circuit.

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought her position was essentially that it was OK if statements in litigation ended up being untrue, or else every losing side in a court case could face sanctions.

[bernard11]

Her position seems to be that nobody should ever have believed a word she said, because it was all obvious bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm distinguishing here between her position, and how it's being characterized by Democrats.

[bernard11]

Sure, Brett.

[not guilty]

"Her position seems to be that nobody should ever have believed a word she said, because it was all obvious bullshit."

IIRC, that was her position in the defamation litigation brought by the voting machine companies. Not the sanctions appeal.

[bernard11]

Really, Brett.

You honestly think all those liars believe the crap they are spreading, and aren't just running a giant con?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Some of them are probably true believers

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, by definition "liars" don't believe what they're saying. But, yeah, I think an awful lot of people believe things you think are obvious lies.

And, tell the truth: Do you really think it's so off the wall to suggest that Trump wouldn't be willing to believe he really lost? That he wouldn't think cheating is the only way he could lose an election? The guy isn't exactly humble.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : Do you really think it's so off the wall to suggest that Trump wouldn't be willing to believe he really lost?

This is another one of your slapdash cake-and-eat-it concoctions, Brett. If Trump really believed his own hustle, he tell a consistent story of "election fraud" from one audience to the next. He doesn't. He'd attempt to find a semi-rational explanation for his fraud allegations. He hasn't. He abandon those fraud claim that have been disproven a dozen times over. He won't. And he wouldn't depend almost exclusively on crude lying.

But of course your hero lies like normal people breathe. It's kinda funny how you've convinced yourself this is the one time Trump is sincere. Just because YOU find it convenient. Just because that lets you have it both ways.....

[bernard11]

Do you really think it's so off the wall to suggest that Trump wouldn't be willing to believe he really lost?

I don't know how to characterize it. What I think Trump believes is that he should have won, was entitled to win, and is within his rights to do anything at all to claim the prize he believes is his. It has zip to do with the vote count or anything.

And I also think there are a lot of irresponsible GOP politicians, who are happy to indulge him for their own purposes, never mind the harm they are doing. They are utter scum.

[Michael P]

The expression is "stock in trade".

You have exactly one example that you keep trotting out, but you ignore the hundreds of examples on the other side: Russia hoax, Hunter's "hacked" laptop, Covington kids, etc. No wonder you are opposed to improving accountability!

[Queen Amalthea]

One example? Lol. Uh, Hillary Clinton alone has about a dozen potential libel suits based on what right wing folks regularly say.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's interesting how many people on the Right, particularly so many of those drawn to conspiracy theory type thinking and rhetoric, also seem to want defamation laws to be 'tightened up.' If your stock and trade is making hyperbolic and overconfident libels regularly you might want to re-think that."

And if you're running an accurate news organization that prints truthful news, you shouldn't worry too much about defamation laws, and maybe even support a lower standard than actual malice.

Weird, huh?

[Queen Amalthea]

"If you've got nothing to hide why are you opposed to us searching you?"

Like I said, it's interesting to see the mask slip with t his guy.

"if you're running an accurate news organization that prints truthful news"

Like Fox, Brietbart, OAN and such, amirite? Yeah, my point about the Right having quite a bit to lose here is nuts, right?

[Bored Lawyer]

Or, perhaps, if the defamation rules will be tightened, then both political sides will have to be more careful with potentially defamatory statements.

I don't see why you think your argument is so compelling. It seems to be, the right-wing news organizations play fast and loose as much with the facts as do the left wing ones. Tamping down on both seems to me to be a feature.

Note that the opinion/fact distinction in common law is still valid even if you abolish or reform Sullivan.

[Queen Amalthea]

I think they play much more fast and loose (because they tend to not abide by professional standards, conservatives think that's an odd set of notions at best). But I think the speech landscape is better off not chilled.

[Brett Bellmore]

Professional standards such as we saw on display in the Sandman case? Or all the anonymous reports that were contradicted by everyone present?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Biden picked Nina Morrison to be a district judge in EDNY. She’s been senior litigation counsel at the Innocence Project for most of her career. The four horseman of the Derp-pocalypse: Cruz/Hawley/Cotton/Lee were absurdly angry during her hearing.

I think the worst was Cotton who seemed incapable of believing the criminal justice system produces mistakes. He actually said this in response to Morrison’s work on a case in Arkansas: “ Compelling evidence that courts somehow overlooked for 22 years until he was executed.” Which is kind of a stunning thing to say to someone who actually has freed people on death row. Because that’s exactly what happens. After trial, reviewing courts care about finality more than anything, so it’s difficult to get them to look at evidence that incompetent trial counsel didn’t investigate, incompetent or bad faith police and prosecutors didn’t find or turn over.

And the fact that she did get courts in cases to do that shows she’s much much smarter and better qualified to be a judge than almost anyone. Anyone who can fight a legal system stacked against her at all levels to achieve the results she does is a damn good lawyer.

She’s certainly a much smarter and much better lawyer than the Cruz/Hawley/Lee/Cottons of the world. I’m not sure any of them ever represented an actual human as a client.

[Queen Amalthea]

Those guys are going to reform QI anytime, dontcha know!

[OtisAH]

I’m still amazed they stuck with “soft on crime” when the obvious headline-producing “You let convicted criminals out of jail” was sitting there the whole time.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Cotton got closest to that route but I think the rest knew that was too dumb even for them. We’re talking about someone who was able to convince super conservative courts to let people go. Morrison pointed out to Cruz that Texas passed a law named after her client. And plus the obvious rejoinder is: do you want innocent people in prison? (I mean the answer is obviously “yes” for these four, so long as innocent people aren’t anyone they know personally or are aligned with politically).

I think they were trying to test attacks for use against Judge Jackson. It won’t work or matter, of course. But they’ll try nonetheless.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean if they try to go against her for being a trial level public defender they’re just admitting they hate the Sixth Amendment generally and think the concept of defense lawyers is indecent.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd like to see more defense lawyers end up as judges; The government has too many advantages in court already.

[Thrax2]

Good luck with that, if this sort of brain-dead demagoguery from Republicans is going to be the standard response.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've never said I particularly liked the Republican party, I only joined because they'd gotten together with the Democrats to render third parties a waste of time, and the Republicans looked less awful to me than the Democrats.

Less awful isn't much of an endorsement.

[OtisAH]

The attempt to hang former defense attorneys who’ve moved into the political sphere by screaming about their former clients, whether the defense was successful, has been done at least a few times already.

[Commenter_XY]

I would like to see a nominee who is not Ivy league and not solely in academia, LTG. I am certain there are black female non Ivy leaguers who are 'working in the legal trenches' (i.e. trial level public defender experience, trial judge, etc.) outside of academia who are qualified enough to be a SCOTUS justice.

[John F. Carr]

According to Wikipedia she's an Australian rules footballer. Now there's some diversity for the federal bench.

[Ben_]

Get ready for lots of new anti-crime measures across the country due to incidents like this. There will probably be a lot of people needlessly harmed and liberties needlessly infringed by the enforcement measures.

Electing prosecutors and changing rules to let criminals get away with more crimes isn’t going to end well.

[Michael P]

You mean like how leftists bail out someone arrested for trying to murder a mayoral candidate, but funding platforms get blocked and unbanked because they want to fund freedom convoys?

[ThePublius]

"You mean like how leftists bail out someone arrested for trying to murder a mayoral candidate...."

It's worse. The suspect was an extreme left BLM activist, and the mainstream media are repeating in unison that he was incited by extreme right wing Republican rhetoric.

[Ben_]

That's just a news story though. That will get resolved and memory of it will fade. It's just one guy.

But criminals keep committing crimes over and over and over. It's not one news story. It's news every day, day in, day out, up to campaign season and the next election and the next. Until the 1990s tough on crime policies come back. That’s bad. But it looks like that’s the future. Because leftists elected prosecutors who support and enable crime.

[Ed Grinberg]

Until the 1990s tough on crime policies come back. That’s bad.

???
I'm afraid you've lost me.

[Ben_]

Those policies were an overreaction to a big problem. A lot of people who didn't do much wrong ended up getting hurt or killed or sentenced to long sentences. And it was expensive and liberties of non-criminals were infringed.

There’s no need for a huge, punitive, reactionary crackdown. Government simply needs to do their job and serve the public before crime is rampant. Leftist's policies to enable and support crime and make sure the public is not served and they will spark a backlash.

We're already seeing a parallel backlash in schools. Dems and unions decided that teaching kids isn’t a priority in schools. They prefer to rename schools, indoctrinate kids, have unscheduled "mental health" school closures, and perform virus bogeyman rituals. This week we saw San Francisco (!) voters recall the school board. Last month Glenn Youngkin became governor of Virginia.

It will be cool to see leftists lose election after election, never understanding why things don't turn out like their made-up stories. It will be cool to see minority support for the GOP increase because minorities want schools to teach and don't want their families to be crime victims. But you know what would be better? The public actually being served by government would be better.

[John F. Carr]

The New York Post link implies bail reform killed a woman. Massachusetts did away with the bail bond industry decades ago and has been very liberal when it comes to pretrial release. We are not like New York City or San Francisco. But the governor has been pushing to expand pretrial detention citing a recent case where a man was eligible for bail despite having been accused of possessing child pornography.

