Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

I get the impression that the Ukraine War may be a military watershed for tanks, comparable to the WW II watershed for battleships. In both cases, surface-bound, expensive armored contraptions discover they are decisively vulnerable to less-costly, flimsy flying machines.

It also looks as if the entire notion of manned aerial warfare may be doomed to obsolescence on a schedule notably shorter than American military planning contemplates. Further development of surface-to-air missiles—which reportedly can already detect targets at the distance which separates New York from D.C., and which can traverse that distance in 3 minutes or less—may have discouraging implications for manned aerial combat.

At a minimum, that technical trend suggests that the U.S. AWACS aerial combat edge will have to be re-engineered, to put the AWACS component somewhere safer, like in orbit, if that is possible—or if it would even supply advantage. Maybe an orbiting AWACS could be shot down in less than 3 minutes. Anyway, who would undertake a project so expensive, with such a long lead time?

It begins to look like the U.S. long-term commitment to manned aerial combat is doomed to prove an astonishingly expensive bad guess about the future.

Increasingly, the implication seems to be that if you want to win a major war decisively, you will have to use nukes to do it. And nobody has figured out how to win that way. Knowing that has proved a saving principle. Forgetting it would be the most dangerous impulse imaginable. Which probably means a new initiative is coming, to once again, "Think the unthinkable."

This Ukraine War is proving much more upsetting than I expected even a few months ago.

[AmosArch]

This is a renaissance, particularly for drone warfare. They're all over the place in all sorts of different roles. In the long term we'll have robots doing the fighting with small teams of highly trained operatives.

[Krayt]

The future is ever tinier drones, especially the joy of micro spy drones.

And micro assassin drones. They'll eventually be in the museum at the CIA right next to the poison-tipped umbrella. Assuming some ass doesn't crank out 100 billion and kill the world.

[James Pollock]

You're thinking of "Terminator" but actually you should be looking again at "Starship Troopers"

"The enemy cannot push the button, if the enemy does not have a hand"- Training Sergeant Zim, answering the question of why the recruits were still learning how to fight with knives.

[KiwiLib]

SAMs are great at hitting targets that move smoothly on a simple trajectory. Aircraft that are aware that they are being targeted are in fact very difficult targets as the missiles only have a limited amount of kinetic energy to adjust their path once they have finished their boost.

Hence why the skies over the Ukraine are not instant death for either Ukrainian or Russian aircraft. There is risk and those that miss the signs of an attack are in danger, but they're not an death ray device.

[James Pollock]

It doesn't take a very large solid object to knock a jet-turbine-diriven aircraft out of the sky. An average-size duck can do it, and so can a .22 bullet, if you can deliver it to the right spot.

[Kazinski]

Well first of all air superiority still seems to be very important in the Ukraine war, whether drones or MIGS, and the F35 has not seen any combat so no conclusions can be drawn about it's effectiveness. In fact Germany just announced an order for 35 F-35, and FInland announced an order for 64 F-35's in December for 11 billion, it's largest defense procurement ever.

[Krayt]

and the F35 has not seen any combat so no conclusions can be drawn about it's effectiveness

It's very effective in that it might start WWIII.

[Jerry B.]

I thought Trump started WWIII a while ago.

[James Pollock]

" the F35 has not seen any combat"

Not with American pilots, no. But Israel has F-35s, too

[John F. Carr]

The imminent obsolescence of the manned fighter and supremacy of missiles has been predicted since the 1950s. It could happen, but you're in the position of a fusion power advocate saying "this will be the decade."

As for tanks, depends on where you want to fight. The war in Ukraine is taking place in different terrain than the more traditional battle of 73 Easting.

[James Pollock]

The missiles they had in the 1950s are not comparable to the missiles we have now. During the Vietnam War, US domination of the skies was so thorough, we basically had to assume anything you could see on radar was one of ours, taking away the advantage of the AIM-7, which is that you can fire it long before you can see the target visually. The AIM-7 missile can only home on its target if the airplane that fires it can keep the target in radar, which gets harder and harder to do the closer the attacker gets to the target. By the time you are in visual range and confirm "hey, that's not one of ours", you're too close to effectively use an AIM-7, and you should switch to an AIM-9 or AIM-120 (or to 20mm cannon, if you got one, which the F-4C ain't.)

The point you're glossing over, though, isn't whether or not NATO using American weapons could defeat the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A-10s vs. tanks? I know which side I'd bet on. The question is whether NATO using American weapons could defeat the Russian forces in Ukraine without inviting a nuclear attack from Russia? to which the answer is "probably not", which causes the question to tumble back to "can the Ukrainian forces in Ukraine defeat the Russian forces in Ukraine?"

[Kazinski]

I am not sure the the Ukrainians can win, but if we provide every stinger, Javelin, NLAW, and drone we can we can pretty much make sure the Russians can’t win either.

Not only is that a worthy goal in its own right, it should give China a lot of pause in its estimation of the costs and benefits of of invading Taiwan.

If a flattened Taiwan is worth having, if a functional high tech Taiwan is the goal, that looks like it may be harder to achieve than they previously thought.

[James Pollock]

Just a thought, but if we give all our weapons to Ukraine, then maybe China will decide that yeah, they can take Taiwan pretty easily since we won't have any weapons left to give to the locals.

I am also not certain that Ukraine can win, but being the home team has some advantages that even a massive oversupply of cool, state-of-the-art equipment can't solve, if the leadership actually believes they will be greeted as liberators to the exclusion of evidence. The Russians had a chance to learn this once before, in Afghanistan, before we got a chance to also learn this lesson from Afghanistan.

[Doug Huffman]

You may be behind current developments.

UAV and UCAV are a maturing technology, with UCAV reaching carrier qualifications. All current and developing air superiority fighters have un-piloted versions in development.

Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS operate extra-theater. NG E-2 Hawkeye carrier based AWACS is limited in flight hours.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Re: Tanks.

That's hard to say. This may just be poor military philosophy by the Russians. It's long been the case that a combined arms approach (Tanks supported by infantry) is best, precisely to avoid the current situation.

Re: Manned aircraft
-Unlikely. SAMS have been around a long time, and the US had a long long history of fighting SAMS in Vietnam, and developing the appropriate doctrine against them, and then in Iraq, where proper suppression techniques combined with stealth technology comprehensively defeated them. The Russians simply aren't using the correct doctrine to suppress and destroy the Ukranian SAMS

re: AWACS
AWACS have always been aware of SAMS and detect aircraft from well outside the range of most (if not all) SAMS.

Re: winning a major war decisively:
US did fine in Iraq. Russia may just be incompetant

[Longtobefree]

Well, they planned an armored attack over frozen ground, and did not change the plan when the ground did not freeze. If not incompetent, real close. The difference in the Russian results and the US results is the longer term commitment of our volunteers, and the short term draftee service of Russia. Not to mention a vast difference in logistics.
What bothers me now is the Russians digging in to defensive positions. Something about a Schlieffen Plan - - - - - - - -

[Bob from Ohio]

"Russians digging in to defensive positions"

They don't have the infantry to defend fixed positions in all of the Ukraine they hold. Too many gaps will exist to flank the defenses.

If it comes to that, they will have to withdraw from the Kiev front at least.

[James Pollock]

"US did fine in Iraq."

When we stuck to standing back and shooting expensive missiles at sandcastles, sure we did. When it came time to put feet on the ground and capture the local hearts and minds and build a thriving open democratic free society, not so much. The difference between the first and second Iraq wars lies in what the victory conditions were considered to be. The first go-around, we considered it a win if there weren't any Iraqi tanks left operating in Kuwait. The second go-round, we upped the degree of difficulty, and labeled "winning" as "these people aren't supporting terrorist attacks against us or our allies." and we haven't achieved that goal just yet.

[YepThatGuy]

Relatedly, by virtue of my time spent in uniform, my various media feeds have been inundated with "ooh look at this armored convoy ripe for schwacking" articles and comments. I've been interested to see how rarely it gets pointed out that the US military has made Air Interdiction/Deep Air Support seem "so easy a caveman can do it," that war spectators expect said convoy to be lethally engaged at will. The truth is that effectively engaging a target like that Russian convoy from the air is anything but pedestrian. It takes far more than just a capable airframe. Our military is just so exceptionally lethal that we alone (or when leading a coalition) can do it.

[James Pollock]

If you can engage a column of armored ground vehicles from an A-10, you can inflict all sorts of damage on it. The A-10 is a remarkable weapon platform for engaging armored vehicles on the ground. But, they aren't nearly as adept at countering fighter aircraft.

[AmosArch]

Apparently Nazis...not just figurative nazis, literal card carrying nazis who forgot they despised all easterners are fighting against the Russians and for the ukrainians for some reason. Also literal nazis are supposedly fighting for the russians against the ukrainians as well as against the proukranian nazis. If nazis are now doing nothing but fighting and killing other nazis under the direction of Jews and virulently antiNazi slavs are they really still nazis?

[Michael P]

Forces like the Azov Battalion are part of Ukraine's forces, and seen pretty clearly of the white-supremacist neo-Nazi bent. It's a little ironic that they are currently fighting Russians, who they might otherwise view as "white", but I can't muster enjoyment for so many people dying even if many of them are terrible people.

I don't know what Russian forces are supposedly Nazis or Nazi-like, but the WW2 German Nazis were led by a non-Aryan and killed many white Europeans. I think it's reasonable both to keep calling them "Nazis", and to keep calling groups like the Azov Battalion "neo-Nazis". The core of the identity is a combination of racial/ethnic supremacist beliefs and wanting a fascist government, and Azov Battalion members seem to retain that combination even though they are killing Russians at the moment.

Of course, Putin is wrong that that (accurate) label justifies his invasion of Ukraine.

[James Pollock]

Can't we just use the same system we've always used, and label anyone we want to shoot as "Nazis" and get on with the shooting?

[Michael P]

So you're not only stupid and fanatical, but pro-Russian, too. Figures.

[James Pollock]

You're talking to your mirror again.

[Kazinski]

I got a flip a coin to figure out whether commies or Nazis come first on my kill list.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"are they really still nazis?"

Not for any realistic definition.

[AmosArch]

I know he patted himself on the back for this already but I'm glad Eugene is one of the growing countertrend of people who admit they know very little rather than kneejerk virtue signal and lecture about the latest cause du jour. Maybe it will become fashionable to not be an insufferable know it all saint some day.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" rather than kneejerk virtue signal and lecture about the latest cause du jour "

That is a relatively sound description of The Volokh Conspiracy, which repetitively and misleadingly nips at the ankles of mainstream America, lathering a carefully cultivated collection of conservative fans.

[John F. Carr]

Quote of the week for me, from military writer Josh Brooks about a video of a burning city taken by a resident: "I'm not going to propagandize this piece by trying to make you feel emotionally attached to the individual in this video. Instead, I'm going to remind you of the fact that scenes like this have played out time and time again for the last twenty years, and tell you that the rest of the world gave precisely zero fucks when it wasn't happening in Eastern Europe to people who look and live like them. You don't need to look far to see scenes similar to this in places like Armenia, Syria, Malaysia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Yet, somehow the world turned an entirely blind eye to the conflicts that were, no scratch that, still are happening in those countries."

For video content, despite the spectacular combat footage and a couple good music videos, I'll go with a girl who might have been 9 years old talking about making Molotov cocktails.

[Michael P]

The world has not turned a blind eye to those conflicts. The US has a prolonged intervention in Syria, for example, and one of the memorable moments of the 2016 presidential campaign was Gary Johnson's "where's Aleppo?" moment. It was memorable precisely because so many Americans knew not only where it was, but the unjustness of the warfare there, and Johnson came across as provincially ignorant. Similarly, the US stayed in Iraq and Afghanistan for a very long time to try to minimize the chaos there. One can argue whether we helped or hurt that cause, but we certainly applied a lot of resources to try to change things in those countries.

The real difference is that those other conflicts did not involve such a blatant war of aggression. It's not that we care about the racial or ethnic identities of the people getting getting killed now, but that -- in a Cold War throwback -- Russia is invading a neighbor. For the second time in a decade. We didn't even care so much when Russia effectively annexed Crimea in 2014.

[not me]

Not "where's Aleppo?" It was "what's a leppo?"
Completely different kind of misunderstanding.

[ducksalad]

Keep in mind it's only been a month. There was saturation coverage just like this during the first month of Iraq and Afghanistan. Eventually when the situation "stabilizes" into an ongoing level of violence the media and viewers become less interested. If this war goes on for six months it won't be the daily headline anymore.

Similarly, Syria, Malaysia, and Nigeria are all long term conflicts that have been going on for years. They never got the 72 point banner CNN headlines because they gradually escalated, there was never a single specific day when war was declared and 100,000 troops crossed the border.

[John F. Carr]

The point of Brooks' writing was not just about the level of coverage but the point of view. There's "the generals sat and the lines on the map moved from side to side." Pretty explosions seen from a distance. And there's the point of view from the civilian side. Civilians presented as innocent bystanders rather than villagers who probably turn into VC insurgents by night.

Syria got the most coverage of the minor, escalating wars. Even with that attention Obama's "red line" turned out to be a bluff. America was willing to look the other way.

[John F. Carr]

Speaking of red lines, there is a White House working group to decide what to do when Russia uses WMD. The leaks to date warn that radioactive fallout on NATO countries would start discussion about whether to treat the fallout as an attack, while chemical weapons would have Liz Cheney upset. (Cue Stalin: "How many divisions does Liz Cheney have?")

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/biden-russia-nuclear-weapons.html

[David Bremer]

Another big difference with this war is that it takes Russia - who was our rival and enemy - right up next to countries that we've committed to defend in an attack. And they were doing it with the tacit approval of China, who is posed to be our next big rival for 50+ years.

On top of that, the aggressor still happens to have about 6,000 nuclear warheads pointed at us or our allies. That's why we pay attention to North Korea in a way that we don't pay attention to those other countries.

When the attack happened in Ukraine, I had to ask myself what I would do with my family in the event nuclear warheads start flying. When wars happened in Armenia, Syria, Malaysia, Nigeria, and even Afghanistan and Iraq, I could shrug because I knew there was no way they could destroy my city.

[James Pollock]

"When wars happened in Armenia, Syria, Malaysia, Nigeria, and even Afghanistan and Iraq, I could shrug because I knew there was no way they could destroy my city."

That's the kind of confidence New Yorkers had until September, 2001. We've been fortuneate that, except for Pearl Harbor, the US has fought its wars in other people's countries since 1865. Uncle Vladdy has had some of his rivals poisoned outside of Russia. We know they have missiles that could reach us but they could also attack by surfacing a submarine in Boston harbor and setting off a big ol' Tsar Bomba.

[James Pollock]

"When the attack happened in Ukraine, I had to ask myself what I would do with my family in the event nuclear warheads start flying."