[ThePublius]

"A homeless career criminal with three open cases stalks a young woman, forces his way into her Chinatown apartment, stabs her to death — and Democrats blame everything from Donald Trump to the end of child tax credits.

Everything except their anti-cop, soft-on-crime policies that have caused the inevitable breakdown of law and order that led to the gruesome death of Christina Yuna Lee.

Lee’s murder is every woman’s worst nightmare. Her screams brought the police, but by the time they managed to break down her reinforced steel door, she was dead in her bathtub, stabbed 40 times."

Yea, Trump's fault. And end of child care tax credits (AOC).

[Sarcastr0]

Lee’s murder is every woman’s worst nightmare
Oh won't someone think of the women?!

This kind of scaremongering anecdotally bullshit is how we got our overly cruel criminal justice system.

Law and order are important. Treating those who have ever touched our criminals justice system like some inhuman species called 'criminal' is just cruelty theatre for assholes like the New York Post writes for.

[Ed Grinberg]

"our overly cruel criminal justice system"
???
Our criminal justice system is incredibly lax.

"assholes like the New York Post writes for"
Who's more of an asshole: Someone who wants law & order (i.e., wants to get tough on criminals), or someone who responds to a story of an innocent woman being murdered by saying "Oh won't someone think of the women?!"?

[Sarcastr0]

Our criminal justice system is incredibly lax.

Weird our incarceration rate is so big then.

Also talk to any ex felon and see what their opinion is.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Tell that to Kalief Browder. Oh wait you can’t because he killed himself after being tortured by the criminal justice system.

[Bob from Ohio]

Liberal mayor, liberal prosecutor, liberal police commissioner, liberal judges, liberal voters.

Don't blame NYC's system on the rest of us.

[Sarcastr0]

You switched from individuals to the system in the middle there.

That's a pretty shitty trick.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you still want to torture anyone in Gitmo without due process?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Worse. He wants to execute juveniles for non-murders without counsel after a non jury trial where the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence. Oh and the inculpatorynevidence they have was obtained by an illegal search.

He’s never ever denied this even though I have pointed it out several times that this is the result of overturning Warren Court precedents.

In fact once he grudgingly said “he could live with” the result in the Scottsboro Boys case. Live with. As if he would have gone the other way in it.

He’s an absolute ghoul who thinks the CJ system should just be able to abuse and kill children to satiate his bloodlust against that class of people who are “criminals.”

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh fuck off. We all know the problems are systemic and effect all types of polities run by all sorts of people. We also know that you want to make these problems worse by denying this kid a lawyer or any meaningful due process. You’ve said it yourself: you want to undo even the minimal protections the Warren court offered.

Also don’t you dare try to pretend to empathize, Mr “Need a Tissue.” We both know you don’t give a shit about him, think he deserved what happened to him, and pine for the days where you could see him swinging from a gallows.

So take your ghoulish smirking over his death someplace else and do something constructive like resign your law license.

[Ben_]

Those types of things would actually improve and make such cases less likely if Dems pushed for government that actually follows rules and tries to serve the public.

But the unions might not like that.

Libertarians should be pushing for effective policing and prosecution of violent crime because a safe society is more likely to be a tolerant society. If you want prison reform, you need a safe society or people will be too busy worrying about their family's safety to care about someone who was arrested.

[Sarcastr0]

You sound more like you won't be satisfied till we have a police state.

[Ben_]

You apparently think criminals being allowed to victimize people over and over is the opposite of a police state? It's very weird.

If you don't want a police state, then you should want police and prosecutors to take violent crime and property crime seriously and leave everyone else alone. Anything else and voters will just push for more, harsher policing that ends up impacting non-criminals.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a false choice.

Locking up people forever will not prevent crime. In fact, our expanded prison system compared to other countries doesn't seem to have made America a particularly criminal-free place.

The cruel system you want is about you getting your punishment jollies; all indications are it would not lead to lowering crime rates unless practiced to a police state extent where even petty theft leads to horrific outcomes.

[Absaroka]

"Locking up people forever will not prevent crime."

Locking up some people will prevent future cries *by them*.

When I read a story in the paper where so-n-so has just been arrested after a high speed chase in a stolen car and gunfight with the police, and is 28 years old with 14 prior convictions for violent crimes (as an adult, plus whatever he did as a juvenile), I see a missed opportunity for crime prevention. This is, unfortunately, not a rare occurrence.

Even for non-violent crimes - some years ago Seattle was having a spike in car thefts. The paper did a series. At the time, the median number of convictions for car theft before you got a jail sentence instead of probation was 11. There were many instances of people being arrested multiple times for car theft ... while awaiting trial for previous car thefts ... and still getting bail.

Sure, anyone could get unlucky on a joyride, right? But maybe when you get unlucky for the 5th or 10th time ... maybe you aren't learning from your mistakes? When we have been lenient for the first 10 times and he is still stealing cars, the old adage about the definition of insanity comes to mind.

[Sarcastr0]

Absaroka, this focus on under inclusion ignores overinclusion. It also assumes jail is the only good response to crime (ignoring the death penalty)

Furthermore, by creating a 'criminal class' in your policies, you start leaning towards punishing people based on status, not acts. Something we already do too much of.

The road this crime-punishment oriented thinking leads to is why the 4th Amendment remains a bullwark of liberty.

[Ben_]

Sarcastr0 has no answers but is here to tell you that anything the criminal justice system could ever do is "cruel" and doesn't work.

Now we know why Dems seem to be pro-crime.

[Absaroka]

"Absaroka, this focus on under inclusion ignores overinclusion."

I was responding to "Locking up people forever will not prevent crime". If you had instead posted "Locking up people forever is the only valid response to crime" I would have talked about over inclusion. But you didn't, so I didn't.

"Furthermore, by creating a 'criminal class' in your policies, you start leaning towards punishing people based on status, not acts."

Putting someone in jail after the tenth time you catch them stealing a car seems to me to be punishing them for ... stealing cars.

Is your objection that serial offenders ought to, each and every time, be treated with the same leniency we might give to a first time offender? That seems unfair to first offenders.

[Sarcastr0]

Locking people up forever will not prevent crime. It may indeed reduce crime, but at what cost?

Yeah, I think three strikes are a bad policy with much more cost than benefit. I think in general our sentences are too long, and we reach for jail far too frequently.

I also think that the law-and-order knee-jerk psychos like Ben are much more of a threat to liberty and good order than any quixotic defund the police march.

[Ben_]

I’m the opposite of a "law and order kneejerk" individual. Anyone can read this thread and see that. I’m for protecting innocents from violent and property crime.

Sarcastr0 is completely siding with criminals and crime here because he refuses to acknowledge any role at all for law enforcement. And he name-calls anyone who wants law enforcement to do anything at all about any crime.

That’s why Dems are going to lose big on the issue. If Sarcastr0 is typical, then that basically gives criminals unlimited free rein to victimize the public.

[Absaroka]

"Locking people up forever will not prevent crime. It may indeed reduce crime, but at what cost?"

Let's do the math for car thieves. It costs WA around $35k annually to incarcerate someone. The FBI says the average cost per theft is $9166, so roughly speaking the breakeven is four thefts per year. The FBI says that nationally[1] about 14% of auto thefts are cleared, so on the average each conviction represents 7 total thefts. So roughly speaking if you are getting convicted more often than every 7/4=1.75 years it's cheaper to warehouse you than let you keep stealing cars. Note that I am ignoring the costs of trial, police, arrest, and so on.

This is treating all car thieves equally, though, and that is the wrong approach, I think. Car thieves are not all equally skilled or prolific. I'd guess that, in fact, the most skilled thieves both steal the most cars and are least likely to be caught for any given theft. Practice makes perfect, after all.

The naive solution would be to sentence every thief to 1.75 years. That would mean that in a 30 year career the average number of thefts could not exceed 30/1.75=17 thefts per thief. I doubt that's the optimum solution, though. For one thing, 1.75 years seems high for the joyriding 18 year old who might be salvageable. For the other side of the coin, consider the guy who you sentence to 1.75 years, catch him again at 2.0 years, release at 3.75, catch again at 4.0, release at 5.75, catch at 6.0, ... at some point running him in-n-out or prison is just incurring the costs of trial plus the cars he steals on his brief forays after release. Better, perhaps, to use his oft repeated past behavior as predictive of future behavior.

Have you ever taken a long look at criminal histories? You can find middle aged guys with only a couple of years of work history in a couple of decades of time-not-in-jail and dozens of convictions. What do you think they spend their days doing?

"Yeah, I think three strikes ..."

I don't like three strikes either. I do like increasing sentences for multi-repeat offenders, in proportion to their number of previous convictions.

[1]n.b. I'm mixing data from different years, regions, etc ... want a better analysis, give me a grant 🙂

[Absaroka]

BTW, I gave you a completely economic analysis because you raised the cost/benefit angle.

I think there are also substantial intangible costs and benefits involved, especially for violent crime. The cost of a mugging is more than what was in the victim's wallet plus the medical bills.