The still-glowing atoms that used to be yourself and your family will probably just drift with the prevailing winds, ignoring your hypothetical wishes to do otherwise.

[John F. Carr]

Does anybody remember the Italian invasion of Greece in 1940? Stopped in a month, pushed back in another month. The cheerleaders in Western media want this week to be seen as a turning point where Ukraine goes on the offensive.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I remember the Greeks were only really defeated when the Germans stepped in

[Stephen Lathrop]

Also, Clarence Thomas, may he recover soon. But when he does, will anyone expect him someday to make a surprising recusal, declaring that unbeknownst to the public, his wife is getting political money from a party with business before the Court? Has Thomas ever recused?

[Moderation4ever]

I was also wondering about Justice Thomas and recusals in some cases. The participation of the Justice's wife Ginni in January 6 activities would indicate a conflict of interest in cases regarding the 6th and in cases on the 2020 election. There is no indication at this time of Mrs. Thomas's involvement other than her presences, but her presence does suggest a level of support for the former President's conspiracy theories.

[Michael P]

"The participation of the Justice's wife Ginni in January 6 activities would indicate a conflict of interest in cases regarding the 6th and in cases on the 2020 election."

No, that wouldn't indicate a conflict of interest. Spouses of Supreme Court justices are allowed to have opinions.

What would create a conflict of interest, or appearance of impropriety, was if she or an employer/client was a party to a case before the court, or if there was any other apparent (non-trivial) pecuniary interest in the outcome.

[not guilty]

Martin Ginsburg and Jane Thomas each left the practice of law when their spouses were elevated to the Supreme Court. Mrs. Thomas's activities for hire provide a conduit for parties with business before SCOTUS to put biscuits on the Thomas family breakfast table.

Justice Uncle Thomas for several years filed false financial disclosures which omitted his wife's earnings. I don't know how that is anything other than criminal according to 18 U.S.C. 1001, but no Attorney General had the stones to prosecute.

[not guilty]

Excuse me. That should be Jane Roberts. I wish we had an edit feature.

[Michael P]

"Justice Uncle Thomas". The admittedly ignorant person is also blatantly racist. The only sad part is that none of this is news about you.

[Kazinski]

Yeah he got muted for that.

The substance was pretty marginal anyway. But the racism easily cancels that out.

[not guilty]

Can you defend the filing of false financial disclosures? How is that not an 18 U.S.C. 1001 violation?

[James Pollock]

The things is, when crimes are done by people on OUR side, they aren't really crimes, only when they're done by people on THEIR side is there any outrage.

[VinniUSMC]

Justice Uncle Thomas

Says the fucking racist cunt.

[DaveM]

Meh, mere attendance is innocuous. Shoot, one could argue that the entire Supreme Court was "in attendance" on January 6th if they were physically present in DC. Disagree with me? Well, make your case on how far one has to be physically away from something to no longer be "in attendance". We'll be here all day.

[James Pollock]

There's a difference between "participation" and "attendance". you're skipping over.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Serious question - does a spouse having an opinion automatically merit a recusal?

Just to pick one, Thurgood Marshall’s second wife - after his wife while he was on the SC - was a civil rights activist. Surely you’re not suggesting that Marshall should have recused from cases related to civil rights.

I doubt I agree with Mrs Thomas about 1/6 and I’m absolutely certain that Trump’s 2020 election stuff is bullshit, but I’m not sure that if any of those cases made it there that it should be a no-brained recusal from Thomas.

[bernard11]

does a spouse having an opinion automatically merit a recusal?

No. But the calls for Thomas to recuse are not because his wife has an opinion. They are because she is an activist - a very active one it seems - taking strong sides on issues that may come before the court.

To make an analogy, suppose you were CEO of a company being sued over some alleged wrongdoing - perhaps an environmental violation that is being blamed for lots of health problems, including some deaths. Now the judge's wife marches around with signs saying "Bevis Inc. is a bunch of murderers," or "Close down the Bevis polluters," or even is on the board of an organization helping to sponsor the lawsuit and pushing the argument in the media.

Now what?

[Stephen Lathrop]

bevis, an opinion, automatically, no.

A spouse who takes bucks for political influence, who has the president's chief of staff of speed dial, while folks all around the president were plotting a coup, yeah. And for non-recusal, an impeachment.

[Moderation4ever]

I think that we are seeing Mrs. Thomas being very close to the movement to overturn the 2020 election. New information suggests that Justice Thomas's vote on the release of the former President's documents may have been influenced by his wife and may have been intended to shield her.

I think that Justice Thomas must recuse in cases regarding the investigation of what happened on January 6th.

[John F. Carr]

A quick search found a number of recusals from orders and decisions to accept petitions. I do not know the answer for merits decisions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The most recent one I could find on Westlaw is Watters v. Wachovia Bank, 550 U.S. 1 (2007). Based on other recusals in cases involving Wachovia, I would imagine this was based on his or a family member's financial interest in the company.

[Commenter_XY]

What is on my mind? George Washington, and his advice to the young Republic to avoid foreign entanglement. Ukraine is a case in point. Ukraine is not America's fight. America should not become ensnared in Ukraine.

All the war talk....does anyone think maybe it is time to quietly start about talking peace, and what that peace looks like to Zelenskyy and Putin? Hopefully that is the message that POTUS Biden brings to Europe very soon: America can and will militarily protect our NATO allies; but, that Ukraine is not a vital American interest. And, that it is time to talk less publicly with the media, and to have more talk quietly with Putin and Zelenskyy. Compromises will be made. It is that simple. Start acknowledging those compromises (e.g. Crimea is gone).

It is easy to get into wars. Just look at the last 75 years. Staying out of wars is harder. Just listen to our press coverage, and listen to our representatives in Congress. They are very incautious in their words. Getting out of wars is damned hard. Think Afghanistan.

So George Washington is very much on my mind these days.

[apedad]

American foreign policy from 230 years ago doesn't apply here in the 21st century.

We are a global power with leadership and (strong) influence in all areas: diplomatic, finances, military, international organizations, etc.

And yes, we want to be the leaders and not followers - and definitely not isolationists.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad...I prefer the term non-interventionalist; it is far more accurate than isolationist.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Unfortunately, that doesn't really work these days. The US is a world leader. If we "step aside"...then someone else will take those shoes...whether that be China or Russia.

And there are problems with that, if you like things like "freedom" and "democracy"

[Commenter_XY]

AL: We disagree. First on the likelihood others taking on the mantle, and second their ability to carry it off. China bears watching; they can. I am not worried about the Russians; they cannot.

There are times where American can and must defend it's vital national interest. Ukraine is not a vital US national interest. There is zero need for the US to intervene in that conflict.

[Michael P]

You don't think Russia can successfully intervene in foreign countries? They have bankrolled a lot of green groups in the Western world -- and achieved their goal of using that to increase dependency on Russian petroleum exports. Until their recent misstep, they have also been quite successful in expanding their suite of satellite/client states.

[Commenter_XY]

Michael P....I can appreciate the wider perspective you use regarding intervene. I don't disagree with the wider conceptual framework you articulate. To answer you directly...No, I do not think Russia has the staying power to force through a successful conclusion on their terms. Energy (oil, gas) is pretty fungible. It is a question of dollars and cents. And Europe can pay a lot more Euros to sustain themselves than Russia has Rubles to support their isolated economy for years.

China OTOH, does have the means and capacity.

[apedad]

China OTOH, does have the means and capacity . . . and has been active in Africa and Latin America for decades.

"Since 2000 China has emerged as Africa’s largest trading partner."

"For the five-year period between 2015 and 2019, China’s President Xi Jinping set ambitious goals for exchange with the Latin American and Caribbean region (LAC): $500 billion in trade and $250 billion in direct investment."

(quotes from http://www.brookings.edu)

I was in Uganda in 1994 and the Chinese were funding the construction of a massive sports stadium.

[Michael P]

Yes, China is spending quite a lot to gain stature in the developing world -- the Belt and Road Initiative is a huge undertaking. A lot of the projects seem to be designed as debt traps, unfortunately. In the long run, China is the more formidable competitor, although in the short run, Russia has a lot more nukes.

[Don Nico]

"Russia has a lot more nukes."
But so far is not using any of them. However, the risks of the use of low yield (1 - 2 kT) weapons is serious. Nonetheless any active military engagement in this war by NATO would be foolhardy, unless one is itching for an all out general war.

[Michael P]

Correct, they're not using them. But those nukes are ultimately why the US will not put boots on the ground, or a no-fly zone in the air, in Ukraine.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, yeah China and America are going to lock horns over Taiwan. And Taiwan is a vital US national interest by virtue of their semi-conductor production (about 40% of world supply, and about 60% to 70% of America's supply).

Your points are extremely well-taken relative to Africa, and especially Central and South America.

[Don Nico]

If the war spreads beyond Ukraine, be prepared to see a Chinese invasion of Taiwan while the US is preoccupied

[Commenter_XY]

You are correct, Don Nico.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The US is prepared to fight a war on both sides of Eurasia, if needed.

[bernard11]

I'm not so sure China wants to invade Taiwan.

They'd be glad to annex it, sure, but take it by force? I doubt it.

Why does Russia want Ukraine? Aside from the ego-tripping, which is not to be minimized, maybe grain, natural resources, plus of course a buffer against NATO.

So what does China want from Taiwan? It's not a buffer of any kind. Are they going to destroy all those semi-conductor plants and other high-tech facilities? Drive out a highly educated population?

Besides, there's the small matter of the Straits of Taiwan, and the massive trade between the US and both China and Taiwan.

So what exactly would be the object?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bernard,

From the Chinese perspective, Taiwan is part of China. There is only one China. And Taiwan is part of it. The object is to unify China, as it should be.

[bernard11]

A.L.,

Sure. Xi could go on a Putinesque ego trip.

But I don't think anyone has made the case that he necessarily will. The conditions are much different than in the Russia-Ukraine situation.

[Michael P]

Bernard, the One-China policy has been a very long-standing and important tenet of Chinese politics -- for a long time, even the government in Taiwan officially held that there is only one Chinese state, and Taiwan is part of it. Trying to unify the governance through military force could just be the PRC government striving to "unify the governments". (Similarly, I do not think China's breach of its promises about governance in Hong Kong was the result of an ego trip, but of the CCP predictably applying its long-standing policies and practices.)

[bernard11]

Trying to unify the governance through military force could just be the PRC government striving to "unify the governments".

As I said, they could try. I do not deny that world leaders, like everyone else, occasionally behave irrationally, out of ego, ambition, stupidity, whatever. (Though Xi doesn't strike me as stupid.)

But it makes zero sense, in part because very little of the rationale for Putin trying to take Ukraine applies to China and Taiwan.

[Michael P]

Oil and gas are fungible, but that's not the mechanism through which Russia influences Europe and the US -- it's by convincing us to give up coal and nuclear and using more oil and gas. Then it's by making Russian petroleum products easier for Europe in particular to get, whether that's by building Nord Stream 2 or by blocking the EastMed pipeline.

Russia also intervenes by deploying quasi-military forces, like in Syria and Crimea; by funding violent and separatist groups; by propping up autocrats; and the occasional outright invasion, as in Georgia and Ukraine.

All of that had been working quite well, and looked very sustainable until they deeply underestimated how strongly Ukrainians would fight back.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Commentor,

There are different levels of intervention. And I'm not proposing the US intervene more than it already is in Ukraine, outside a wild escalation occurring.

But strict "non-intervention" just leaves the proverbial table open for others. And it doesn't necessarily take much. It's not always about hard military power. Often it's soft power, economic or military support, the threat of intervention, which can provide enough support or persuasion to shift things in a pro-freedom, pro-democracy manner.

[Commenter_XY]

AL...I am actually Ok with other countries projecting their 'soft' power. In fact, I much prefer that scenario: many countries (not just 3-4) projecting their 'soft' power. That actually keeps the peace.

Nor do I think America needs to 'evangelize' democracy. We tried that....in Iraq. Didn't work. We tried that in Afghanistan. Didn't work. We tried that in Vietnam. Didn't work.

I think I articulated very clear lines of 'how much' to intervene in Ukraine, and what red lines we should have. Where do you really differ?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nor do I think America needs to 'evangelize' democracy. We tried that....in Iraq. Didn't work. We tried that in Afghanistan. Didn't work. We tried that in Vietnam. Didn't work."

The problem is that it takes about 50-75 years and we don't have the stomach to wait that long. But it's worth it, democratic countries have fewer incentive to get into wars.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TwelveInch, I disagree on the time frame. The British got the democracy job partly done in India. It took just short of 200 years, starting in 1757. It is beginning to look like that lesson may not take long-term.

Checking world-wide, and ignoring cases of outright conquest, like our own, can you think of any more successful imposition of democracy by an outside power than that one?

My picks as alternative choices would be Germany and Japan following WW II. Problem is, those are both exceptional cases, where domestic politics had utterly discredited itself, and brought on a catastrophic interruption of domestic sovereignty. That experience seems to have instilled over a short interval a widespread desire among people in each nation to imitate the methods which defeated their respective tyrannies. Where do you suppose anything like that is happening now?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The British got the democracy job partly done in India. It took just short of 200 years, starting in 1757."

The British themselves weren't a Democracy in 1757.

"My picks as alternative choices would be Germany and Japan following WW II."

Exactly. We still have military bases in those countries, 75 years after the war.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Commenter,

Soft power helps...but it has to be backed up with hard power, or at least the threat of hard power, when necessary. It's hard to believe, but there really hasn't been that much "international" war (where one country invades...and conquers another) since WWII, (With the notable exception of the US). That threat of hard power kept a lot of wars from happening.

In terms of "evangelizing democracy" that's not quite the right wording, and wasn't really the reason behind any of the wars you mention.

I think our positions are actually fairly close, but it's the appearance of willingness to use hard power that is important.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with Commenter's refinement on GW's exhortation.

Foreign entanglements have turned out very well for us.

Foreign intervention, especially post-WW2 have been a much more mixed bag.
A prohibition isn't needed, but we do need to think a bit harder than we do about our victory conditions when considering whether to boots on the ground it.

[James Pollock]

"Ukraine is not a vital US national interest. There is zero need for the US to intervene in that conflict."

Depends on whether or not you think turning our backs on Ukraine is likely to lead Putin and the Russian leadership to start looking at other potential pushovers we won't defend, and whether their assessment of places we won't defend matches with ours.
Suppose they decide they want "their" half of Germany back. Is that our problem?

[bernard11]

The problem with not intervening is that you then have to live with the consequences of whatever it is you didn't intervene in.

Further, you greenlight other aggressions.

That's not to say we haven't been stupid about a lot of things, but not all things.

I think helping Ukraine is justified on purely realistic grounds. Russian expansion is undesireable from our POV and that of NATO in general. Putin is plainly a would-be emperor.

How does the Russian invasion of Ukraine compare to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, your point is nebulous = Further, you greenlight other aggressions. Really...green light other aggressions? Bullshit, bernard11. That is the type of facile, unthinking, throwaway analysis that gets us into meaningless wars with amorphous goals and indefinite ends; and kills thousands of our troops. It is the story of the last 75 years. No thanks.

Your other question is easy to answer. Kuwait (but really, it was contiguity to KSA that made the difference) did represent a vital US national interest. Saddam was about to control 40% of the world oil supply and openly declared his intent to do so. Ukraine does not represent a vital US national interest. Far from it. That is the difference in a nutshell.

Putin is a sophisticated operator. America would do well to remember this, and speak and act accordingly (which we are notably not doing). Putin is a very, very capable enemy. And to be crystal clear: I am utterly convinced Putin is an enemy. It is not wrong to listen to what he says, and understand his perspective in order to reach a modus vivendi.

[Ridgeway]

All that, plus Russia has nukes.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If nuclear weapons didn't exist or Russia didn't have them the calculus would surely be much different.

[Don Nico]

I would not be quite so sure. A general war (conventional) would be ruinous.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Of course. But I think the reason the calculus might change is that given the Russian's capabilities (or lack there of), more direct intervention (like a no-fly zone, or more overt targeting support, or military advisers on the ground), might not lead to such a war because Russia might simply collapse under all that pressure. This of course assumes Russia is also diplomatically isolated and China/India or another larger power aren't willing to intervene directly as well.

[Don Nico]

LTG,
Russia has already demonstrated its weapon of choice (Mach 10 hypersonics) if it finds the skies to dangerous for its pilots.
With a 1 to 2 kt warhead that would be a terrifying, unstopble weapon.
I find it far more likely that Russia would use a small theater nuke than "collapse under the pressure." Russian military doctrine consider the use of nuclear weapons in far more circumstances that the US and the UK. All of which is a strong influence on the US Nuclear Posture Review.

[Don Nico]

"And suppose you did win a conventional war with Russia. What have you got?"
A lot of dead soldiers.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If there were no WMDs, based on the Russian response so far, I would expect a US military involvement. And crushing successes by the US.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, what you would expect is what Napolean expected, and what Hitler expected. Hitler especially relied on demonstrable Russian unreadiness. Nevertheless, from a conventional military standpoint, Russia remains very hard to get at, and features a military advantage unique in the world—the ability to retreat until it wins. And suppose you did win a conventional war with Russia. What have you got?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"And suppose you did win a conventional war with Russia. What have you got?"

A free Ukraine.

[David Nieporent]

bernard11, your point is nebulous = Further, you greenlight other aggressions. Really...green light other aggressions? Bullshit, bernard11.

In early 1950, SoS Acheson gave a speech in which he pointedly left South Korea outside of the U.S. defensive perimeter in Asia. Shortly after, the North Koreans invaded.

That is the type of facile, unthinking, throwaway analysis that gets us into meaningless wars with amorphous goals and indefinite ends; and kills thousands of our troops. It is the story of the last 75 years. No thanks.

When has the U.S. gotten into wars with amorphous goals and indefinite ends? That has never been our problem. Our problem has been sometimes getting into wars with overambitious and unachievable goals, not amorphous ones. But what does that have to do with Ukraine? That's entire clear.

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear, what exactly are you arguing? That we shouldn't send troops to Ukraine? Because if you are, you're arguing against a strawman; nobody is suggesting that.

[Don Nico]

Maybe he is suggesting the "no fly zone" trap.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes = no fly, and also to the steady, slow racheting up of the bellicose and increasingly personal 'war language'.

We need conciliation and contemplation, not confrontation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, but guess what you get when you reward confrontation with conciliation?

[bernard11]

I hear Putin does a wonderful rendition of "Kumbaya."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, I agree with you. I tried last week to take a piece of what you suggest, and graft on to it a more-aggressive defense for Ukraine—with reduced U.S. presence—shortly down the road. That did not get far with these commenters.

Like before, folks responding will reflexively bring up appeasement, and suppose that settles the question. Given how WW II played out, with the good guys utterly triumphant, and in possession of an unchallenged moral advantage, I do not understand why skeptical commenters here are so sure Chamberlain is a useful counter-example.

Chamberlain is the customary counter-example, for sure. But the appeasement accusation is, for all its dramatic potential, entirely imaginary. It invokes a historical counter-factual. It never happened. There is nothing to point to. Historical arguments ought to be treated skeptically when they come in the form, "I win. I made up a scenario where you lose."

[Don Nico]

SL,
I find few examples of any knowledge or understanding of current Russian military doctrine among the commenters who complain that restraint = appeasement.
The attempt to paint Putin into a corner may satisfy them while they're safe 4000 miles away. But it will be paid for by Unkrainians

[David Nieporent]

Okay, well, that's a bit less of a strawman; some people are arguing that. But it's still mostly a strawman, in that I don't think anyone is seriously considering it.

[James Pollock]

"bernard11, your point is nebulous = Further, you greenlight other aggressions. Really...green light other aggressions? Bullshit, bernard11. That is the type of facile, unthinking, throwaway analysis that gets us into meaningless wars with amorphous goals and indefinite ends; and kills thousands of our troops. It is the story of the last 75 years. No thanks."

That's the lesson of pre-WWII Europe. Surely, after they get the Sudetenland, the Germans will be satisfied. After all, nobody wants war, right? Right?

[Armchair Lawyer]

1. The US isn't militarily intervening in Ukraine, unless something dramatic happens. Don't worry.

2. Zelenskyy would love peace, and has been pushing for it. Putin thinks otherwise. Takes 2 to tango.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree here. Zelensky will cut a deal if Putin will come to the table. The problem for Putin is that making peace makes him look the loser. Being a loser is a bad thing for authoritative leaders.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe quietly ask Putin out of the public eye what he can live with? That might be a good start. NATO can also start by toning down the incautious language at their highest political levels of leadership. But telling politicians to be circumspect in language and tone is like telling a toddler they cannot have ice cream while parked in front of a Dairy Queen watching other toddlers enjoy ice cream.

On the flip side, absolutely do not oppose the Europeans providing weapons to Ukraine; and America resupplies Europe. Strategically, NATO has to reduce Russian capacity to invade NATO countries by reducing Russian combat power. If you believe the press, roughly 10% of Russian combat power has been lost. We are half way there (need a net reduction of 20% combat power loss to forestall the Russians moving westward into a NATO country). The Russian (and Soviets before them) provided weaponry to our foes in American past conflicts that killed a lot of American troops. Sorry Vlad, but turnabout is fair play.

Putin is at the table with Zelenskyy. Putin will cut a deal when a) his military and political objectives are met, or b) it becomes untenable to stay. That will take time. Think months and months, not days and weeks.

In the meantime....we should continue to send combat reinforcements to NATO countries. We now have sufficient combat power in Europe to clean Russia's clock in a straight-up conventional battle if he invades a NATO country. Putin knows it, so do we. America has articulated a very clear line: Vlad, don't fuck with NATO countries; it will be a very bad day for you. And you've had some bad days recently.

America needs to creatively and adeptly find potential exit ramps for Russia (and Ukraine BTW) and think through the compromises that will be needed to end the conflict (independent of Europe). They (Russia, Ukraine) must be able to live with the solution; not America (or even Europe, for that matter). Ukraine is not an EU member, and not a NATO member. Moldova is in a very tough spot; they need to make a hard choice fast (I personally think the window for them closed this week to join NATO).

As I said above....getting into wars is very, very easy. We have 75 years of recent history to look at. Staying out and especially getting out of wars is much harder. Let's not do that, this time.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Maybe quietly ask Putin out of the public eye what he can live with? That might be a good start."

I'm almost positive this has already been done. At this point, what Putin can "live with", Ukraine can't live with however. Putin needs a win.

In my mind, Ukraine can't live with "demilitarizing Ukraine" because Russian security guarantees are worthless. "Demilitarizing Ukraine" just means Russia will invade again in 5 years, and face no opposition.

[Both Sides]

Agreed.

[Commenter_XY]

AL....Our leaders are too busy trying to outdo each other and being seen as 'bashing' Russia, along with generally going about trying to destroy Russia's economy. I don't have any issue with sanctions; they're a tool to be used.

I have a much bigger issue with the incautious language, and it is this aspect that leads me to believe that no one is seriously engaging Putin right now. That is a bad move.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Commenter,

I'd point you towards the linked article. If you wanted a party to mediate these talks, it's best to have a 3rd party without as much of a clear preference for one side or another. Like Turkey or Israel.

https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/diplomacy/russia-views-turkish-israeli-mediation-efforts-favorably-lavrov

The Americans and Europeans are unabashadly pro-Ukraine in this fight. I'm sure there are some quiet back channels going on, to the extent possible. Saying one thing loudly and doing another in private is half the definition of diplomacy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, I too wince when I hear that language.

Whether anyone is engaging Putin is a little hard to tell. War negotiations tend to involve initiatives from the side which recently scored a victory, and reluctance from the recent loser. In any case, discussions cannot afford to acknowledge any of that publicly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" Compromises will be made. It is that simple. Start acknowledging those compromises (e.g. Crimea is gone)."

Sounds like a recipe for another European war in a few years when Russia improves its military. Do you have an approach that changes the game long-term?

[Commenter_XY]

TIP....Open a map and look at Crimea. Do you really think that Russia is going to just give up Sevastopol? Seriously? C'mon TIP, I think we both know that isn't going to happen.

Crimea is gone. It is a 'cost free' concession that can be made, simply by acknowledging this. That is the realpolitik. To make peace, one sometimes has to face uncomfortable truths. That is Crimea today.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Commenter,

There is de facto and de jure control. In terms of de facto control, Crimea is gone. De Jure? That's actually quite a significant give away. Especially since it was stolen from Ukraine just 8 years ago.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Cost free? We (especially the Ukrainians) are currently paying the cost for having ceded de-facto control in 2014, and there's no indication of how much higher the cost will become.

The cost of permitting annexation of territory by force has been shown to be unacceptably high. How much more do you want to pay for any concessions we make to temporarily get us out of this fix?

[Commenter_XY]

Can you tell me how the US is paying for Crimea, which has been host to Sevastopol for decades? Maybe there is some cost we have been paying since 2014...what exactly is that, TIP?

I will simply repeat: To make peace, one sometimes has to face uncomfortable truths. That is Crimea today.

Crimea is gone. Russia will not give up Sevastopol, period. It is the height of folly and disingenuous to the extreme to even think you can put Sevastopol on the negotiating chopping block. It is not 'wrong' to acknowledge that Crimea is now a part of Russia, if it is done in conjunction with ending the war on terms both parties can live with.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Commenter,

It is wrong to acknowledge Crimea is legally part of Russia. By mutually agreed upon treaty, Russia agreed that Crimea, including Sevestopol, was part of Ukraine. Russia then leased naval facilities in Sevestopol from Ukraine for a number of years.

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

Ukraine has never ceded legal authority over Crimea to Russia. Russia seized it by force in 2014, and Russia may have de facto control, but it is not legally part of Russia, by mutual treaty.

Is it unlikely that Russia will give it back? Sure. But legally ceding Crimea to Russia is a very high cost. Ukraine may settle for de facto control, while maintaining its claims.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Crimea is gone. Russia will not give up Sevastopol, period."

Russia already gave up Sevastopol.

"To make peace, one sometimes has to face uncomfortable truths. That is Crimea today."

No. The uncomfortable truth that you're unwilling to face is that behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated.

To make peace, you have to disincentivize war, not reward it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Can you tell me how the US is paying for Crimea, which has been host to Sevastopol for decades?"

Uh, the current war, the increased risk of confrontation involving NATO that the wrong response to the current war will entail, decreased stability in Europe, etc.

It's largely not our cost, but plenty of it is.

[Armchair Lawyer]

In terms of cost...

The Ukranians were simply overrun in Crimea in 2014. It was a poor showing, to say the least. What was the cost?

1. It made the Russians believe the rest of Ukraine would be an easy victory, which encouraged this war.
2. It offered the Russians a large southern flank to build up supplies and attack Ukraine from, which they've exploited.
3. The loss of territory is its own cost.

[James Pollock]

"Can you tell me how the US is paying for Crimea, which has been host to Sevastopol for decades? Maybe there is some cost we have been paying since 2014...what exactly is that, TIP?"

Look around, Inflation is spiking, led by fuel prices. Are you paying $2.60/gallon for gasoline? No? Me, either. And that's for gasoline that came from US sources.

[Jmaie]

"Cost free? We (especially the Ukrainians) are currently paying the cost for having ceded de-facto control in 2014, and there's no indication of how much higher the cost will become."

What price are "we" the United States paying? Other than he self-inflicted kinds, I mean.

[SimonP]

This comment is a good reminder of why we need sophisticated, smart people making foreign policy judgments, and not so-called "non-interventionalists" citing aphorisms.

The U.S. cares about Russia's invasion of Ukraine because the Baltics care about the invasion of Ukraine, and NATO cares about the Baltics, and the U.S. cares about NATO.

The U.S. cares about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, also, because both those countries are major exporters of wheat, and Russia is a major export of oil, which means that a prolonged military conflict between the two means widespread pain in the global economy (including ongoing inflation).

The U.S. cares about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, because a destabilized and wartorn Ukraine means massive refugee flows across Europe, which have been seen to have destabilizing effects throughout European politics. American interests are served by the major European states being run by globally-minded, pragmatic centrists backed by stable governing coalitions, rather than populist ideologues with a contempt for international order.

It's not just about protecting an imperfect democracy from being taken over by an autocratic madman, though it is partly about that. American interests get swept up into this just by virtue of having the world's largest economy, interconnected as it is with all of these nations. And don't forget that Putin has his own plans in meddling in our own politics (bracketing for now the extent to which he has been successful). We can't just let him do what he wants, as long as he isn't bombing American territory.

But I otherwise agree that compromise will be necessary. The problem is that Russia is not very trustworthy as a compromise partner. If we could have some assurance that a neutrality promise and concession of Crimea would be enough to end the conflict, I am sure that Zelensky would be happy to make that concession. But why would he? Remember the promises made when they gave up their nuclear weapons, and the Minsk Protocol.

Zelensky is also subject to political pressures that Putin is not. Putin can decide to strike any deal that he likes. But Zelensky cannot unilaterally agree to amend the Ukrainian Constitution or give up claims to the entire Donbas, without significant political resistance. That was part of the problem leading up to the invasion - every demand made by Putin was deliberately calculated to be politically impossible for Zelensky to concede.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But I otherwise agree that compromise will be necessary. The problem is that Russia is not very trustworthy as a compromise partner. "

If they were, they wouldn't have any leverage. It's the negotiate with terrorists problem.