[Ben_]

Get used to it. You're going to hear it over and over, year after year, until protecting the public from crime becomes a priority for government again.

[Sarcastr0]

Violent crime rates are not an issue generally.
https://jabberwocking.com/we-dont-have-a-crime-problem-we-have-a-murder-problem/

Though you live through anecdotal outrage so you would never know.

[Bob from Ohio]

Well, if its only murders, party on!

Murders get reported, other crimes don't when it is useless to do so.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben should be more precise if he wants to invoke statistics in his fearmongering, then.

You, well, your idea of tough on crime is pretty horrific IIRC.

[Ben_]

And whenever Dems say that it will look like gaslighting and/or Dems minimizing the issue (because they are personally safe in their gated neighborhoods).

Regardless of whether crime actually is low by some standard, it’s a pretty easy political win to point at individual crimes and tell voters Soros funded the prosecutor who enabled it and Dems supported it. So, as I said, get used to it.

(I make no claim either way. It’s not the worst crime rate ever. Beyond that I haven’t studied it. Systematic enablement of crime seems like a bad idea even if your spreadsheet numbers tell you it’s cool.)

[Sarcastr0]

So you look forwards to the right lying and getting away with it.

What a great person you are.

[Ben_]

Or telling the truth. Crimes are real. The people hurt by them are real.

Statistics about rates may be real or they may be manipulated and misleading. It’s always difficult to tell.

Regardless of the comparative crime rate, why are Dems intentionally enabling crimes? Why always choose the opposite of choices that serve the public?

[Sarcastr0]

Statistics about rates may be real or they may be manipulated and misleading

You don't care about actually solving the problem, or even reality, only about the fearmongering and anecdotes.

That's screwed up, man.

why are Dems intentionally enabling crimes
Maybe you prefer to ignore statistics because you would like to maintain this partisan distorted view of what's going on.

[Sarcastr0]

Why always choose the opposite of choices that serve the public?

You're the one that wants to concentrate on the salacious and ignore the reality.

[Ben_]

You clearly don't care either. All you do is complain about what people say. You have nothing else to offer on this and most other topics.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I spend a lot of time here pointing out people's bad arguments.

But I think my position on criminal justice reform has been made pretty clear here and previously on this blog.

So has yours.

[Ben_]

Yeah, I want innocents protected from violence and loss. And I want citizens served and not bullied by law enforcement.

You want criminals protected.

[Queen Amalthea]

Just finished reading Vonnegut's Mother Night and enjoyed it. Timequake is next. I didn't like Slaughterhouse or Cat's Cradle, so it's been hit or miss.

[Sarcastr0]

Had my book club yesterday on How Long Till Black Future Month. Not all bangers, but enough I bought the book.

Next month is The Raven Tower. I've read it before, but looking forwards to the reread.

A third of the way through the final book in The Expanse. Man, that's a good series. Space economics, my favorite!

[Queen Amalthea]

You must have loved the first Star Wars sequel (the Trade Federation and such) 😉

[Sarcastr0]

Still holding my breath for The Adventures of Lucre Barial: Jedi Accountant.

[Queen Amalthea]

That won the internet for me today, thanks!

[darkknight9]

While I personally enjoyed the movie, I think it would have been better if it were the TSA (Trade Sector Authority) from the late 70's early 80's Han Solo books.

[Queen Amalthea]

Wow, deep pull!

[NumaNumaPompilius]

*pushes up glasses* um, acktually, it was the Corporate Sector Authority in the Han Solo books

[John F. Carr]

Something about the modern world has me itching to reread Player Piano. Haven't touched a Vonnegut novel in many years.

Haven't read any novel in several years. Used to go through a few a week. Now reading The Last Muslim Conquest, about the glory days of the Ottoman Empire.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being an engineer kind of spoiled Player Piano for me. It was just painfully unrealistic about how automation worked, and the unrealistic bit was central to the story.

[Sarcastr0]

The Last Muslim Conquest, about the glory days of the Ottoman Empire

Recommend?

[John F. Carr]

The opening is quite disjointed but I think it's setting down into a coherent narrative with the (spoiler alert) fall of Constantinople. I'll drop a note in some future Thursday thread when I finish.

On the same topic, the last two thirds of _God's Shadow_ (Alan Mikhail, 2020) about Sultan Selim I is good but the opening could have been cut out. It was a long (to me) digression about the evils of Catholics and colonialism. A good enough subject for a book but it wasn't the book I thought I was buying. A chapter would have been enough to provide background to compare and contrast the Muslim empire to the East with the Christian kingdoms to the West. If I bought a biography of Golda Meir (is there a good one?) I wouldn't want to read five chapters about the Holocaust.

[bernard11]

Not much of a spoiler, John.

I doubt anyone interested in the book would be unaware of the events.:)

[Moderation4ever]

I loved the first chapter of Slaughter House 5. For Christmas I received a copy of Tom Roston's book "The Writer's Crusade" about the writing of Slaughter House 5. I am behind in my reading but looking forward to reading this book.

[Queen Amalthea]

Shouldn't Kamala Harris just declare the next President at certification? I would think Trumpistas couldn't complain.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why? The Trumpistas weren't asking Pence to certify Trump the winner, just to refrain from certifying Biden. They really thought they'd get some EC college votes changed if they could just buy some time for legal challenges to proceed, or could as a last resort kick it to the House to resolve.

It was stupid of them, it had all been over when the EC voted in December. As I've said before, I'm happy Trump was a fighter, but there's such a thing as carrying that too far.

Clarifying the EC count act is one of the few election related bills with genuine bipartisan support. I'm in favor of it myself, so long as they don't insert any unrelated poison pill amendments.

[Queen Amalthea]

“Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the election!”

[wreckinball]

To be fair legal challenges were really not allowed.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

To be fair: you're lying.

How many adverse rulings did the Trump team rack up from their legal challenges you say weren't allowed? Sixty-one or sixty-two I think.

[John F. Carr]

Sure if you appoint me as clerk of the Senate to officially record the name she pronounces.

President (crossout) Donald Trump, Jr.!

No, even I am not that cruel.

[Longtobefree]

So anyone else struck by the Oscars offending feminists by saying it takes three women to do the hosting job that has been done by one man?

[Queen Amalthea]

Hate to spoil your funny by pointing out your ignorance, but I imagine you're quite used to that kind of thing:

https://nimblereality.com/blog/list-of-all-oscar-hosts-academy-awards-hosts/
1983 Liza Minnelli, Dudley Moore,Richard Pryor,Walter Matthau
1986 Alan Alda, Jane Fonda,Robin Williams
1987 Chevy Chase, Goldie Hawn,Paul Hogan
2011 James Franco and Anne Hathaway
2010 Steve Martin, Alec Baldwin

[Kevin Smith]

So they have a history of it, is what you are saying?

1983: Takes 2 white guys to counterbalance the black guy and the woman
1986: Takes 2 white guys to counterbalance the woman (two of the funniest men of the era too, either could have easily hosted solo)
1987: Takes 2 white guys to counterbalance the woman
2011: Down to 1 white guy to counterbalance the woman. I suppose it's progress?
2010: These 2 white guys just suck I suppose (also why did we go backward a year?)

[Queen Amalthea]

Uh, you do know there's a crapload of women and poc singly hosting in that link, right?

[Michael P]

If you wanted to rebut the argument, you should have pointed to the years that Whoopi Goldberg or Ellen DeGeneres did it solo.

It's not clear whether the Academy went with three women this year because woke, because they don't trust any one person to do it right, because none of these three have the chops to do it solo, or something else.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out Jonathan Turley’s incredibly stupid MLK comments. A noted expert in Canadian law (lol) Turley went on Fox News to decry Trudeau’s use of Emergency Act Powers in response to protests. When he dropped this gem:

“ By this rationale, they could have cracked down on the civil rights movement. They could have arrested Martin Luther King!”

Imagine what it would have been like if the governments cracked down on the civil rights movement or arrested MLK. That’d be crazy, no?

Seriously, there’s a lot of things you could say about this, many of which are jokes about which non-jail location in Birmingham MLK wrote a letter. There’s also not a lot to say about it because it’s so profoundly brain dead not a lot of further explication is needed.

I guess I’m just really curious as to how a law professor of all people, one who claims to be an expert on constitutional law in particular, doesn’t immediately link the civil rights movement with state suppression in his mind such that these words could escape his mouth. I mean they should be inseparable in terms of historical memory.

[Kevin Smith]

Maybe he think the letter from Birmingham jail is like Jonny Cash's Live at Folsom Prison

[Queen Amalthea]

Turley's been pimping himself to Fox for a while now, and pimping and intelligent comments at the same time ain't easy.

[wreckinball]

Imagine equating a past act of civil disobedience with a present one? Outrageous you claim!

Let me simplify it for you imagine a government cracking down on a BLM protest in the same manner as the truckers.

That was his point. That certain speech and acts of civil disobedience are allowed and even cheered on by government and others are not.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"That certain speech and acts of civil disobedience are allowed and even cheered on by government and others are not

Um. You think the Civil Rights Movement was cheered on by Southern Governments? And not, you know, violently suppressed by police and private actors who were allowed to get a way with murder?