[Bob from Ohio]

"we need sophisticated, smart people making foreign policy judgments,"

Unfortunately we have Joe Biden currently.

[bernard11]

Whatever you think of Biden, the idea of Trump making those judgments is terrifying.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, Biden put himself in a position to make those judgements when he withdrew from Afghanistan in a way that cleared up a lot of uncertainty about the likely US response to Putin's current actions.

I don't know if Trump would have withdrawn in a similar fashion or not.

[SimonP]

Nothing about Putin's strategy in Ukraine would have shifted if the U.S. had stayed in Afghanistan or somehow withdrawn in more orderly fashion.

Trump's timeline for withdrawing from Afghanistan would have been more rapid than Biden's, and we have no reason to believe that he would have better anticipated the collapse of the Afghan army's defense of the country or acted more preemptively to withdraw American diplomats or Afghan allies prior to the final takeover.

Putin's plan for Ukraine was a long time in coming and was in some ways tailor-made for a Trump presidency. Trump spent his entire term undermining NATO and would have been amenable to pulling troops and assets out of the Baltics in order to placate Putin, not understanding that doing so would spell the end of NATO. He would have called for Ukraine to give up large chunks of its territory and lectured Americans on how he never liked those Ukrainians anyway. And you can forget anything like the coordinated international efforts we're seeing to sanction Putin, the oligarchs, and the Russian economy. Putin's ostentatious military build-up would have provided a perfect backdrop for Trump to declare that he had averted war by giving Putin everything Putin wanted.

Like, you're not even thinking very hard about this. We know how Trump would have played this hand.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Putin's plan for Ukraine was a long time in coming and was in some ways tailor-made for a Trump presidency."

The fact that this didn't happen during the Trump presidency, but over a year into the Biden presidency, undermines that claim.

"Trump spent his entire term undermining NATO and would have been amenable to pulling troops and assets out of the Baltics in order to placate Putin, not understanding that doing so would spell the end of NATO. He would have called for Ukraine to give up large chunks of its territory and lectured Americans on how he never liked those Ukrainians anyway."

I don't know. There's reason to think that, but OTOH, Trump reversed the Obama policy and provided lethal aid to Ukraine, much of which was instrumental to resisting the invasion. As I said, Trump's response was uncertain.

[bernard11]

I don't know if Trump would have withdrawn in a similar fashion or not.

No. You don't. Neither do I. Of course, part of the problem was the deadline set by Trump's agreements with the Taliban.

And none of that has anything to do with "foreign policy judgments."

[SimonP]

It seems to me that Biden has done a great job of coordinating efforts to punish Putin for this war, within the political constraints and tools available to him. He is resisting Republican calls to escalate things into an open war with Russian troops, as well. Even the strategic ambivalence we're seeing from China right now - short of full-throated defense of the war - is something of a win.

His political messaging is horrible. But he's doing the right things.

[bernard11]

Exactly.

Can you imagine Trump rallying NATO, imposing the same kinds of sanctions on Russia, etc.?

Given his plain admiration for Putin it's plausible he would have done very little.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It seems to me that Biden has done a great job of coordinating efforts to punish Putin for this war, within the political constraints and tools available to him. He is resisting Republican calls to escalate things into an open war with Russian troops, as well..."

1. What Republican calls?

2. What's your evidence that Biden is causing anybody else to do anything differently than they would have? From what I've seen he's largely bungled the response about whether Poland should supply MIG's, for example.

[Sarcastr0]

Rob Portman.
Rick Scott.
Lindsey Graham didn't explicitly, but sure did shoot his mouth off in an unproductive way.

What's your evidence that Biden is causing anybody else to do anything differently than they would have? From what I've seen he's largely bungled the response about whether Poland should supply MIG's, for example.
...You do know who is leading these coalition sanctions, right? Sometimes I wonder if you read any news other than education outrage-bait.

[James Pollock]

"Unfortunately we have Joe Biden currently."

Unfortunately, the Republicans either didn't or couldn't offer anyone better last time around. Maybe next time.

[James Pollock]

"does anyone think maybe it is time to quietly start about talking peace, and what that peace looks like to Zelenskyy and Putin?"

Do you imagine that nobody in the Foreign Service has tried? Trump tried to burn all our bridges in Ukraine, but surely the Deep State can find somebody who remembers a time when the job of the State Department was NOT to pressure foreign governments to manufacture scandal for altering American elections...

[apedad]

US Military Members Who Survive Ukraine War May Face 'Consequences' at Home

"Members of the U.S. military who travel to Ukraine to join the fight against Russian troops in a grueling war and live to tell the tale may return home only to face administrative or legal ramifications."

"In fact, the U.S. has regularly been cited by Ukrainian officials as among the most (if not the most) prolific countries of origin, with more than 7,000 U.S. citizens having applied, according a figure provided to Newsweek by Ukraine's embassy in Washington, which noted that 'not all of them are approved and not all of them are going to Ukraine.'"

Sheesh...

These are just wanna-be cowboys who are clueless about supply, transportation, communications, intelligence, Command/Control, strategy/operations, military law, etc., which are the BASIC components of military operations.

Go ahead and play Cowboys and Indians but don't come crying to the US when you end up on Fox/CNN with a bloody face complaining that the Russians are treating you poorly.

https://www.newsweek.com/us-military-members-who-survive-ukraine-war-may-face-consequences-home-1690786

[Armchair Lawyer]

Really? Perhaps they just see injustice, and rather than whine about it on social media, actually propose to do something about it.

A "foreign legion" has a long history of supporting countries that have been invaded, even when official US military support cannot be offered. From US volunteer pilots in WWI to US volunteer pilots in China pre-WWII

[Michael P]

The article says very little of substance -- just that there might be legal or administrative consequences for US citizens (especially members of the armed forces) who join Ukraine's foreign legion. It is hardly shocking, or news, that an active-duty service member going AWOL can lead to a court martial; or that security clearance holders need to report foreign travel ~30 days in advance, and the government may veto that travel; or that the US government recommends that US citizens leave Ukraine if they are there, and not travel to Ukraine if they are elsewhere.

The article gives a number for how many Americans applied, but no numbers or examples of people who actually have joined up.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well yes. Active military service members going AWOL is bad, whether they are fighting in Ukraine or hiking in Australia.

The Ready Reserves is a more interesting situation. The closest recent analogy would likely be the Security Contractors in Iraq, which likely had a large number of Ready Reserve soldiers in their ranks. I don't remember any issue about them "fighting" in a foreign country.

[apedad]

Contractors are part of Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA)and, in certain situations, may be under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), so there is some official tie to the US Govt.

Foreign legion and mercenaries don't fall under those.

[ReaderY]

Yeah, it’s on the books. But I have a sneaking suspicion that, just this once, US authorities will look the other way.

But perhaps they have to make noises periodically to maintain an impression the US government isn’t encouraging interference.

[Doug Huffman]

I find the parallels, if not analogies, between the Russian ‘union’ and the American Union warring to return separatist states to the fold interesting and troublesome.

[apedad]

Except in the Russian 'union' the other SSRs were not voluntarily part of the USSR.

The American separatist states agreed to be part - and actively engaged in - the management and leadership of our country.

They didn't like the direction our country was moving towards so thought they could take their part of the ball and leave.

Not a smart idea and they're still paying for it 160+ years later.

[bernard11]

When did Ukraine voluntarily agree to become part of Russia?

[James Pollock]

When they relinquished their supply of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to Moscow.

[ducksalad]

Not really very similar.

The Ukraine has been independent for 30+ years. Young adults there never have been Russian, anyone under 35 probably can't remember being Russian.

A closer analogy would be if the US decided to invade Canada on the basis that we have similar cultures, used to be united as part of the British empire, their government is becoming too chummy with the Europeans, and Trudeau is a "Nazi". I hope we could agree that such an invasion would be a bad thing.

Or if the North had agreed to let the South leave in 1861, signed a peace treaty, and carried on mostly peaceful relations for decades. And *then* President McKinley decided to invade. I think that would be much less justified than what Lincoln did.

[apedad]

The US should have overtaking Canada during the Aroostook War, 1838 - 1839.

DAMN YOU VAN BUREN!!!

[Bored Lawyer]

You win the obscure historial reference award of the day.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"DAMN YOU VAN BUREN!!!"

An underrated bastard of American history. People are too busy forgetting about him to realize how much he generally sucked.

[Kazinski]

We should have stood up to British agression during the San Juan Island Pig war in 1859.

As it happened we got the disputed territory without a fight when Kaiser Wilhelm declared the Haro Straight was the the most natural shipping lane to Vancouver from the Straight of Juan DeFuca.

[David Nieporent]

54°40′ or fight!

[Kazinski]

Would that get us the tar sands?

But I'm not sure it's worth a war over which set of politicians are going to put them off limits.

[Absaroka]

"Would that get us the tar sands?"

They are mostly north of that. It would have included most of what is now inhabited Canada, though.

[Kazinski]

Well that’s right out.

[Voize of Reazon]

No. The Oregon Boundary dispute only concerned the border west of the Rockies.

[Don Nico]

apedad,
We don't want Quebec.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Great fishin' in Quebec!"

[James Pollock]

54-40 or FIGHT!

[Krayt]

You find it troublesome the US wanted to wreck recalcitrant slave states?

Or do you find it admirable Putin is trying to un-free and enslave a state?

A better analogy would be the slave north defeating the breakaway free south in a hypothetical civil war.

[Commenter_XY]

The other thing on my mind: Confirmation Hearing.

I have a theoretical question for the VC Conspirators. Can you make make the case that judicial philosophy alone is disqualifying for a SCOTUS nominee?

Personal note: I have heard nothing disqualifying in the hearing. So far.

[Krayt]

Well, consent probably wasn't intended just to make sure they don't kick puppies.

[Bored Lawyer]

"to make sure they don't kick puppies"

Is there something wrong with that?

[Krayt]

If you wish to make the case for kicking puppies at your hearing, go for it. It's all political.

[ReaderY]

Considering thag there’s only a handful of senators in the entire Senate who will consider anything else, things seem have reached the point where if there’s a case that needs to be made, it would be the case gor the now-rare minority position that judicial philosophy doesn’t always completely trump everything else and people with the wrong judicial philosophy should at least sometimes be considered.

[Commenter_XY]

Good point...agree. But can you make the case that judicial philosophy alone can be disqualifying, ReaderY? I'd be interested in reading your perspective on this.

[not guilty]

Judge Bork did a pretty good job of disqualifying himself at his confirmation hearing.

[Commenter_XY]

OMG! I remember distinctly the moment it was over. I was watching the hearing (as a much younger version of _XY). When Senator Byrd came in and asked nominee Bork (very pointedly) about Congressional intent, intimated it was crucial, and Bork disagreed. It was over. I knew it at that moment. You could tell.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm a little envious you got to watch them contemporaneously. I hade a law school seminar where we watched some of the Bork hearings, but without the suspense it was kinda dull.

[Both Sides]

I think that ideally, at the extremes, certain judicial philosophies should be disqualifying. The practical problems with what I think is the ideal take on this are: (i) putting aside truly extreme outlier positions that are unlikely to come up with actual candidates, there is no consensus on what "extreme" would, honestly, mean; and (ii) it's clear that the vast majority of Senators won't buy my ideal take, but would rather play to their base.

[Bored Lawyer]

That in fact is the only real reason anyone will vote against this nominee, or almost any other. Anything else is a smokescreen.

If President Trump had proudly nominated the first black woman to SCOTUS in the form of Janice Rogers Brown, all of the Republicans would have fallen all over themselves to support her. And the Democrats would be looking for some old decision of hers to hammer her on.

[David Nieporent]

Since she's 72, I suspect that Democrats might have ultimately not put up too much of a fight.

[Bored Lawyer]

Her age is probably why she was not nominated.

But she was only 68 when Trump made his first nomination (Gorsuch). That would have given her at least a dozen years on the bench. The Dems would have fought her. Not only because of ideology, but because they need the identity politics of being the first to nominate a black woman. (Same reason they torpedoed Miguel Estrada, as a leaked memo clearly showed.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. Of course it should be. You shouldn't hand over a lifetime spot on the most powerful government institution in America to someone who you fundamentally think has a bad judicial philosophy.

[Commenter_XY]

LTG....so, please define 'bad judicial philosophy' and kindly provide a current example of a judicial philosophy that is disqualifying. I'd like your take on what are unacceptable judicial philosophies.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It's all subjective. It's up to the senator. There is no "objectively" bad judicial philosophy. But if you, as a senator, think someone's philosophy is terrible and will ruin the law...of course you shouldn't vote to confirm. I mean I think that what conservatives call "originalism" is a bunch of nonsense that isn't really a philosophy but a standard-less pseudo-intellectual exercise designed to advance ideological goals. So I very likely wouldn't vote to confirm someone who is an originalist because I think it is a bad philosophy. Other people would.

[Bored Lawyer]

I think his point is that your use of "disqualifying" is not the standard he agrees with. That term reflects a view that the "advice and consent" from the Senate should basically approve almost anyone the president nominates, unless there is some very strong reason not to, like criminality.

An alterantive view is that the Senate has an equal say, and its views of what the ideal candidate should be carry as much weight as the president's.

(A middle view would split between members of the Executive branch, who work for the president, and as to which the president's decision is owed deference, and members of the judiciary, who are independent, lifetime appointments.)

If you take the alterantive view, then someone can be a fine person and judge, but their judicial philosophy is so out of whack with what you believe is the correct one, that you vote against him or her.

[Kazinski]

It should be disqualifying to first say:
1. Only a biology professor can know the definition of a woman
and then
2. Think the biology professor is likely wrong.

[SimonP]

The so-called "common good" constitutionalists seem to be a bit of a problem, specifically insofar as they subscribe to a theory where "natural law" is superior to positive law (including the Constitution).

Compared to them, original-public-meaning textualists seem reasonable. "Common good" constitutionalism is verging on Gilead territory.

[bernard11]

Can you make make the case that judicial philosophy alone is disqualifying for a SCOTUS nominee?

Are you talking about sound bite "judicial philosophy" or the nominee's actual thinking?

I think it's worthwhile to study a nominee's writings and decisions, for example, to get an idea of how she approaches cases, and so on. But too often the talk is a substitute for thought.

[James Pollock]

"I have heard nothing disqualifying in the hearing. So far."

I heard Lindsey Graham disqualifying himself from being a Senator.

[James Pollock]

"Can you make make the case that judicial philosophy alone is disqualifying for a SCOTUS nominee?"

There are some judicial philosophies that would be disqualifying. Like, say, a finding that adherence to the Constitution is optional, and can be put aside if the President REALLY wants to do something, or if Congress gets a lot of pressure to to something.

[Doug Huffman]

KBJ’s blue dress the infamous Blue Dress reminder of what, her indebitness to TPTB?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Let's lay out a hypothetical situation.

Imagine just before the 2024 election, a major scandal involving one of the candidates erupts. But the media companies and social media companies deliberately suppress the scandal, because it would hurt their favored candidate.

Is there anything wrong with this?

[apedad]

There's enough left/right/centrist/independent media (social and news), that the word would get out - especially a major scandal.

Not worried.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If the larger companies collude to suppress stories, and cut off those other companies who might try to spread it...it's not a concern?

[apedad]

Let us know when Fox and CNN or Twitter and (what's Trump's thing?) collude.

Maybe then we'll be worried.

[John F. Carr]

The problem is not getting the news out to a few people, which is easy. The problem is getting the news out to the people who would be influenced by it. Say Trump shot a man on 5th Avenue. Most voters would not change their opinion of him. Some already hate Trump. Some think Trump is great and the guy must have had it coming. A scandal involving a Democrat late in the election cycle will be facing the same barrier.

In the current media landscape the flexible center is served by Silicon Valley and the mainstream media exclusive of Fox News, not by Fox News and whatever Trump's latest project is.

[apedad]

You're worried that the 'flexible center' wouldn't find out about a major scandal (like Trump shooting someone), because of Silicon Valley?!?

[John F. Carr]

White House doctors diagnose dementia after the Democratic convention nominates Biden for a second term. Twitter shuts that down hard.

[jb]

First of all, LOL.

Second, what fraction of the flexible center do you think gets their news primarily from Twitter?

[James Pollock]

"First of all, LOL."

seconded.

Republicans have been fever-dreaming this since last year.
The last time something like that happened, the guy got re-elected and it didn't change much of anything. Mistakes were made. the country kept going.

[bernard11]

Why are you discussing your paranoid fantasies?

[ThePublius]

What about the Hunter's laptop story? That was very effectively suppressed, and had it not, had it been reported accurately by mainstream outlets, would certainly have had a big impact on the election.

[ducksalad]

You were completely correct until "big impact on the election".

I doubt one person in a 100 would have changed their vote. Did you mistakenly vote for Biden because you didn't know about the laptop? No. You're mad because of the blatant media bias, not because you were deceived.

And on the other side, you've got the causality arrow wrong. People deny the laptop is important because they support Biden. They don't support Biden because they thought the laptop is unimportant.

People who were clueless about who to support up to the time of the laptop story, were probably the type of people unlikely to find the polling place and successfully put an X in box on the ballot.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"I doubt"...

Polling suggests otherwise. That 18% of Biden voters would've changed their vote.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/freepress/story/2020/nov/26/cooper-biden-voters/536784/

[bernard11]

Geez. That's ridiculous. Who the fuck is "Cooper."

[Armchair Lawyer]

He's the author of the article that has the poll within it....

[ducksalad]

Armchair, that article is paywalled. The headline says 18% would change if they knew the "full story".

I'd need to see the question actually asked to know what they mean by "full story".

Version 1: "Would you have changed your vote if the Hunter Biden laptop story now in the news had come out earlier?

Version 2: "Would you have changed your vote if you knew with certainly that Joe Biden is career criminal who sold US policy for personal gain in the Russia-Ukraine controversy?"

I'd also like to know how many of that 18% are people who actually didn't vote for Biden but thought saying they would change their vote would send the right message to the pollster.

[Absaroka]

"Armchair, that article is paywalled."

NoScript is your friend 🙂

"I'd need to see the question actually asked to know what they mean by "full story"."

FWIW, from the article:
"What they learned in an admittedly small survey was that one of every six Biden voters (17%) said they would not have voted for him had they known the facts about several of the news stories the national media refused to investigate thoroughly because they might have hurt his candidacy.
...
The survey showed that 45.1% of Biden voters were unaware of the financial scandals of Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and how Hunter's business had been wrapped up in Biden's work in foreign affairs while vice president under President Barack Obama.

It further showed 35.4% of Biden voters were unaware of his former aide Tara Reade's allegation that Biden sexually assaulted her on Capitol Hill in the 1990s, and 25.3% of his voters didn't know that Sen. Kamala Harris, D-California, Biden's vice presidential running mate, was ranked America's most "progressive" senator in 2019."

etc, etc. It is ... ahem ... an article with a viewpoint. Which doesn't mean that much of the press had a pretty clear favorite in the 2020 election.

The story is datelined November 26, 2020, and says "Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog organization, tested that theory recently in a poll of 1,750 voters in seven swing states." if that helps you find the actual pool questions and results.

(I did like the last line: "Trump, though, can't change that. Now it's up to him to whether he becomes, as he referred to Clinton, "crazy," "crooked" or "lyin'" because he's unable to accept defeat.")

[Armchair Lawyer]

Thanks!

Here are the lines.

"1. At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that evidence exists, including bank transactions the FBI is currently investigating, that directly links Joe Biden and his family to a corrupt financial arrangement between a Chinese company with connections to the Chinese Communist Party that was secretly intended to provide the Biden family with tens of millions of dollars in profits? (% Aware, % Not Aware)"

-45% of Biden voters were unaware

2. "If you had been aware of this actual evidence in emails, texts, testimony and banking transactions being investigated by the FBI, would you have:"

-That resulted in 16% of voters not voting for Biden, while 79% would've still voted for him.

[SimonP]

AL, are you familiar with "push polling"?

[bernard11]

Wow!!

Are those terrible, slanted, questions.

And the whole thing:

"What they learned in an admittedly small survey was that one of every six Biden voters (17%) said they would not have voted for him had they known the facts about several of the news stories the national media refused to investigate thoroughly because they might have hurt his candidacy.

No bias there. And how big is "admittedly small?"

Come on, all of you! This is utter bullshit.

[Absaroka]

"Are those terrible, slanted, questions."

As a matter of fact they are!

[John F. Carr]

Nate Silver thought the late breaking news about Hillary Clinton's emails could have swung the election. A story that contained no accusations or evidence of wrongdoing could have made Trump president because it came out at a bad time. Next election cycle Silicon Valley was prepared.

I do think Clinton's emails were a legitimate concern. I don't think the October surprise revelation in 2016 added anything to the debate.

[bernard11]

Are you claiming Silicon Valley is part of the massive, secret, conspiracy to bury news that is bad for Democrats?

[Brett Bellmore]

More of a massive, open, conspiracy, isn't it?

[bernard11]

No.

[Brett Bellmore]

" story that contained no accusations or evidence of wrongdoing could have made Trump president because it came out at a bad time."

And the email story had a better shot at it, on account of including both.

[not guilty]

I never understood Trump's antipathy toward Jim Comey who, after all, got Trump elected with his shenanigans as to Anthony Weiner's laptop.

[Brett Bellmore]

“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

Nobody likes Comey, because he tried to have it both ways. He was nominally given the job of deciding whether Hillary should be prosecuted, really given the job of whitewashing her.

But he couldn't bring himself to pick a side. He could have announced that her conduct met the statutory basis for prosecution, and recommended it; She still wouldn't have been prosecuted, he might have lost his job, but he'd have retained a reputation for integrity. The right would have loved him, anyway.

Or he could have done a proper job of whitewashing her, announced she'd clearly done nothing wrong, and the left would have loved him, and told everybody he had integrity.

But he split the difference, spared her the legal consequences of her actions, while making it clear that she was guilty as hell. Leaving nobody happy.

[not guilty]

“Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

Hardly "making it clear that she was guilty as hell."

[Ben_]

"election"

[Sarcastr0]

Wait, you now think the 2020 election was stolen? Or are you just trolling?

[Ben_]

Elections with widespread lawbreaking aren’t like elections where laws were widely obeyed.

[Sarcastr0]

Lawbreaking?

[Bored Lawyer]

You do realize that if 1 in 100 changed their votes, in the right states, that Trump would have one the election, right?

[bernard11]

So?

If 1 in 10,000 in just FL had changed their votes in 2000 Gore would have won.

[bernard11]

To the extent it was "suppressed" it was suppressed by Giuliani.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is that why the FBI raided him? Over real diaries and real laptops?

[Kazinski]

I'd say at a minimum the 51 intelligence experts that claimed it was Russian disinformation should never get a government job or contract again.

Their statement showed either spectacularly bad analytic skill or spectacular political bias.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, the experts admitted that their claim was evidence-free speculation. But that didn't stop the media, and commentors here, from running with it.

[James Pollock]

"What about the Hunter's laptop story? That was very effectively suppressed, and had it not, had it been reported accurately by mainstream outlets, would certainly have had a big impact on the election."

Alternatively, it WAS reported accurately, yet it didn't affect your distorted view.

[bernard11]

And now we have the Hunter Biden biolab story!!!

[James Pollock]

"What about the Hunter's laptop story? That was very effectively suppressed"

the story that you can reference with a couple of words, because you assume that anyone who reads your comment knows about... that's the one you want to claim was "effectively suppressed"?

Or were you referring the fact that "Hunter's" laptop was planted by Rudy's stooges? there do seem to still be some people who don't know that part of the story...

[Moderation4ever]

Scandals are really tricky, and the major predictor of their effect is how much the public really cares. If the media brings out a scandal and no one cares, it will die quickly. This can happen when a scandal happens at the same times as another big news story. Another side to the scandal is when the media pushes too hard and it turns off the public rather than turning their interest on.

I think people put too much stock in the media's impact.

[Kazinski]

Really it just shows if you think the press has an important roll to play in exposing corruption, then vote Republican so you can depend on the press to do their job, rather than cover up corruption by democratic nominee.

But it's not too late to get to the bottom of the Hunter Laptop story. The emails show Hunter getting unearned payments from Russian, Chinese and Ukrainian parties. The emails also show that Hunter was both setting aside a share of the proceeds for Joe, and that they were comingleing funds. Joe's bills were being paid from Hunter's accounts.

Will all this stay under the rug?

[Moderation4ever]

So out of curiosity where are you getting these emails from? I don't think the FBI has released any of the laptop emails. Just wondering if these were the copies that Guiliani bought?

All this bring up an interesting question. Because the laptop that is being investigated did not directly come from Hunter Biden, but through a secondary source can anything on the laptop be used as evidence? The FBI could confirm the things like emails and if confirmed by a reliable source, might be evidence. But with only the laptop being the source could a court really consider it as evidence?

[James Pollock]

"Really it just shows if you think the press has an important roll to play in exposing corruption, then vote Republican so you can depend on the press to do their job, rather than cover up corruption by democratic nominee."

So you're saying to vote Republican so there will actually be some corruption for the media to find?

"But it's not too late to get to the bottom of the Hunter Laptop story."

The bottom of the Hunter laptop story is that Rudy's stooges planted the thing and were responsible for everything on it.

[Kazinski]

Even the NYTimes and Jan Psaki have given up the fabrication tact.

What's your other fallback position?

Psaki's is "Hunter Biden isn't a government employee." Which I'm happy for, but private employed money funnel for the president (and formally VP) seems a little too close to an official position for comfort.

[James Pollock]

When Rudy "discovered" this laptop, Mr. Biden wasn't President or VP. So your working theory is that corrupt foreigners were giving Hunter money for a chance to talk to the guy who USED TO BE the Vice-President?

[bernard11]

You mean, like one of the candidates apparently is guilty of mishandling her emails and the big media companies, like the NYT, don't report on it?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I mean, one of the candidates apparently has a major conflict of interest where his son is negotiating with foreign powers for $$$, and cutting in his father for 10% on the side, while his father is running government operations on the US side.

And by suppression, I mean companies actively banning the story from being posted, because it's "disinformation" despite being accurate, as well as banning anyone who posts the story.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey remember when the FBI raided Rudy over a diary they knew was real?

[James Pollock]

Remember that time Rudy filed all those lawsuits and then backed up all his allegations with evidence? Because I don't remember that. Must have been suppressed.

[Sarcastr0]

That's just not true. It isn't even clear what Hunter's duties are, much less whether he was negotiating funding amounts; there is no evidence of a kickback, and you're listening to speculative conspiracists and taking it as fact.

You can complain all the shit you make up is being suppressed by the MSM, but that doesn't make it less made up shit.

Like the latest we have is there may be some tax implications due to the materials. That's it. You're way off base.

You and m_k's child porn crap can go find a room together and complain how you know the inside story the media won't tell.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What do you think "10% for the big guy" meant?

[David Nieporent]

Nobody knows, but once again: it was about a proposed deal that never happened during a time period in which Joe Biden was a private citizen.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Private citizen?

Joe Biden hasn't been a private citizen since 1972.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What public office do you believe he was holding between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2021?

[Kazinski]

There is a lot more than that Sarcastro, just one example:
'BIG GUY' BIDEN Hunter Biden emails ‘name Joe Biden as “The Big Guy” who’d get 10% share in deal with Chinese energy firm’, report says

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, this connection was promised but never materialized.

Of course why bother when enough people consider the accusation to be proof enough.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right so "10% for the big guy" was a one-off exception that shouldn't be looked into or investigated at all.

Makes sense if you're a partisan moron.

[David Nieporent]

What exactly would you "investigate," if you were inclined to accept all the speculation about what it meant as fact? "Does Joe Biden have any business investments?"

[James Pollock]

Obviously, "10% to the Big Guy" is referring to Hugo Chavez, who totally masterminded the 2020 election from six feet under.

[David Nieporent]

Note also that the line about 10% for the big guy was a question.

[bernard11]

I'm not even going to follow your link.

Look. There is an industry of right-wing grifters who know they have an audience for all this kind of crap. And you guys read it and believe it and spread it.

[James Pollock]

Was this report written by Mr. Giuliani, too?

[Armchair Lawyer]

There are a lot of fun details here.

2014: Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec E-mails Hunter asking "advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf

2014: Pozharskyi: Dear Hunter, the Ukrainian government is investigating us. Please help.

2015: Pozharskyi: "Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting my to DC and giving me an opportunity to meet your father"

2015: Joe Biden threatens to withhold over a billion dollars in loan guarantees from Ukraine unless they fire the guy investigating Burisma.

2016: Shokin has said that at the time of his firing, in March 2016, he’d made “specific plans” to investigate Burisma that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”.

2018: Joe Biden: “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden infamously bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018. “Well, son of a bitch. He got fired

[Sarcastr0]

What of these is illegal? This is why failsons of the rich are put onto corporate boards.

Also, the Joe Biden got the guy investigating Burisma fired is utter nonsense. Firing him was the consensus of the US and the US, and he was fired for corruption including, among other things, slow-rolling the Burisma investigation.

Joe sent the message, this was not his initiative.

This is long-ago debunked stuff whose vindication never materialized. But you'll fall for all of it all over again because that's who you are.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm sorry....this wasn't Joe's initiative? Who's initiative was it? Hunter's perhaps.