"Let me simplify it for you imagine a government cracking down on a BLM protest in the same manner as the truckers."

First off I don't have to imagine it BLM being violently suppressed by police because there is tons of video evidence of them doing so.

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266751520055459847?lang=en

And the Truckers are being treated with kid gloves and you know it. I know it. The Canadian government knows it. And the Truckers know it too, except for the deeply delusional ones. They've been at it for a month and the Government is finally responding more aggressively. A BLM protest would never have been able to block major roads or cause chaos in the capital that long.

People were cleared out of Lafayette square after not very long by tear gas even before the curfew.

Turley said something stupid and ahistorical. You don't have to defend every moronic comment in defense of protests you support.

[wreckinball]

So how many deaths and how much property damage did the truckers cause vs BLM?

Did the FBI list daily photo's of BLM perps on their twitter feed like they did for the J6 protestors? How many BLM protestors even arsonists had their charges dropped?

Our present VP bragged about donating to their bail fund so that the criminals could get back on the street to do more damage. Did we freeze her bank account and Go Fund Me's BLM relief account?

Yea Burn Looters and Murderers! We have signs and plazas painted over with this tribute.

Take the L on this one.

[LawTalkingGuy]

How can I take the L when I didn't lose?

Turley made a brain dead comparison that was dragged by historians, lawyers, law professors, journalists, and pretty much anyone with rudimentary historical knowledge. You ineptly tried to defend it above and are now trying to make this about how BLM sucks...which is not what I was positing about in the first place.

You can't say "take the L" when you had to change the conversation to something else because it turned out you couldn't reasonably dispute the original post.

So no. I will not be taking the L. When pretty much everyone with any knowledge knows Turley said something extremely dumb I don't think there is any L to take quite frankly.

[Sarcastr0]

Some here seem to have a really dimly understood view of civil disobedience. I guess they think it's so noble you can't legally go to jail for it?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I also don't understand the need for people here and on the right more generally to defend every dumbass and provably wrong statement that someone makes be it Trump or Turley or anyone in between by substituting what they actually meant or saying they were right despite loads of evidence to the contrary.

Democrats and liberal pundits say stupid shit all the time. But I don't really waste my time defending it or trying to say what I think they actually meant.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Imagine equating a past act of civil disobedience with a present one? "

Imagine eliding the fact that in the past one there famously was an arrest. There was a letter about it and everything.

[Bob from Ohio]

Maybe he meant successfully prosecuting King and sending him to prison, instead of a week or so in a jail for violating a [racist] injunction.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Maybe he's just a moron who shouldn't have such an elevated platform because he can't say what he means and instead says something incredibly and obviously stupid.

And again: besides the specifics of MLK, Southern governments did crack down on the Civil Rights Movement! And they didn't need or use emergency powers. A combination of harsh state enforcement of laws already on the books and tacit endorsement of private violence was used by the states to combat it.

His comment was deeply stupid and you don't need to defend it or substitute what he might have meant to make him seem less stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

"A combination of harsh state enforcement of laws already on the books and tacit endorsement of private violence was used by the states to combat it."

So, basically what Canada is seeing today, which was his point.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay Brett: how many Truckers have been murdered in the last month and the perpetrators not prosecuted or acquitted by all minority juries? How many of them have been beaten to a pulp? Which kids had dogs and firehoses aimed at them? What number of them have been arrested multiple times?

His point was that Canada is doing something so extreme that is apparently unimaginable. But as I and everyone else with a working brain pointed out: we didn't have to imagine it because it happened in real life in very extreme ways!

Again: you don't have to defend every dumbass thing just because you like these truckers.

[Brett Bellmore]

How many donors to the truckers have been doxed, and driven out of business by threats? Too many.

Yes, you have Trudeau's emergency proclamation, and you've got the doxing of the donors exposing them to private retaliation.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So

"A combination of harsh state enforcement of laws already on the books and tacit endorsement of private violence was used by the states to combat it. So, basically what Canada is seeing today, which was his point."

Went to:

"How many donors to the truckers have been doxed, and driven out of business by threats? Too many."

Well that's a pretty extreme walk back. But, I do appreciate your implicit agreement that the response to the trucker protest is in now way equivalent to how the South reacted to the Civil Rights Movement. I guess it is possible for you to learn things and admit you are wrong after all, even if you can't manage to say the words.

[bernard11]

Fuck you, Brett. No. it's not what Canada is seeing today.

Come back when the Canadian cops start beating up the demonstrators, or killing them.

You don't know jackshit about what happened during the Civil Rights movement.

Your comment is disgusting.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You mean like how the Canadian police manhandled an 80 year old person who simply honked their horn to indicate support for the movement?

[M L]

bernard doesn't know jackshit about what is happening today.

He probably thinks if there was anything he should know about the MSM would tell him. LOL.

[bernard11]

Whereas you rely on OAN, I guess.

[bernard11]

Shouldn't you be celebrating some Confederate holiday or something?

[bernard11]

Which proves absolutely zip.

[bernard11]

Turley is a whore.

He'll say anything to get on TV.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There's a story that a student once tried to contact him about something and got no response but then pretended to be a news producer and got an immediate response.

[wreckinball]

Ha you're on a roll and dumb Law Talker is on your side. You got it all.

[ThePublius]

On twitter:
"During the American War of Independence, General Washington had an account at the Bank of England. His monies were not seized. The belief at the time was the Govt could not seize private property absent due process and a judicial proceeding."

https://twitter.com/SethBTillman/status/1493930734113165313

I am really concerned about not only deplatforming and debanking of people and institutions for political reasons, but eve more so freezing and seizing of assets, both fundraising and regular accounts for political reasons. This is often extra-legal, and illegal! How can they do this and get away with it?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Perhaps the people who said "you will own nothing and like it" really meant it...

[M L]

When Republicans are in power, perhaps they should begin seizing the assets of big tech, bail funds, antifa funds, and other left-wing orgs and media. Conduct FBI raids on their offices, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, they should try that.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Based on my own past experience, I would definitely work to verify any historical claims of Professor Tillman's. I have no idea whether this particular one is true or false.

[bernard11]

WTF are you talking about?

[Kevin Smith]

Has anyone been able to log in to IRS accounts? The website says the id.me account will be required in summer, but then says I have to make one now. And no mention of them changing course and not going to require the new account. I just need to pull my wife's PIN from last year so I can file this years taxes!

[Brett Bellmore]

We used that id.me last year to opt out of the advance child deduction payments, really painful. I hear the IRS has been forced to drop plans to use it for online filings.

[Kevin Smith]

Yeah, they dropped the plans, but the website still won't let you in without it (even though it says you don't need it until summer)

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, I didn't know that, and I was getting ready to file next week.

[Kevin Smith]

As long as you don't need to retrieve any information from last year (AGI or filing PIN) you should be fine to e-file. Like I said I need to get my wife's PIN so I think I'm SOL

[Kevin Smith]

Maybe I'll just file by mail this year...

[Longtobefree]

Use paper.
Excellent data retention, but the search function sucks.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The only way a paper record can be "deleted" is by physically seizing it and then destroying it. Hence why I know many professionals maintain both paper and electronic records as a matter of practice.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Anyone find it interesting that our neighbor to the North has essentially declared a form of martial law to put down otherwise peaceful protesters and the media here is treating it like a common sense law enforcement activity?

(Yes I know this is America and that is Canada, but....) Anyone remember when Trump sent federal law enforcement agents (which the media called "federal troops" to make it sound more ominous) to stop Anti-fa from actually burning down a federal courthouse and we got finger waging lectures about authoritarian regimes suppressing dissent?

[wreckinball]

Well all of the US sheep were OK for the last two years being in a constant state of "emergency". Which means anything goes because we all know you can just suspend the constitution if the president/governor declares an emergency.

Its written right there in invisible ink don't you know? Just ask the legal eagles and the Obama judges. Heck even EV probably thinks its there. Its not and its intentional.

So sure it can spread here. I think it will be quite a bit uglier though.

The dual justice system for example J6 protest vs BLM protest sets an example I'm sure they'll try to continue.

[Jimmy the Dane]

At dinner last night the Canada truckers came on the news in the restaurant bar.

One guy says: Where did these people get the idea they should block streets and create hassles for people just trying to live their lives?

My thought: Gees I wouldn't know......(sarcasm of course)

[wreckinball]

Ha same discussion I had recently and the response always is well its OK because the BLMers were fighting for "racial justice".

I responded that can't you see if the government now gets to pick and choose when they enforce laws based on political view point that could turn into a big problem.

They can't see it because it's OK because they disagree with the truckers and agree with BLM. The reverse doesn't cross their minds.

[M L]

The leftists and globalists know they are fighting a war and are more than willing to justify and commit any amount of violence if it helps their objectives.

All while conservatives are still stuck being befuddled by the enemy's "hypocrisy."

[Queen Amalthea]

This orgy of right wing extremist conspiracy theorists was brought to you by the letter Q.

[wreckinball]

Yea the "right wing" is the threat!