Did Hunter tell Daddy "I need to you to get rid of the guy investigating the company I have this sweet gig for."

And SOAB, Joe did just that.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's totally not illegal says Gaslighters.

[James Pollock]

There's stuff about Hunter Biden that the right believes is real, but it isn't.
There's stuff about Hunter Biden that the right believe is illegal, but it isn't.

the thing is, if you just listen to serial scammer and corrupt pulblic official Donald Trump, he'll tell you everything you need to know about how corrupt Joe Biden runs his scams. HEY! STOP TRYING TO EXAMINE THE BOOKS AT THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION!

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sorry....this wasn't Joe's initiative? Who's initiative was it? Hunter's perhaps.

Jesus you're dumb. From the comment you just replied to: "Firing him was the consensus of the US and the US."

[bernard11]

You know, A.L., that story about firing Shokin because he was investigating Burisma, and that that was the basis for Biden withholding aid ahs debunked out the ass 1000's of times.

That you continue to repeat it is pure dishonesty on your part.

[James Pollock]

You are a member of the reality-based community. The people who buy into this kind of conspiracy nonsense are not.

there's no evidence to support the conspiracy theory, see? that's proof of just how powerful the conspirators are...

[bernard11]

Throughout: Shokin is a crook and a liar, and is so recognized by all.

You are completely full of shit.

On 16 March 2016 an official of the prosecution office stated that Shokin had resumed his work.[6] On the same day, his office carried out a raid against one of Ukraine's leading anti-corruption groups, the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), claiming that it had misappropriated aid money.[19] AntAC was a frequent critic of the Prosecutor General's Office under Shokin.[32] In one notorious case, two of Shokin's prosecutors were caught with stashes of diamonds, cash and valuables in their homes, likely indicating bribery. Prosecutors from another department of Shokin's office were fired or reassigned when they attempted to bring a prosecution against the so-called "diamond prosecutors".[33]

On 28 March, protesters called for Shokin's firing, after his office was authorized by a Kyiv court to investigate AntAC.[19][34] Shokin was formally dismissed in a parliamentary vote on 29 March 2016.[35] The European Union praised Shokin's dismissal due to a "lack of tangible results" of his office's investigations, and also because people in Shokin's office were themselves being investigated.[8] Following his dismissal Shokin went into retirement.[36]

[Ben_]

That would be a complete betrayal of their core mission and their role in society.

It would mark them as no different from any other propaganda producers. Except propaganda producers aren't also using a legacy of legitimate journalism to help promote their lies.

They'd be more-or-less the same as QAnon if they did that.

[David Nieporent]

I assume this is supposed to be a sly allusion to Hunter Biden's laptop, but of course there was no "scandal" there. And the story was not actually suppressed.

But if we take your hypothetical as an actual hypothetical, of course there's "something wrong with" news outlets suppressing stories for the purpose of helping a particular candidate. Not illegal or legally actionable in any way, but unethical and immoral, sure.

[Absaroka]

"And the story was not actually suppressed."

Is your meaning that the story circulated despite efforts to suppress it, or that major media/tech players didn't actually try and suppress it?

Because if the latter, they sure did: "In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.". Twitter locked out NYPost for a couple of weeks, etc, etc, etc. I think we must be defining "not actually suppressed" differently.

[David Nieporent]

Is there a single person (who pays attention to the news — people who do would be surprised at how little many people do) who didn't know about it? It was published in a major newspaper. It was available on that newspaper's website. It was covered on TV and in other print outlets. Twitter's decision to prevent it from being disseminated on twitter caused it to be covered even more extensively, with coverage of twitter's decision as well as the story itself.

Hell, Twitter didn't even prevent people from discussing the story or the underlying issue. The only thing Twitter did, for a short time, was prevent the NYP article from being linked directly to.

[Absaroka]

Fair enough. 'Suppressed' can mean either 'successfully suppressed' or 'tried to suppress', as in 'the USSR suppressed dissent' even though of course samizdat still circulated. Thanks for the clarification.

[James Pollock]

suppressing disinformation is not the same category as suppressing information.

[Kazinski]

Even the Whitehouse is no longer claiming it's disinformation.

You are going to have to come up with something else.

Of the 51 intelligence experts that claimed it was Russian disinformation one or two are sticking with that line, another admit it's not disinformation, and the rest have at least quit digging and refuse to comment.

It's not going away, and just wait until the campaign ads start with the now confirmed emails.

[James Pollock]

"Even the Whitehouse is no longer claiming it's disinformation."

Not sure why you think the White House disavowing Rudy's disinformation campaign establishes anything, but whatever (you know it's under new management, right?).

"just wait until the campaign ads start with the now confirmed emails."

So YOU thing campaign ads are true, and pay attention to them? Or you think I do?
Emails are amazingly easy to fake, unless someone's using cryptography on top of their email system.

[Michael P]

Who do you choose as the namesake for a ten-armed invertebrate fossil? Joe Biden, of course!

[John F. Carr]

Crude joke thread is not accepting comments.

[dwb68]

I disagree almost entirely with KBJs judicial philosophy. That said, she is qualified and probably will be a more effective justice than Sotomoyor. My only real complaint is that she should have owned her opinions instead of blaming the client (she repeatedly saying the opinions in her controversial amicus briefs were those of the client). While true, so what? Guantanamo detainees deserve effective representation the same as anyone else, that's what makes this country great. omg, she chose heated rhetoric in an amicus brief. I would have much rather she said: I defended my clients as vigorously as Senators defend theirs. I would have simply noted that Scalia joined Stevens dissent in HAMDI V. RUMSFELD...

[LawTalkingGuy]

Really depressing how you have to be ashamed of representing or advocating for the people the government wants to kill or imprison.

[Commenter_XY]

I thought her point on legal representation was spot on, to be frank. In America, you get to have legal representation. And we do not vilify lawyers who represent their clients to the best of their ability - no matter how unpopular the client.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Except we totally do. That's Tom Cotton's whole schtick.

[Bob from Ohio]

"And we do not vilify lawyers who represent their clients to the best of their ability - no matter how unpopular the client."

Libs do all the time. Lawyers who represented tobacco or energy companies get plenty of grief.

Childs got a lot of internal Dem opposition for S/C because she was a management side labor lawyer before becoming a judge.

Jackson volunteered to represent terrorists for free. Bad decisions merit criticism.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Jackson volunteered to represent terrorists for free. Bad decisions merit criticism.”

You’re such an utter utter disgrace to this profession. Just an embarrassing blight to us all. Please resign. (I also hold out hope that your clear disdain for fundamental fairness in legal proceedings will result in appropriate sanctions or disciplinary action when it inevitably comes out in your practice).

[Bob from Ohio]

if a lawyer from your firm volunteered to represent a Capitol riot defendant, you'd be the first to grab a pitchfork

[LawTalkingGuy]

Absolutely not. I strongly support each and everyone of those defendants getting the best defense possible, and if I know someone who’s going to do that, I’d be damn proud of them.

You again make the the mistake of assuming I share your nihilistic and immoral approach to things. I do not, thankfully. What’s more: you knew that was bullshit as soon as you typed it, yet still said it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Spare me this obvious BS.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It's only "obvious" if you think people are as shitty and as unprincipled as you are. Newsflash: they're not. I think the issue is you cannot stand the fact that you know deep down that I am a much much better person than you are and have correctly called out your immoral nihilism at every turn. It grates on you so much you have to imagine me as being as big of a nihilist as you are to make yourself feel better. But it simply isn't true.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob taking refuge in speculative hypocrisy again, I see.

[Bob from Ohio]

He said, on this very thread, that it is ok to shame lawyers if they were representing those who "try and subvert an election".

Isn't that what your side says the Capitol rioters were trying to do?

[LawTalkingGuy]

They're being charged with crimes dingus. I support them having zealous defense because the government is trying to take their liberty and I want to make sure the government respects their rights.

[James Pollock]

"Isn't that what your side says the Capitol rioters were trying to do?"

Don't know about "sides", but that is what the Capitol insurrectionists were doing. (along with a bit of looting and vandalism.)

[David Nieporent]

Jackson volunteered to represent terrorists for free. Bad decisions merit criticism.

The worst part about this nonsense is how obviously cynical it is. If she had done it for money, Bob would have said, "Jackson accepted money to represent terrorists. Bad decisions merit criticism."

On the other hand, to be fair to Bob I think he really does think that people he doesn't like shouldn't have lawyers.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yet I think you should have a lawyer of your choice. So your last sentence is wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

You think no one in Gitmo deserves a lawyer. You've said so - they're already guilty and so what's the need.

In fact, you started just posting the names of those killed on 9-11 in response to those that disagreed with you.

It was a while ago, but I remember.

[James Pollock]

"Jackson volunteered to represent terrorists for free. Bad decisions merit criticism."

No, she worked for a firm which represented accused terrorists for free. Are you ususally this imprecise?

[James Pollock]

" we do not vilify lawyers who represent their clients to the best of their ability - no matter how unpopular the client."

We do if our name happens to be "Graham" and we're still frosty that some people called out religious nutjobs for being religious nutjobs.

[Kazinski]

Well I agree, but look at the retaliation and piling on for the law firms that were representing Trump.

If it's the standard for representing Trump, then I got no problem with it being the standard for those representing terrorists.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There is a difference between making sure that people who the government wants to detain indefinitely or kill (while subjecting them to various forms of torture including sexual abuse) are represented in legal proceedings and representing Trump to try and subvert an election he clearly lost by engaging in frivolous and sanctionable conduct.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You can't be talking about the fortified Zuckerberg "election" of 2020.

[James Pollock]

The second one in a row where most Americans voted for somebody who isn't Donald Trump to be President.

[Bob from Ohio]

There is always a "difference", depending on whose ox is being gored.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There’s a difference when you have morals and don’t think things are just oxen to be gored.

But I’m glad to know you support sexual abuse of humans. Guess that means you’re just as bad as you think KBJ is. Congrats.

[Ben_]

Because Orange Man Bad matters more than anything else.

The people who sacrificed every principle for Orange Man Bad don’t get to pretend like they didn’t.

[James Pollock]

Orange Man Bad at being President.

King Oompa Loompa dug his own hole, and then tried to solve it by digging more.

[Michael P]

He kept inflation tame. He kept Putin from invading any more of Ukraine. But hey, no mean tweets.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Like most other subjects you pretend to have knowledge of, your understanding of causality is laughable.

[James Pollock]

"He kept inflation tame. He kept Putin from invading any more of Ukraine."

Sure he did. All by himself.

[Commenter_XY]

BL, the clarification helped. To be honest, I tend toward the first view. The POTUS gets to pick the people he wants, and unless there is something truly disqualifying (criminality), the POTUS should expect to get their nominees approved. I have a hard time conceiving of what 'wrongthink' even looks like in terms of judicial philosophy. LTG says 'originalism'; others say 'critical legal theory' or 'progressivism'.

Somewhere in the last 60 years, that changed. I cannot precisely say when, but I do know the standard morphed into the food fights we have today.

[Commenter_XY]

Boy, this was fucked up....this was a response to Bored Lawyer above.

[Brett Bellmore]

More like 85 years ago. But at that time the Democrats had a large enough Senate majority that actually seeing the change had to wait until 1945 or so before the real food fights started.

What happened is that the Court stopped being a court, and became the political branch of last resort.

[James Pollock]

It was Republicans who, unable to pass a Constitutional amendment, set out to only name judges who'd rule their way. Reagan actually said this out loud, and got disappointed that Bork didn't get confirmed. So they went with a two-prong approach 1) rail against "judicial activism" at every opportunity, 2) demand political unity when they wanted to appoint a "judicial activist" who agreed with their political stance. their skill at executing this strategy failed when it turned out they weren't as good as they hoped in selecting justices. How many of the Court's "liberal" justices were appointed by Republicans? (Fewer now than in the past)

[Commenter_XY]

So one (terrorist) deserves legal representation without vilifying the lawyer representing them, but the other (POTUS Trump) does not because you disagree with his actions and beliefs.

Judge Brown-Jackson was 100% correct about the right of Americans to legal counsel to zealously make their case, and not vilify the lawyer for doing so. I agreed with her. Are you really sure that you do? Is there just a whiff of a double standard here, LTG?

[LawTalkingGuy]

"The wise man bowed his head and said there is zero difference between good and bad things."

In criminal defense, the defendant does not have a choice to be charged, or detained, or tortured, or executed. They are facing the full wrath of the government, who might be violating their rights along the way. That's why criminal defense is so critical and part of the highest ideals of the profession. You're defending life and liberty.

By contrast Trump's lawyers made frivolous arguments based on false facts to overturn an election he clearly lost. They were actually sanctioned for it. When advising civil plaintiffs there is actually an ethical duty not to bring cases you know are frivolous. They violated that and deserve every criticism. (Notice I am not commenting on Trump's lawyers defending him in suits or impeachments, which is perfectly proper, or lawyers who advice him in good faith to follow the law).

Criminal defense is different than every other legal posture and it is a mistake to conflate it with anything else.

[jb]

This doesn't seem like a hard distinction, especially on a mostly libertarian blog.

As a restraint on the government, we want to make sure that people the government is trying to deprive of life or liberty or property have a guarantee of representation. Someone has to do this, and society ought not to vilify them for acting as an important check against government power.

On the other hand, there's no fundamental right to representation in a lawsuit against another private party. There's a societal interest in having a functional court system capable of adjudicating claims, but it's reasonable for a lawyer to refuse a case that they don't agree with just as it's reasonable for a bar (the other kind!) to refuse to buy Russian vodka because they don't like the invasion of Ukraine.

The Trump situation is an interesting hybrid because it's someone suing the government, and in some cases you might need to affirmatively sue the government to check its power. The line is a little less clear in this case, but I'd lean towards thinking that as a principle we want to allow/encourage zealous representation for clients suing the government so I'd want even Trump to be able to have solid representation for whatever argument he's making about the election. (Having said that, advancing clearly false arguments is something that no type of lawyer should do and we should always want to discourage/sanction such behavior.)

[Sarcastr0]

DMN makes the right distinction so far as I'm concerned - if a lawyer's representations are lies or nonsense, that's what you criticize.

It's not one client or another, it's the form of your advocacy.

Trump is trying to relitigate an election, for no reason. The attorneys willing to go along with that are not able to make legal arguments, and so they become tools of Trump's political campaign to overturn our democracy either going backwards or forwards.

OTOH, standard defense attorney making the state prove it's facts is cool and good.
And I'd say the same thing about whomever defense Trump in some putative future trial, provided their tactics were the usual ones a zealous defender employs.

[not guilty]

Criminal defendants are entitled to zealous advocacy within the bounds of the law. So is Donald Trump. The problem is that Trump's advocates have transgressed the qualifier,

[James Pollock]

"Criminal defendants are entitled to zealous advocacy within the bounds of the law. So is Donald Trump. The problem is that Trump's advocates have transgressed the qualifier,"

The real problem is that Mr. Trump doesn't feel constrained by laws that apply to other people, and he picks lawyers who buy into this.

[James Pollock]

"So one (terrorist) deserves legal representation without vilifying the lawyer representing them, but the other (POTUS Trump) does not because you disagree with his actions and beliefs."

Let's see, one terrorist, confined to a military prison, deserves legal representation to make sure the President doesn't abuse the authority to punish the prisoners. The other terrorist, attempting to use legal representation to ensure that the President cannot be held to account for abuse of Presidential authority. Sounds about equivalent.

[David Nieporent]

The relevant distinction is this: a lawyer should not be criticized for representing a disreputable person. A lawyer can legitimately be criticized for making disreputable arguments. (Or employing disreputable tactics.)

The problem with Trump's lawyers weren't that they were representing Trump. The problem with Trump's lawyers was that when they were representing Trump they were filing frivolous lawsuits based on fabricated evidence.

[Commenter_XY]

This distinction makes perfect sense, David.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only issue I have with that stance is that disreputable arguments sometimes win. A good deal of current constitutional jurisprudence would have been viewed as disreputable before it prevailed.

[not guilty]

A good lawyer is entitled to press the boundaries of the law on behalf of a client. That necessarily involves identifying where those boundaries lie and making a good faith argument for the extension, modification or repeal of existing law before a tribunal with authority to do so. Trump's advocates fall short of that mark.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree, he's been ill served by his legal counsel. Probably sometimes because they didn't want to serve him well, other times because he wouldn't let them; Trump was hardly my ideal candidate, I was rooting for Paul in the primaries.

I just don't want lawyers sanctioned for "disreputable" arguments, that's a dangerous weapon I don't expect to be wielded evenhandedly. Rather, I'd expect it to be used in a partisan fashion to deny half the political spectrum representation.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Rather, I'd expect it to be used in a partisan fashion to deny half the political spectrum representation."

That's because you think everything is a conspiracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's because I'm not walking through life with my eyes shut. Wake me when Twitter and FB are as prone to censor Democrats as Republicans.

[David Nieporent]

Wake me when Twitter and FB are as prone to censor Democrats as Republicans.

Maybe they are, and Democrats just aren't as whiny about it?

[James Pollock]

"Wake me when Twitter and FB are as prone to censor Democrats as Republicans."

Maybe they are, but the Democrats don't rely on using other peoples' network equipment to spread their lies.

[James Pollock]

"I just don't want lawyers sanctioned for "disreputable" arguments, that's a dangerous weapon I don't expect to be wielded evenhandedly. Rather, I'd expect it to be used in a partisan fashion to deny half the political spectrum representation."

You are a partisan, and not subtle about it, either. You think EVERYTHING boils down to partisan lines.

[James Pollock]

" I agree, he's been ill served by his legal counsel. Probably sometimes because they didn't want to serve him well, other times because he wouldn't let them"

this is what happens when you won't let people tell you things you don't want to hear, like "Don, you lost the election, but if you don't embarrass yourself or do something stupid, you might win the next one (if our team can get enough voters disqualified)."
So Don said "don't embarrass myself or do something stupid. But that's my brand! and I can't go 4 years with no source of income." and fired anybody from the reality-based community.

[David Nieporent]

The only issue I have with that stance is that disreputable arguments sometimes win. A good deal of current constitutional jurisprudence would have been viewed as disreputable before it prevailed.

An engineer might not be able to tell the difference between attempted murder and chemotherapy; both may involve administering a toxic substance to a person. That doesn't mean that there isn't a difference; it means that the engineer doesn't know as much as he thinks.

Similarly, that said engineer can't tell the difference between making a frivolous argument and a good faith one for changing or extending the law doesn't mean people with actual SME can't.

[bernard11]

You know, I'm really skeptical of all the talk about "judicial philosophy."

The whole point of the exercise seems to be to slap a label on a judge for political purposes, rather than to think about how a judge decides, what influences her decisions, and so on. It's an effort to put the judge in a category and then argue that because she is in Category H she must think Y, and anyone who thinks Y is a terrible person.

I'm not saying that judges don't have judicial philosophies, just that they are probably not easily reducible to a brief phrase.

[James Pollock]

"You know, I'm really skeptical of all the talk about 'judicial philosophy.' "

Judges are a co-equal branch of government. unelected and nearly unremovable, too. I'd want to make sure they understand what the role of the judiciary is (and isn't) if I were reviewing candidates for the federal judiciary with the power to disqualify one. The core problem there is that one political party only wants to confirm judges who think it is 1850 outside.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Empirically whichever sector or industry the Federal Class has the most control or influence over performs the worst. War on Poverty? More like War For Poverty. Nationalize student loans? More like yoke a whole generation to Federal Class teat while they beg for relief from the problems caused by D.C. War on COVID? More like War for Big Pharma Profits and Western Genocide. Healthcare? They already control more than nearly all OECD countries yet they claim the only solution is to grant them more.

If you're an empiricist, you would demand Washington D.C. get burned to the ground. Instead half of America worships these politicians and bureaucrats as if they were infallible, altruitistic demi-gods and beg for them to control even more of their lives. It's like there is some sort of feudal serf gene that Democrats and Liberals have where they crave being lorded over by elites.

[James Pollock]

One party tells the public that the federal government is corrupt and inept, and, when elected to federal office, set about to prove it.

[jb]

"Healthcare? They already control more than nearly all OECD countries yet they claim the only solution is to grant them more."

Say huh? Almost half of the OECD is single-payer health care systems, with the government providing MUCH more control than in the US. Insurance-based systems like Germany and Switzerland include many of the same sorts of subsidies or government-paid insurance as the US. And even Singapore's "free market" model involves the government running a lot of the health care delivery system and also setting prices across the board. The idea that the US health care system is broken because of government involvement is a fairy tale Republicans tell each other to make themselves somehow feel better for consistently voting for the world's worst price-to-performance ratio.

[DaveM]

As a thoroughly non-lawyer everyday person, I will say that KBJ has not impressed me as an outstanding legal mind thus far. Perhaps there's some special skill set only insiders would pick up on that I'm missing, but so far she primarily strikes me as being somewhat overcome by events. Not exactly a steady hand on the knife.

[MoreCurious]

Even a non-lawyer should recognize that the judge is smarter than every senator who tried to make her look bad. I'm not sure how anyone could watch the circus conducted by the Republican senators and conclude anything other than that she calmly and graciously made Graham, Cruz, Hawley, Blackburn, etc. look like racist fools. They have now retreated to their caves to lick their wounds and hope the people who watched the "hearings" have short memories.

[James Pollock]

The interesting part was how the R's (notably Graham) set about proving how fair-minded they were, by not attacking the judge's religion. Then went on to attack anyone who ever said anything about the candidate they rushed through confirmation at the end of the Trump regime.

[DaveM]

Your comment has not impressed me as an example of fine legal reasoning, either. Your evidence of her qualifications to sit on the highest court in the nation:

1. "Everyone knows" she's smarter than those people
2. "Everyone knows" she's calmer and more gracious than those people

Not exactly what I was looking for. What I was looking for was some insight from people in the legal profession to help me understand why this candidate seems to be lost at sea in these hearings.

The VC, for example, is just a blog, but it sports many long, deeply complex legal arguments and counter-arguments. I had expected answers from our candidate that showed an equally rigorous and serious degree of thought. So I was wondering if perhaps I might be missing something.

[Brett Bellmore]

If she gave answers that showed a serious degree of thought, she might expose what she really thought. And the fix is in so long as she doesn't screw it up by giving an answer to some question that causes a public outrage.

I mean, she gets asked why she uniformly sentences child porn cases at the bottom of the sentencing guidelines, what's she going to say? 'I'd have sentenced them to time served, but that would have been outside the guidelines; I don't think this stuff should be illegal in the first place.'?

She might think that, and It's even a defensible position in terms of legal logic, (On the consumption, not production, end.) but she'd never end up on the Court if she said it.

[bernard11]

I mean, she gets asked why she uniformly sentences child porn cases at the bottom of the sentencing guidelines, what's she going to say? 'I'd have sentenced them to time served, but that would have been outside the guidelines; I don't think this stuff should be illegal in the first place.'?

And you, of course, are certain that that is what she thinks, not withstanding the facts of how other judges sentence those types of offenders, or anything else.

She's a Black Democrat, so of course she thinks that, and you, the great mind-reader, have caught her in the act.

Look, I agree that almost all answers every nominee provides in these hearings are prepared, rote, attempts to be inoffensive.

But I think your speculations are baseless paranoid BS.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am not at all certain what she thinks, all I know at this point is that she DOES consistently sentence them at the bottom end of the guidelines. Which I'm fine with, depending on the particulars of a case; Some of our laws in this are are over the top, though not all of them.

I was simply illustrating the sort of thing that could come up if she weren't evasive. If she were a Republican nominee, I suppose the counterpart would be being evasive about the 2nd amendment, rather than admit that you think basically all our gun laws are unconstitutional. Both parties have commonly held positions among the activists that are somewhat out of the public mainstream, depending on the issue, and that doesn't even mean they're not logically defensible, they may just be PR toxic.

[James Pollock]

" all I know at this point is that she DOES consistently sentence them at the bottom end of the guidelines"

Great. Is that a bad thing, because the guidelines are fair, or is that a good thing, because the guidelines are poorly constructed? That seems to be a partisan feeling.

[James Pollock]

"If she gave answers that showed a serious degree of thought, she might expose what she really thought."

the Senators aren't actually interested in what she thinks, to the Republicans, THAT she thinks is unacceptable. They want people who'll do what they're told.

[MoreCurious]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[James Pollock]

"Your comment has not impressed me as an example of fine legal reasoning, either. Your evidence of her qualifications to sit on the highest court in the nation:

1. "Everyone knows" she's smarter than those people
2. "Everyone knows" she's calmer and more gracious than those people"

Not everyone. Partisans of course will continue to cheerlead for "their" guys. But, having watched part of the hearings, it was obvious that the R Senators were getting frustrated that they couldn't bait her into saying something disqualifying. I watched more of Graham's first-day questioning, and he looked particulrly unprepared, wanting to argue the qualifications of Justice Barrett again.

[David Nieporent]

Even a non-lawyer should recognize that the judge is smarter than every senator who tried to make her look bad.

Ted Cruz is very smart. He may be a weasel and an asshat, but he is very smart.

[James Pollock]

"Ted Cruz is very smart. He may be a weasel and an asshat, but he is very smart. "

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

[David Nieporent]

The facts are in fact in evidence.

[James Pollock]

Review the record.

[Jmaie]

"I'm not sure how anyone could watch the circus conducted by the Republican senators and conclude anything other than that she calmly and graciously made Graham, Cruz, Hawley, Blackburn, etc. look like racist fools."

Racist is a strong accusation, perhaps you can supply a quote or two? I haven't the time to listen to the hearings, so I figured I'd see what the intertubes could provide. Slate is hardly a right wing rag so presumably if there was red meat to be found, they wouldn't shy away. All I was able to find was of the "to question a black woman is racist" variety.

[James Pollock]

You didn't miss anything. Everybody acted and spoke about as you'd imagine.

[rsteinmetz]

I've often wondered about whether people have an accurate view of the world around them. I've wondered whether some know accurately the size of their own group. Apparently not.

https://theweek.com/us/1011438/youre-wrong-about-the-percentage-of-minorities-in-the-us

in fact nearly every group seems to think these groups are much bigger than the really are.

[rsteinmetz]

According to teh article above:

Black people make up 52 percent of the U.S. adult population; non-Black Americans estimate the proportion is roughly 39 percent, closer to the real figure of 12 percent.

I think the actual percentage of Black Americans is slightly over 13%, but what's a single percentage or 2.

A few years ago when there were no black nominees for the Oscars main acting awards there was a huge uproar. I actually looked at all the nominations since 2000 and discovered approximately 10% of the nominees over that period were black, a little below the percentage in the population and included a couple of black actors that weren't American (but may have since become naturalized). Denzel was nominated 5 times during that time, he's actually now been nominated a total of 10 times, tied with Laurence Olivier and trailing only Meryl Streep (21), Katherine Hepburn (12) Jack Nicholson (12) and Bette Davis (11) .

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If you were to watch mainstream entertainment you would think America was a gay South Africa.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was my reaction when I saw that poll somewhere else: You might think those numbers were realistic if you were basing your impressions off mainstream entertainment, and just assuming your personal acquaintances were atypical.

[James Pollock]

"in fact nearly every group seems to think these groups are much bigger than the really are."

I don't know. There's only one of me, and I'm not confused about that.

[Ben_]

Is there a level of hardship where environmentalists might be willing to compromise and let a pipeline be built or oil be extracted from the ground?

When do the billions people people living on continents in the year 2022 start to count more than the thousands of people on tiny Pacific islands in the year 2050? Never?

[SimonP]

We might flip the question around - how much future suffering, for billions of people across the globe, is acceptable, just to eke out sub-$4/gallon gas for a few more years?

What's really amazing is your internalization of the interests of international oil conglomerates. We are still extracting plenty of oil from the ground. The United States is the top global producer of oil. The problem is that we consume more than even we produce. We could ease a lot of our own suffering just by reducing how much we use. But even that isn't acceptable to the likes of you.

[Ben_]

We don’t know the future. But it’s a reasonable guess that they’ll have better technology and hence more resources to solve problems than we have today. That’s how progress works.

"We could ease a lot of our own suffering just by reducing how much we use. "

Reduction is deprivation. It is making everyone’s life worse by telling them to forgo the benefits they’d otherwise get. Benefits like the food that’s driven to the grocery stores in trucks that use fuel.

Also I’m not sure who you think "we" is. Suffering will be mostly among poor people who can’t afford to pay extra for fuel or heat or goods transported using fuel.

[James Pollock]

"Also I’m not sure who you think "we" is. Suffering will be mostly among poor people who can’t afford to pay extra for fuel or heat or goods transported using fuel."

What tends to happen to rich people when enough poor people suffer enough?

[YepThatGuy]

For what it's worth, I was really hoping this would have sparked a discussion. That it didn't is a pretty good signal that the answer to the first part is "no."

[Brett Bellmore]

The answer IS "no"; There's a significant faction in the environmentalist movement that actually aspire to a human die-off. They're hardly going to view a bit of hardship as anything troubling.

[James Pollock]

In this argument, Brett, are YOU in the faction you describe?

[James Pollock]

I ask because, previously, you were arguing in favor of spreading a virus that kills people.

[James Pollock]

"When do the billions people people living on continents in the year 2022 start to count more than the thousands of people on tiny Pacific islands in the year 2050? Never?"