Interesting comparison. You should read it. There is no comparison. The most dangerous groups out there are BLM and ANTIFA

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/09/realclearinvestigations_jan_6-blm_comparison_database_791370.html

[LawTalkingGuy]

Didn't some right winger murder a bunch of people in a Walmart 2 years ago?

[Jimmy the Dane]

No I don't think so, but there was a guy who was a Bernie Bro that shot up a Congressional Republican baseball ball game almost assassinating the minority whip at the time. The media either didn't report it or blamed it on white supremacists then stopped supporting it once the fact it was a Bernie Bros came out.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lie #1: “ No I don't think so,”

https://www.newsweek.com/el-paso-shooter-manifesto-defends-donald-trump-fake-news-blame-immigration-1452484?amp=1

Lie #2: “ The media either didn't report it or blamed it on white supremacists then stopped supporting it once the fact it was a Bernie Bros came out.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-profile/index.html

If you’re going to lie, don’t make it so easily disprovable.

[not guilty]

"The media either didn't report it or blamed it on white supremacists then stopped supporting it once the fact it was a Bernie Bros came out."

I seem to recall plenty of media coverage.

[Jimmy the Dane]

An orgy of cultural marxist violence brought to you on a daily basis by the letter A and sponsored by the number zero representing the number of stories the corporate shill media does about it.

[David Nieporent]

otherwise peaceful protesters

I remember when black people blocked streets in the U.S. to protest police brutality and Jimmy the Dane and his ilk argued that it should be legal to run them over for this heinous crime.

[Brett Bellmore]

Betcha Reginald Denny sometimes wishes he had.

[John F. Carr]

Maybe he and his ilk would also approve of a fleet of angry Canadians in their angry Toyotas charging a row of parked semis.

Sorry, no idea what the stereotypical Ottawa car is. I bet it's smaller than a large truck.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Quasi-political discussion topic -

Resolved, the rap genre (sometimes referred to as "gangster rap") of the 1980's and 1990's was a a primary spreader of libertarian ideas to the generation that identified with this type of music.

[Kevin Smith]

It was certainly a spreader of anti-government ideas, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say libertarian. Sure they wanted *their* individual rights respected, but I don't get that they were particularly keen on respecting anyone else's rights themselves

[Queen Amalthea]

Jimmy's not into Ben Shaprio I guess.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I generally regard him as a fraud. He is articulate, but that doesn't mean he is anything more than an effective shill.

[Brett Bellmore]

Aside from Pat Benatar and Weird Al, I don't listen to too much rap. But gangsters aren't exactly "libertarian".

[Jimmy the Dane]

The old stuff, other then not caring that much for the beat and rhythms is actually pretty good and some of it I would consider to have rather profound lyrics.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I'm fairly impressed with rap on a technical level, don't get me wrong. I'm just horrified by most of the artists' personal lives.

[wreckinball]

Ha ha but VC/EV and company never ever discuss civil liberties in regards to the J6 protestors?

The most obscure legal issue can be dissected but can't touch that one. Is this by edict from Nick?

Has Reason ever discussed this?

[wreckinball]

I searched found one Robby Soave article on the J6 anniversary that was pathetic

[Jimmy the Dane]

I find it suspicious that the usual civil liberties advocates, even the reliable ones that transcend the usual partisan bickering, have been pretty quiet on the January 6th political prisoner situation. And that silence is not because there isn't anything to talk about. You have people charged with non-violent crimes being denied bail (straight up denied, not constructively being denied by say having high bail set) and being held in what we can best tell from an outside perspective to be deplorable conditions. These are issues that should be openly discussed before you even get to the prosecution double standard, quelling dissent, abuse of the justice process, etc.

[M L]

Our government is throwing political dissidents in prison and beating them within an inch of their life, all while the supposed "civil liberties" people ignore it. U.S. "democracy."

[wreckinball]

Now to be fair they only do this to protestors whose cause they don't like. If they do like it you can literally burn and rob the city with no worries.

[David Nieporent]

I think it's helpful the way you pre-discredit yourself by calling people who try to overthrow the government as "dissidents."

[M L]

Anyone who uses the word "insurrection" is immediately discredited. Likewise "try to overthrow the government."

But maybe I'm wrong. Can you point to how the guy who committed the crime of sitting at Pelosi's desk was actually trying to overthrow the government? Or for that matter how any of the 100% unarmed protesters tried to do so? Many of them walked into a completely open capitol building or were let in by law enforcement, and strolled around like excited chatty tourists, snapping photos and staying within the velvet ropes, before heading home for dinner.

[Jimmy the Dane]

But desk guy put his feet on her historic desk, scratched his balls on camera, and took an envelope!!!!!! Obviously he needs to be held without bail far away from his place of residence.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, and the fact that they just happened to force their way into the Capitol on the day Congress was counting and certifying the electoral college votes was just a complete coincidence. "Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain."

[not guilty]

Those who breached the Capitol on January 6 are not political prisoners. They are being prosecuted for criminal conduct. Only a small fraction has been denied bail, and in each case there, the denial included a finding after an adversarial hearing of risk of flight and/or threat to public safety if released. A prompt appeal of bail decisions is available.

Political prisoners? That phrase doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[Ed Grinberg]

"Has Reason ever discussed this?"
As far as I recall, the only Reason posts on in have been highly condemnatory.

[Ed Grinberg]

(that is, condemnatory of the "insurrectionists," not the government's treatment of them)

[wreckinball]

Newsflash, no one is charged with insurrection. Its trespassers vandals and maybe simple assaulters

[Bored Lawyer]

Suppose the maximum sentence a person faces is a limited amount, let's say 6 months. I vaguely recall there is some law that you cannot be kept in pre-sentence jail longer than that to await trial.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not a practical limitation, really, because they can always make up some BS charge they know they aren't going to prosecute you for, and hold you longer.

[ducksalad]

I've heard plenty of stories of people held in jail when the maximum sentence is only a fine.

[M L]

New Zealand has threatened to use its military against peaceful protesters who are protesting COVID authoritarianism.

means of defense against foreign danger = instruments of tyranny at home

[Bored Lawyer]

Which is why the Constitution forbids standing armies. Which has been ignored for a long, long time.

[David Nieporent]

Fun fact: the phrase "standing armies" does not appear in the constitution. Instead, the constitution forbids appropriations for the army for longer than two years. AFAIK, that has not been ignored.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, it didn't forbid standing armies, it just standing appropriations for armies. Didn't work out to be the same thing in practice.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/21/21-11159.0.pdf

Fifth Circuit says you might be eligible for a preliminary injunction in a Title VII case because choosing between employment and vaccination is an "irreparable harm." In doing so, Oldham and Elrod messed up Title VII and remedies law so bad that noted loony liberal (checks notes) Judge Jerry Smith accused them engaging in "an orgy of jurisprudential violence"

Raffi Melkonian details everything here:

https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit

I wonder if Blackman will be happy? He was all for the bonkers Ho dissent on the same topic in December. Maybe he'll reconsider when he reads Smith's dissent and learns something about employment law and remedies for the first time in his legal career?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you can argue after they've got the preliminary injunction that there's no "harm", but I don't see how you can dispute the "irreparable" part; It's not like you can go and get unvaccinated.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"But I don't see how you can dispute the 'irreparable'"

Very easily if you know anything about employment law or remedies (which you very obviously do not, but Judge Smith, and Raffi and every employment lawyer on the planet does). You don't take the vaccine, you are let go, your remedy is damages and reinstatement. As it has been in every Title VII case since forever, the harm is legally reparable.

[Brett Bellmore]

And that's fine for people who have substantial savings. For most people, losing a job for the duration of some court fight is permanently damaging. They'll never recover from it, their lives are permanently altered even if they somehow hang on long enough to win.

It's like a plane flying at 50,000 feet can lose a thousand feet of altitude, and regain it, and no big deal.

A plane flying at 500 feet augers into the ground.

I don't think the courts are really realistic about what's irreparable for people of limited means.

[loki13]

None of that matters, Brett. Not to be pedantic, but "Brettlaw" isn't real law. (Also, if you're that concerned about people losing their jobs unfairly, I am sure you're in favor of greater job protections, right? ... I didn't think so ...)

If something can be remedied by mere money, it's not irreparable harm. Why? Because an injunction (equitable relief) is an EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY. By definition. Anyway, that's just one of a number of gigantic problems with this opinion.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And that's fine for people who have substantial savings. For most people, losing a job for the duration of some court fight is permanently damaging. They'll never recover from it, their lives are permanently altered even if they somehow hang on long enough to win.

Oh wow. What an amazing insight that courts have never thought about before in the history of employment law! Wait. I am being told that they have? And that they have consistently rejected that argument in all sorts of contexts?

Can you just for once admit that you don't actually know anything about the law?

[Bob from Ohio]

He was making a policy argument [I don't think the courts are really realistic about what's irreparable for people of limited means.] not a legal one.

You don't have to be so insulting in your every comment.

Maybe you will grow up someday.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“He was making a policy argument.”

No he wasn’t. He thinks he knows law and he doesn’t.

“ [I don't think the courts are really realistic about what's irreparable for people of limited means.]”

And of course you see this as a good thing given your beliefs about the law generally.

“You don't have to be so insulting in your every comment.”

Brett doesn’t have to be so buffoonishly arrogant about things. And you don’t have to be a cartoon villain. Yet here we are.

“Maybe you will grow up someday.”

I’ll refer you to CS Lewis:

“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence.”

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I actually was making a policy argument. I think the courts systematically underestimate the damage they're doing to people of limited means, because they're run by people of much less limited means.

I have argued that, as a policy matter, the legal system should be required to make whole everyone who it does not convict. Defendants, jurors, witnesses. That doesn't mean I think the law currently requires this, obviously it doesn't.

Morality demands it, and it's the only way that the process will stop being the punishment.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't believe you.

First, because you can't defend a crappy lower court decision with a policy argument.

Second because policy arguments and legal arguments are the same thing for you; you continually insist the law *is* what you think it *ought* to be, and anyone who says differently doesn't matter.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can't help it if you let your personal ideology interfere with your reading comprehension.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Brett the problem is that we do have reading comprehension. If you were making a policy argument you would have used words like "should" or "ought" or some sort of statement that your position is not the law as it is currently understood (or has ever been understood). You never acknowledged the error of your first post but kept pressing on.

And also we have the context of your entire history of posts where you manifestly refuse to believe the law is anything other than what you say it is at any given moment. (Remember the time you said laches were just "doctrines" and you were talking about "laws"? I do, that's why I am much less than charitable in believing you understand the law well enough to make "is" "ought" distinctions.)

[David Nieporent]

No, I actually was making a policy argument. I think the courts systematically underestimate the damage they're doing to people of limited means, because they're run by people of much less limited means.

What does that have to do with the topic? It's a private party, not the courts, who would be doing this "damage" in this context. The harm is caused by the termination, not by the government.

[loki13]

What .... The .... Eff.....

Bonus points, by the way, for making it an unpublished decision. Those judges should be ashamed. I've seen terrible decisions, but that is the most nonsensical decision I have ever read. That's ... let's just make some stuff up!

I have never seen an opinion manage to get every single thing about the law wrong before. I can feel Judge Smith's anger, and I share it. They didn't even exhaust the administrative remedies. I can't ... I can't even.

This opinion would get a failing grade in law school. It is that bad. Wow. You made me look up those judges ...

Let's see. Elrod. Yep. Oh yeah. And Oldham. Bingo.

....the Fifth is the new Ninth.

[loki13]

I am still angry. I thought that there were two trusims I could count on in the law-

1. You don't get injunctive relief in a Title VII case.

2. We weren't going to be resurrecting implied causes of action from the 70s.

The more you learn! I guess going all liberal is great ... so long as you are supporting a conservative cause?

The 5th Circuit ... the land where Title VII means employees can never be fired, and the 70s are alive again, baby!

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Ongoing coercion" sounds like something a law professor who was associated with radical left-wing movements in their youth, has contributed to Jacobin at least once, and responds to charges of being a Marxist with "well...." would come up with for their articles in the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law.

[loki13]

Bingo.

And to go back through this, I have to end up coming to the following question- are Elrod and Oldham morons, or do they truly not care?

In order to understand why I am making this provocative statement, you have to understand the following- in addition to torturing a lot of other areas of the law, those judges relied on a '73 case (Drew) that has no continuing validity for a lot of reasons, and hasn't even been cited since 1981.

Now either they don't know that and have no idea how Title VII has worked for ... oh ... 40 years, in which case they are morons. Or they do know that and they are assuming that they can make this all "hush hush unpublished" and make a stand in solidarity with the anti-vaxxers and it will just go away.

But no. That's not how it works. Because every single Plaintiff's attorney going forward is going to know that they can use Drew. After all, the opinion might be unpublished, but two judges just said it was BINDING CIRCUIT PRECEDENT (/facepalm). So you don't have to go through the administrative process (you know, like the statute says) to file for your own equitable relief. Good times! Of course ... this won't ever happen, because it's not like people ever sue because of their jobs. Ugh.

Oh, and "ongoing coercion." I can't even. What are they going to do for an encore, find that the Constitution enshrines a right to free public wi-fi and Taco Tuesdays?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I think I see where this is going and while I think it’s both moronic and nihilistic I can’t say that it’s not going to ultimately work.

Between this and the Ho dissent on the same subject, they think they are ultimately going to say that employer burdens on religious belief are unique and unleash special remedies under Title VII. They fully expect the Circuit and SCOTUS to back them up on this such that there will be no preliminary injunctions in other employment discrimination cases. They’ll throw Drew away in any other context without a thought. I can’t say they’re going to be wrong.

At the same time I think they fully expect at some point that there will be a Free Exercise carveout for employers under Title VII. Just need sincere religious objection and you can race/sex/age discriminate however you want. I fully expect this too in the next few years.

So what will the rule be? You can’t burden your employees religion under Title VII with “secular” policies but you as the employer can make whatever “religious” policies you want under the First Amendment even if they’re blatantly discriminatory.

What if a company says it’s pro life religious beliefs mean that it needs to mandate vaccines? Well, we know which way that’s gonna go. Doesn’t really need to be a reason.

Oh and you’ll never be able to use religion to do affirmative action either. Cause reasons.

And while the law becomes a mess in this area, some judge or justice is going to just straight up claim that Title VII and the First Amendment only protects “Judeo-Christian” beliefs. And we’ll go from there. My money is on Justin Walker.

[loki13]

I ... don't know that you're wrong. In fact, that was my suspicion reading it.

But all I can say is that this will be an absolute DISASTER when it comes to the court system. You know, the actual practice of law. And for employers? An unmitigated nightmare.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yep. Gonna be a pretty bleak couple of decades.

[David Nieporent]

2. We weren't going to be resurrecting implied causes of action from the 70s.

[...]

The 5th Circuit ... the land where Title VII means employees can never be fired, and the 70s are alive again, baby!

Well, if that worries you, judges in the 8th circuit are doing their part to hold the line against implied causes of action:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1494469724272574464

[loki13]

...There are days when I have to ask why people both with such niceties as "precedent" or "what the law says" when it's just become a free-for-all.

(As for that opinion, I think given the controlling precedent, the judge was obligated to FOLLOW THE LAW. It would be completely understandable to have an opinion noting the issue, and even explaining his understanding, while saying that he is bound by precedent.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. From the NY Times article on the SF School board recall:

"Criticism of the board grew stronger, while signature gathering for the recall effort was already underway, when controversial tweets written by Ms. Collins, the board’s vice president, were discovered. In them, she said Asian Americans were like slaves who benefited from working inside a slave owner’s house — a comparison that Asian American groups and many city leaders called racist."

The actual tweet: "Being a house n****r is still being a n****r."

[TwelveInchPianist]

asterisks in original, btw.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This White, male, movement
conservative, "often libertarian"
blog has operated for

FOUR (4) DAYS

without publishing a vile
racial slur and for

TWO (2) YEARS

without imposing partisan,
viewpoint-driven censorship.

CONGRATULATIONS?!?!?!

[Life of Brian]

Whether or not accurate, the scary thing is that you actually go to the trouble of keeping score on a daily basis. OCD takes many forms, I suppose.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If this blog's monthly use of a vile racial slur is not the bothersome part for you, Life of Brian, you should probably get a checkup for bigotry. Don't forget to mention that you are half-educated and suffer from adult-onset superstition.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So n- now counts as use of a racial slur?

[Brett Bellmore]

Heck, "that racial slur we don't talk about" counts as a racial slur!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not by my count.

Your pathetic attempt to defend Prof. Volokh and this bigot-curious right-wing blog is noted and disdained.

[wreckinball]

Always the biggest dope. Always. Except when Tony joins us

[OtisAH]

Donny, Ivanka, and Junior ordered to appear for depositions within 21 days.

[loki13]

To quote Peter Gabriel, "I don't remember, I don't recall. I have no memory, of anything at all."

Rinse, repeat.

[OtisAH]

I doubt that’ll help them much. Mazars might be the last rat to leave the ship.

[loki13]

Maybe? I mean, I'd love to see something happen.

But I'm too old to believe in karma. And (money) + (attorneys) + (lack of any kind of shame or civic mindedness) = kicking the can down the road indefinitely.

[Brett Bellmore]

You might even consider the ghastly possibility that they're not guilty of anything.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I don't know after a year of digging probably tens of millions in public funds and who knows how many investigator hours, they managed to find one minor tax irregularity that to a normal person would get nasty-gram from the taxing authority and a demand to pay instead of a perp walk and formal charges. So I would think there is probably a good chance that with another hundred million in a politically motivated witch hunt they could probably find another parking ticket level offense somewhere in Trump's vast financial empire.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Trumps have squelched criminal charges before by paying civil settlements that required people to stop cooperating with prosecutors.

I do not expect that to be an effective method this time.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Un-indicted co-conspirator #1?

Wake up, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, DOJ policy strongly disfavors naming unindicted co-conspirators, as in practice it has been nothing but a way to libel people under the color of law, it serves no other purpose. You're supposed to either indict them, or keep your trap shut.

I mean, it's handy to tell somebody you actually ARE indicting, "Smear so and so on the stand, and we'll cut your sentence." but it's a handy way of committing libel, and only sleazes do it.

[Krayt]

I'm starting to have a concern, a half-baked idea. Normal libertarian concerns are to watch government and put in safeguards. Heck, that is American constitutional design principle 101. Politicians are pigs who will abuse their power and grow it any time they can. History is lousy with warning tales. Indeed, not having major problems for 10 years or more, much less centuries, is the very rare exception.

But it's always tied to government abuse. Otherwise people are free to do what they wilt.

But thanks to advancing technology, it becomes more and more possible to watch, track, and categorize people. Companies have always been doing this in decades past to try to understand trends and make predictions and products and sales.

But what if their AI tracking becomes insanely detailed, both in recording, and analysis? And is put at the feet of political factions, factions which could hurt them to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, because, you know, things might get broken in a regulatory scheme change.

So you've built big transmission infrastructure, attaching to the Internet per Internet rules. Yet now seek to limit or deplatform opposition to the party holding the sword of Damoclese over your head.

Is this some kind of fascism, whose relevant tenet is nominal private ownership, but with heavy government "partnership"?

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, I think classical libertarian thought inadequately appreciates the threat from the private sector, and network effects creating private monopolies.

[bernard11]

Anyone here an espresso wizard?

I bought a machine a couple of months ago and am only now zeroing in on a good recipe - by which I mean making drinkable coffee.

Suggestions?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Get good grounds and you must actually pack them in. Home espresso takes some trial and error to get right.

[Kevin Smith]

I had a cheap machine some years back, with that one timing was everything. You had to turn it off at just the right time or else it would scorch and you'd get terribly bitter coffee

[Life of Brian]

IMO pre-ground espresso will give you ok but not amazing results. Get quality, freshly-roasted beans (or roast your own). Also IMO many commercial espresso roasts are too dark. It's amazing what a spectrum of flavors can come out at medium/medium+ that get drowned out by the smoky overtones of darker roasts.

If you don't have one, a quality burr grinder is a game changer -- they can get pricey, but Baratza makes a good line that doesn't break the bank. A fine, even grind supports both consistent tamping (which in turn helps maintain consistent pressure throughout the extraction) and also promotes even extraction throughout the puck which gives you a generally smoother and more flavorful shot.

Play with the amount of coffee, grind level, and tamping pressure until you find a good combination that gives you the body you want and a total extraction time around 20-25 seconds -- I find even a bit longer doesn't hurt much, but much shorter and things get bitter fast.

Have fun with it. Life is too short to drink crappy coffee.

[bernard11]

Thanks. My machine has a good grinder attached.

I agree that the commercial roasts are too dark, even though darker roasts seem to be recommended by lots of people. They seem to produce shots that are too bitter for my taste.

I'm trying a number of brands, local and national, and fooling with grind settings, etc. along the way.

Do you have any specific brand recommendations? I tried and quickly discarded Stabucks espresso roast

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, when I'm reduced to drinking Starbucks the blonde roast is the only one I can tolerate, and sometimes there's even the occasional burned bean in that. I don't have much of a sense for brands, unfortunately -- I roast my own beans most of the time. The espresso I usually use is a blend from Burman Coffee Traders. Sometimes I'll pick up a bag of something from a local roaster when I'm too tied up to roast.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Here in Western North Carolina (a known banana republic), we have had formally reinstituted by our government:
1. sewer service
2. official spoliation in the courts
3. lockdowns in courtrooms while court is in session
4. jettisoned access to justice for them who can't buy lawyers
5. officially sanctioned forgery of judicial orders & sentences
6. conferred on our illiterate magistrates official "attorney" titles
7. hissing and spitting by our clerks of court
8. embracery
9. chicanery
10.bills of attainder, both legislative and judicial
11.unimpeded public corruption
12.fabrication of evidence
13.abrogation of due process of law
14.titles of nobility
15.suspension of property rights
16.confiscatory taxation
17.more

[not guilty]

A state court judge in New York has ordered that Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump must be deposed in the NY Attorney General's civil investigation. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21232082-451685_2020_the_people_of_the_stat_v_the_people_of_the_stat_decision___order_on_653

The Trumps can run, but they can't hide.

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, I've never been persuaded that Presidents had any legal immunity; The immunity members of Congress have is quite limited, and it's explicitly granted by the Constitution.

Still less is there any basis for thinking ex-Presidents have any particular immunity.

[not guilty]

Sitting presidents can be deposed while in office, even where a related criminal investigation is ongoing. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). I can't figure why Trump and his adult children fancied themselves to be exempt.

That having been said, Justice Stevens's prediction, "As for the case at hand, if properly managed by the District Court, it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of [the President's] time", proved to be highly inaccurate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably would have been quicker if he'd refrained from committing perjury. Just saying. And I don't recall that the government was exactly paralyzed, even so.

My point is really just that the Constitution explicitly gives members of Congress quite limited legal immunity, and is totally silent about Presidents having any immunity at all. Just on a textual basis, Presidents have no immunity from legal process. Unless perhaps some statute gives it to them.

From a de facto standpoint, the DOJ works for the President, so they treat their boss as though he had legal immunity at the federal level anyway. But I really see no constitutional basis for even sitting Presidents to claim any immunity, and Trump isn't even President anymore.

So I see no basis AT ALL for him to have claimed immunity from this proceeding, even if it is 100% politically motivated.

[John F. Carr]

They can plead the Fifth, giving the Attorney General the political win she wants without digging themselves in a deeper legal hole. But they may not be able to avoid handing over incriminating papers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Assuming such papers exist. Again, you need to take seriously the possibility that they're not guilty.

[John F. Carr]

It's rather likely that Trump can not be proved to have had the requisite mental state. Maybe the people who submitted false information were reasonably relying on information provided by others. The organization is another story. Under my state's law a company can be convicted of some crimes without any one employee having a culpable mental state.

Or who knows, maybe there is a smoking gun memo.

[Brett Bellmore]

“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible Trump might not be a criminal.”

[Brett Bellmore]

Lately I've been supplementing my mead brewing hobby with home-made bacon.

Seems you can make bacon cheaper than you can buy it in the store, especially after you account for the fact that store bought bacon is pumped full of water. And the quality is better, too!

My first batch was a tad salty, seems the recipe was in terms of Diamond Crystal salt, and I was using Morton's; They're different densities. I corrected for that with my second batch, and the family loves it.

Shortly I'm going in with a friend on buying a whole pig, which we'll break down ourselves. The economy is huge compared to buying pork at grocery store prices.

I may be building a smokehouse in the backyard this summer, and seeing if I can make decent smoked sausages.

[bernard11]

Tell us more. Where do you start?

[Brett Bellmore]

You start by curing, of course. I found what looked like some good recipes online, at Meathead's.

I like using a dry cure, which you rub into the pork belly, (Bought it at Costco this time.) and then use my Foodsaver to vacuum pack it, sprinkling in any of the rub that didn't stick. It starts drawing out moisture, and after a couple days in the fridge the cure is all dissolved. Each day you flip it and massage it through the plastic to distribute the cure evenly.

You can do it with a simple zip lock, of course, but the chance of leakage is much lower with the vacuum pack.

After a week to ten days of that, you open it up, rinse off the cure, and smoke it. This time I used some Kentucky bourbon barrel chips, (Because I had 'em.) but my usual go to is cherry.

I've got a barrel style charcoal grill with a side box for smoking, and it's still cold here in the Piedmont region of SC, so I wasn't at risk of prematurely rendering the fat. That's going to be a bit trickier in the summer.

The recipes all tell you to get the pork up to a fairly high internal temperature, but I suspect that's just because of FDA recommendations for pork, and liability issues. (Kind of like it's hard to find traditional raw egg ice cream recipes online.) Traditional bacon is cold smoked, still raw after being smoked, and that's what I was aiming for. It's safe enough given the cure.

Ridgeway, I smoked it about 4 hours, because I like a good strong smoke flavor, and my side box doesn't exactly pump out the smoke anyway. I keep the time lower and actually hot smoke, when doing fish. (My wife is hooked on smoked trout.)

[Ridgeway]

Brett -- smoking more than 2 hours doesn't make it much "smokier" - nothing wrong with smoking longer, it is just more labor intensive and less idiot proof.

I think the reason they want you to get it to high internal temps is more for tenderness than food safety. The collagen breaks down around 180 degrees, and it takes a while to completely break down -- that is why you may see your temp rise steadily and then plateau -- the energy is busy melting the collagen in th the connective tissue. That is what turns a tough stringy piece of meat like a pork shoulder into tender, moist deliciousness.

For bacon, that is probably less important, since you want to be able to slice it, and you dont want it to fall apart. Since you will likely fry it as well before eating, the likelihood of harmful bacterial is even less.

[Ridgeway]

Not sure how much experience you have smoking meat, but one thing I discovered is that you only need about 2 hours of actual smoking to impart the flavor you want to a given piece of meat. After that, you can finish the piece in a conventional oven set to 250 or so. Maintaining temp in the oven for 6-10 hours is a heckuva lot easier than doing so in a smoker, and uses a lot less charcoal.

What I do is use one chimney of charcoal plus some wood (usually oak, since that is what God tosses onto my lawn every day) for the initial smoke. I leave the meat on until the heat goes down below 150 or so (about 2-3 hours). Then I insert a temp probe, transfer the meat to the low oven, and wait until done.

Beer may be consumed as necessary throughout the process.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, mead in my case. Or maybe a hard cider. Nothing against beer, I use it in cooking sometimes, just not fond of hops.

What I really want to try is cold smoking followed by sou vide. Allows you to get the meat as tender as you want, without rendering the fat.

[Ridgeway]

I don't like hard cider at all. To me it tastes like skunked beer.

[Estragon]

Is trump the worst client of all time?

Feb. 14 answer to supplemental verified petition: “Respondent denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding [the financial status of Trump Co.]”

Feb 15.: Trump releases a 1100 word statement regarding the financial condition of TrumpCo.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21218260-trump-statement

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Any lawyer who voluntarily represents a Trump deserves every bit of it.

[John F. Carr]

I'd love to see a "bad client" war stories thread some day, if attorney-client privilege allows.

There was a defendant who tried to strangle his lawyer with the lawyer's necktie.

[dwb68]

Changing my prediction. I previously said that we wont see another Democratic President for 12 years after Biden, because he is decidedly worse than Carter. If Putin takes Ukraine, I will amend that to 16 years. What an effing disaster.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What exactly would you have him do?

It's also quite odd that your only criticism is towards Biden, with no mention of the pro-Russia voices within the GOP House and Senate members.

[Brett Bellmore]

"with no mention of the pro-Russia voices within the GOP House and Senate members."

I think at this point you really need to identify such voices, and explain for each what makes them "pro-Russia". Did they lobby to remove our objections to Nordstream 2, maybe?

[dwb68]

Who exactly are these pro-Ukrainian invasion republicans?

[John F. Carr]

It's not inconsistent to say "There's nothing Biden can do to save Ukraine" and "Voters will blame Democrats for the fall of Ukraine." I don't think Biden deserved blame for Afghanistan but he got it anyway. Bad news sticks to the President and his party. Obama might not have won if the financial crisis had been delayed a few months.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, he could clear away the obstacles to Poland buying some anti-tank missiles.

Poles want 1,000 U.S. anti-tank missiles for Ukraine

"The Polish military made an urgent request for 1,000 U.S. Army Javelin anti-tank missiles earlier this month, but Pentagon red tape is delaying efforts to get large numbers of the missiles to the Ukrainian military, “Inside the Ring” has learned."

[Brett Bellmore]

Silly prediction. It really doesn't matter how bad Biden is, once a Republican is in office, people will be comparing a real Republican to an imaginary Democrat, and reality always suffers when compared to the products of our imagination.

8 years, tops. And only that because incumbents have advantages.

[apedad]

"...a real Republican...."

Care to give us some names of who you think a "real" Republican is?

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought I was being clear.

A "real" Republican, meaning an actual flesh and blood real person, vs an imaginary Democrat, because you've got a Republican actually occupying the office, and are free to imagine what a Democrat would be like in his place.

Part of the reason the parties tend to alternate is because you're free to imagine that the party out of power would not screw up, have scandals, do stupid stuff, while the party IN power is actually in front of you acting like real, imperfect people do.

So, the imagined Joe Biden beat the real Trump, and is now underwater in the polls and looking bad for a round two in 2024, because people are now seeing the real Joe Biden, and contrasting him with a somewhat imaginary Donald Trump.

Clear?

[dwb68]

No. Now people will be comparing an annoying twitter feed under Trump to actual inflation and global weakness. Carter 2.0 Putin invades Ukraine will show everyone just how feckless Biden is, as if Afghanistan didn't. It will invite other aggression. And state sponsored terror.

[Brett Bellmore]

And after 4 more years of Trump they'll be back to comparing the real Trump, almost uniformly hostile media coverage and all, to some imaginary Democrat again.

8 years Republican rule, tops. Maybe only 4 if Mitch McConnell is back in control in the Senate.

[dwb68]

Trump wont be the next President. People will pick someone younger.

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually tend to agree, in fact, I kind of doubt Trump intends to be our next President. At this point, he's more likely to aim to be a king-maker. Making noises about running for President keeps him relevant.

[dwb68]

Dems are in the same kind of ideological disarray they were in in the 80s. Maybe worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's actually worse than that, I think: Rather than being in disarray, they're marching in lockstep over a cliff.

[Sarcastr0]

16 years? You're letting your wishes author your reality. Rein it in.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You figure conservatives have diminished, or even stopped, the tide of the culture war, you bigoted rube? You figure right-wingers have actually reversed the half-century tide of that culture war, and are positioned to revive racism, superstition, homophobia, backwardness, misogyny, ignorance, xenophobia, and the rest of the Republican platform?

When considering these boasts of right-wing adequacy in modern America, I suppose we should remember that you don't get to be a clinger with sound judgment, adequate education, good character, and admirable conduct.

[not guilty]

It looks like the Republican National Committee's censure resolution blather about "legitimate political discourse" is getting pushback from district judges sentencing January 6 defendants. https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2022/02/17/misdemeanor-charge-in-jan-6-cases-is-fostering-confusion-about-severity-of-capitol-riot-judge-says/

Those who breached the Capitol are low hanging fruit. Here's hoping that DOJ holds to account those who pulled the strings on the plot to corruptly influence the Congress. Sooner rather than later.

[not guilty]

Sidney Powell has sued Verizon in a Texas state court to prevent disclosure of her telephone records to the House January 6 committee. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/powell-verizon-complaint.pdf

Among the grounds she asserts is attorney-client privilege. The burden of proof is on the party claiming a privilege to establish its existence. I am puzzled by the notion that Verizon's records would contain privileged communications between Ms. Powell and her clients. The records might show when a call was made and what telephone number was on the other end of the call, but that would not disclose the content of any communications.

Of course, as regards Ms. Powell's client Donald Trump, the privilege is inapplicable where an attorney assists a client in perpetrating a crime or fraud.

[Estragon]

One wonders how she squares her privilege claim with this statement:

“Sydney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity.”

- Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, 11/22/20

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1330638034619035655/photo/1

[santamonica811]

Trump is awful. And Powell is a pathetic excuse for a lawyer (and for a human being). But your absolutely valid points don't preclude an attorney-client privilege being formed.

If you call me up, perhaps to try and engage my legal services, our discussion of your case is privileged, even if I then make it clear that I will not represent you. (Or, if you--after the conversation--decide to reject me as a possible lawyer for you.) So, it's *possible* that something like this would apply. Extremely unlikely. But I try to toss Trump a bone every month or two . . . even an utter piece of shit like him deserves the occasional break.

[John F. Carr]

According to a story I read long ago, a party intending litigation contacted all the local lawyers who might take on that sort of case. The party wasn't interested in retaining them, but wanted to have enough discussion to create a conflict of interest if the other side wanted to retain them. I don't know if the plan worked.

[BrotherMovesOn]

This scenario was portrayed in the fairly recent movie "Bombshell", about sexual harassment at Fox News.

[apedad]

Anybody order a Porsche or Volkswagen (or maybe a Lamborghini or Audi), from Germany and is waiting for it to be delivered in Rhode Island?

If yes, then uh-oh. . . .

Cargo Ship Full Of European Cars Left To Burn In The Atlantic Ocean

https://jalopnik.com/cargo-ship-full-of-european-cars-left-to-burn-in-the-at-1848553606

[Estragon]

This takes me back to admiralty! The crew abandoned ship— it’s out there for the taking!!!

[John F. Carr]

Is it a 10% salvage fee? Can you assemble a decent car out of 10% of the unburned pieces? It used to be possible to build a car out of parts of old cars but you needed a VIN from one of the cars to be the new car's official identity. I could rephrase that: I knew somebody who did build a car from a junkyard, and he got it registered, and I assumed it was all legal, but I don't know if a DMV inspector watching the entire process would have approved.

[John F. Carr]

Harvard students continue to think that people they don't approve of should not have legal representation.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/02/18/science/law-firms-under-pressure-stop-representing-fossil-fuel-interests/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is there no authority anywhere seeking justice for those responsible for the COVID pandemic? Millions of lives lost , trillions of dollars misallocated, society altered for the worse and no one in power is seeking justice?

Weird.

[Randal]

Did you grow up in a family that like, when you got chicken pox, sued the other families of the kids in your class with chicken pox for exposing you, plus your teacher and the school district for negligence?

Or is this more a case of, you've got a conspiracy theory up your butt that you're just itching to fart out and make the rest of us have to smell the stench of?

[not guilty]

More bad news for Donald Trump today. U. S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta denied Trump's motions to dismiss three civil damages actions alleging that he is liable for a civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. 1985(1) regarding the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.227536/gov.uscourts.dcd.227536.66.0_6.pdf

I expect that the most consequential part of the opinion will be Judge Mehta's analysis indicating that Trump's speech to the crowd on January 6 is not protected by the First Amendment under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). This is plausibility analysis under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and not probable cause for criminal purposes. but I hope the Department of Justice pays attention.

Put Donald Trump in front of a District of Columbia jury, and he's toast.