When the continents start to shrink to the size of tiny Pacific islands, THEN will it be ok to admit that hey, maybe burning all the fossil fuels all at once might not be a great idea?

[jb]

First of all, found the Boomer. Has there ever been a generation so interested in extracting short term value for themselves at five or ten times the cost to their kids and grandkids?

But more generally, is there a level of hardship where coal rollers might be willing to compromise and focus on energy infrastructure less sensitive to wars on other continents?

[Ben_]

Name calling and changing the subject aren’t really arguments for or against anything.

[jb]

Apparently it's a challenge to read past the first paragraph as well.

To answer the original question, if we're in the mood for compromise, I'm fine with building whatever pipelines once there's some reasonable carbon tax in place to price in the externalities of burning fossil fuels.

[Ben_]

So you would remedy hardship by imposing more hardship. High cost of fuel causes hardship, your answer is to raise the tax on that fuel so it costs even more.

How much do you want to tax it? No need to be exact. 5% ? 40% ? 200%?

[jb]

"So you would remedy hardship by imposing more hardship. High cost of fuel causes hardship, your answer is to raise the tax on that fuel so it costs even more."

I'm cool with a refundable carbon tax (e.g., the one proposed by the Climate Leadership Council). So people would have some money in their budget to allocate as they see fit, including spending it on gas if they need to.

"How much do you want to tax it? No need to be exact. 5% ? 40% ? 200%?"

CLC starts at $40 per ton, which looks to be about $.04 per gallon of gas. Probably a bit more if you price in the energy inputs for refining, transporting the oil/gas, etc. Let's double it to $.08 per gallon. Presumably you think that your pipeline will have a bigger effect on prices than that, so overall it should make gas cheaper?

[Ben_]

So you’re in favor of keeping all the existing hardships because you can’t raise fuel taxes by 8 cents per gallon? Huh.

I think a vast majority of non-leftists would eagerly agree to 8 cents per gallon increase in fuel tax in exchange for permanently lifting every other policy roadblock to pro-American, pro-Western, pro-human-prosperity fuel exploration, extraction, and transportation. I doubt that’s actually on the table, but if it could be, we’d have the basis for a nice compromise.

[jb]

"So you’re in favor of keeping all the existing hardships because you can’t raise fuel taxes by 8 cents per gallon? Huh."

If the market is distorted by externalities then you either need to price in the externalities or regulate to avoid them. Right now we've got a regulatory model that as with most things in the US tends to make it hard to do anything new; I'm cool with loosening regulations if it's accompanied by something that helps the market get it right in a realm where historically it hasn't.

[James Pollock]

" Has there ever been a generation so interested in extracting short term value for themselves at five or ten times the cost to their kids and grandkids?"

Every generation ever, except for the ones currently too young to have kids and grandkids (but give them time)

[Voize of Reazon]

This Dallas Fed survey of executives of 139 oil and gas firms conducted March 9-17 asks some interesting questions.

What West Texas Intermediate crude oil price is necessary to get publicly traded U.S. producers back into growth mode?
29% of respondents said that there is no price that would cause an industry-wide shift to growth. That is consistent with answers to another question that asked what price would make drilling a new well profitable - large firms said $49/bbl, and small firms $59 - both numbers well below the current price.

The survey then asked:
Which of the following is the primary reason that publicly traded oil producers are restraining growth despite high oil prices?
Many commenters here would assume the answer was government regulation, and that was mentioned as a factor in written comments, but only 6% of respondents picked it as the primary reason. Environmental and social issues was chosen by only 11%. 59% chose "Investor pressure to maintain capital discipline" instead. Instead of investing their profits companies are issuing dividends and buying back shares, because that is what their investors demand.
So according to these industry insiders, we aren't witnessing the government or environmentalists frustrating free-market capitalism. We are seeing the failure of free-market capitalism.

[Absaroka]

Isn't drilling a well a long term proposition, i.e. you pay $zillion to drill a well today, and hope that long term prices are sufficient to make the investment worthwhile?

So a rational person wouldn't be drilling wells based on today's price, but on what they think the long term price might be. If their prediction is something like 'a shift to electric cars/solar/wind is likely to keep oil prices generally low in years to come', then it's not rational to be expanding drilling now because of a transitory spike in prices.

This is independent of whether they think a shift away from oil is wise or unwise, the result of regulation vs. market forces, or whatever. All that matters is that they think drilling wells today isn't the best current use of the money.

For one example, suppose Fred thinks 'fossil fuels are on the way out ... going forward, I'd rather be investing my money in wind turbines ... instead of spending the corporate cash to drill new wells, give it to me as a dividend so I can invest it in wind turbines'. It seems odd to characterize that as a 'failure of free-market capitalism'.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's regulatory risk: The fact that you get permission today to make the investment doesn't mean that tomorrow you won't be forbidden to make use of what you paid for. So you don't dare make the investment you've been authorized to make.

You can't make long term investments when you can't trust the government not to make them worthless. And the faction who'd make them worthless only have to be in power occasionally, not continually, to cause this problem.

Fossil fuels, nuclear power, mining, any industry that might abruptly be shut down because the wrong people get a moment's power, are impossibly dangerous to invest in, in such an environment.

Basically, we're changing into the sort of low trust environment where long term investments aren't economically rational anymore.

And since the logic that's leading to these shutdowns isn't really logical, or fact driven,

[Voize of Reazon]

All that matters is that they think drilling wells today isn't the best current use of the money.

Yes, exactly.

It seems odd to characterize that as a 'failure of free-market capitalism'.

Perhaps, for certain definitions of success.

If your focus is on capitalism, so success means generating maximal returns for investors, then we are seeing a success.

If your focus is on the free market, then not so much. Success there means the market is efficiently setting prices so as to balance supply against demand, and that market-based mechanism doesn't work as intended when there is no elasticity of supply.

[James Pollock]

"If your focus is on the free market, then not so much. Success there means the market is efficiently setting prices so as to balance supply against demand"

Depends. If your focus is on a free market, you might be concerned if there are signs that the market is not, in fact, free. So many people come away from high-school economics class with a poor understanding of how markets work, and try to apply that poor understanding to everything for the rest of their lives.

[Voize of Reazon]

We have constrained supply leading to price increases that are not stimulating investment to increase supply. That is the market failing.

You may believe that failure is due to government regulation, but the executives from 139 oil and gas companies say it isn't. Maybe you can convince them that they don't know what they are talking about.

[James Pollock]

"We have constrained supply leading to price increases that are not stimulating investment to increase supply. "

What I see is we have opportunists attempting to raise prices based on events that aren't actually affecting supply in the US. Americans responded to rising prices by not buying and reducing usage. That's how the market works, and it did work.

[David Nieporent]

We have constrained supply leading to price increases that are not stimulating investment to increase supply. That is the market failing.

Come on. "The market for a good didn't immediately respond, with a long term solution, to short term fluctuations" is not remotely what market failure means.

[Voize of Reazon]

It's very generous of you to put quotation marks around all those words I didn't say.

[James Pollock]

What, exactly, was attributed to you that you didn't say?

[Absaroka]

I'm not sure I see that. Are you thinking that an optimal market would be drilling today, to supply more oil at some time in the future, after the price/demand will have dropped?

I would argue that the market is efficiently adjusting price/demand for the current supply, and also that it is efficiently adjusting the future supply to the expected future demand. Now, it may be that the predictions of the future are wrong, but that is equally true if you let investors make the prediction, or use the Oil Ministry's forecast.

Whether you have a free market or directed market, today's drilling decisions don't affect today's supply. Drilling decisions, either way, should be made with an eye to supplying next year's demand, not today's.

[Voize of Reazon]

It is a feature of free enterprise that it harnesses people's self-interest to get results that are generally beneficial all around, but not inevitably so. And so energy investors may rationally decide that their interests are better served by investing their windfall in something that is entirely nonproductive - cryptocurrency, for example - instead of increasing oil production. That isn't a win for the free market system.

However, I am not advocating for controlled markets.

I am saying that the "invisible hand" sometimes drops the ball, and when it does the government is not always to blame, though many Reasoners like to think so. Rather it is inherent in the system, that it doesn't always produce the best result for the economy as a whole.

[Absaroka]

"...And so energy investors may rationally decide that their interests are better served by investing their windfall in something that is entirely nonproductive..."

Or they might invest in something productive going forward, like wind farms, instead of something unproductive, like drilling wells to supply oil no one may want by the time the wells come online.

My sense is that investors, today, want to invest in producing the things society will want in the future. Isn't that what we want them to be doing?

Now, accurately predicting the future is hard. Oil company investors seem to think that society is going to want something else more than oil in coming years. You seem to disagree, and feel that more oil will be what society wants in coming years.

And you are free to bet that your crystal ball has sharper focus than other people, and use your money to drill wells in the hope there will be lots of demand for oil in a year or two. Other people seem to disagree with your prediction, and they are free to use their money to get ready to produce whatever they think will be in demand on down the road.

You are making an implicit assumption that oil price/demand will stay high. Your desired action - invest in drilling now - is only optimal if your assumption comes true. If it doesn't, the investors who took their money and invested in wind power or whatever will have made a better decision. Not just better for themselves, but better for society as well.

[Voize of Reazon]

Then you agree with my main point, that government regulation isn't to blame for $5/gallon gasoline. You just get there by a different route - you feel there is no blame to allocate, the system is working as it is supposed to work and whatever happens with prices is what ought to happen.

Your other points are a bit of a sidetrack for me, but I have some responses nonetheless.

you are free to bet that your crystal ball has sharper focus than other people, and use your money to drill wells
Remember we are discussing capitalism. A capitalist isn't an entrepreneur, they invest in enterprises rather than creating new ones. If the industry as a whole is not increasing production there will be few opportunities to invest in companies that are.

in the hope there will be lots of demand for oil in a year or two That timeline is enormously variable. Drilling to increase production in an established field can be online in a few months. Exploring and developing a new field can take several years.

Your desired action - invest in drilling now - is only optimal if your assumption comes true. Fortunately, we don't need to speculate. Oil has been over $60/bbl for more than a year (the timescale you suggested) so investors have already made suboptimal decisions not to invest.
That doesn't mean another system would work better, it just means the current system sometimes fails.

[Absaroka]

"Then you agree with my main point, that government regulation isn't to blame for $5/gallon gasoline."

I take no position one way or another on that. I a disagreeing with your original "We are seeing the failure of free-market capitalism." You have yet to make the case for that.

"A capitalist isn't an entrepreneur, they invest in enterprises rather than creating new ones."

???? That's a very nonstandard definition of capitalist. Page and Brin aren't capitalists because they founded Google? Gates isn't because he founded Microsoft in his garage (basement?)?

"If the industry as a whole is not increasing production there will be few opportunities to invest in companies that are."

Sure there is - start one! The small oilman rags-to-riches is practically a stereotype. If you aren't confident enough to invest your money, why should the rest of us listen to your investment advice?

"That timeline is enormously variable. Drilling to increase production in an established field can be online in a few months. Exploring and developing a new field can take several years."

Awesome! If you want to bet that oil prices will still be high in a few months, *and will continue long enough to make the well profitable*, start drilling. I expect that everyone who thinks that is drilling as we speak - why wouldn't they? While the people who think that, going forward, wind farms are a better investment are switching to that.

"...so investors have already made suboptimal decisions not to invest."

Well, they haven't invested the way you want them to. I remain to be convinced that your assessment of the market going forward is better than the assessment of people who make their living in that market.

[Voize of Reazon]

I think this has largely run its course, but ...

I take no position one way or another on that. I a[m] disagreeing with your original "We are seeing the failure of free-market capitalism."

If you disagree we are seeing a failure, aren't you saying there hasn't been a failure? Or is there a failure, but it is invisible? You have thoroughly confused me.

Page and Brin aren't capitalists because they founded Google? Gates isn't because he founded Microsoft in his garage

I am surprised you question this. A capitalist is an investor who supplies capital, not knowhow or the sweat of their brow. Page and Brin, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak and Wayne, their involvement in the businesses they started was not as capitalists, though maybe they are in their more recent investments. Warren Buffet is the canonical capitalist.

[James Pollock]

"I am surprised you question this. A capitalist is an investor who supplies capital, not knowhow or the sweat of their brow. Page and Brin, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak and Wayne, their involvement in the businesses they started was not as capitalists, though maybe they are in their more recent investments. Warren Buffet is the canonical capitalist."

Capital isn't just money. It can be anything from which money can be made. So, say, providing a building in which production machinery can be installed to make a factory is capitalist, just the same as ponying up cash to buy a building is. Some people get involved in the business because they have some cash to invest. Some get in because they see an opportunity. Most tech businesses are built on a combination of A) somebody has an idea that can make some money, and B) somebody else's money. The thing about B) is that there are often several "somebody else"s whose money is used. Somebody has an idea, goes and convinces some VCs to fund the startup, then eventually form a public corporation to operate the business.

[James Pollock]

"Is there a level of hardship where environmentalists might be willing to compromise and let a pipeline be built or oil be extracted from the ground? "

Let's take a long-term view, for just a second. Right now, there is a fixed amount of stored energy in the ground, in the form of fossil fuels. More energy is supplied regularly, in the form of insolation. If you draw upon the stored energy faster than it can be replaced, there will inevitably be a time when the stored energy runs out. At that point, and from that point forward, the only energy available will be the incoming energy. From this we can logically say that it is going to become necessary at some point to live within the budget. If we wait, we will be forced to do it, better to start developing methods and technology to better use the incoming energy than to wait until we have no choice, due to lack of alternatives.
That's the species-centered view.

If you prefer the nationalistic view, it goes like this. There's fossil fuels underground all over the world. Some of it is under OUR ground, and some of it is under the ground of nations that are hostile to or at least not completely compatible with our own. So, let's use the oil that's under THEIR ground, and leave ours where it is, under Texas. Then, when theirs runs out, we'll still have some.

[Life of Brian]

Big-ticket airlines and airports throughout Europe are dropping mask mandates.

Vulnerable House Democrats are voicing support for the public transit mask repeal bill that passed the Senate 57-40 last week.

CEOs from all major US airlines sent a letter to Biden two days ago calling on him to lift the public transit mask mandate.

Odds that Biden will finally wake up and smell the coffee, as opposed to tripling down and redefining tone-deafness?

[Kazinski]

I was shocked, shocked when I arrived at the Belgrade airport yesterday and fully 50% of the people inside the airport were maskless.

In the city walking around in stores, restaurants, or bars you can go hours without seeing a mask.

[James Pollock]

"Odds that Biden will finally wake up and smell the coffee"

Being able to smell coffee (or anything else) is impeded by contracting the COVID virus.

why are there people who WANT the virus to spread?

[Brett Bellmore]

When I was a kid, there were still literally chicken pox parties, and I seem to recall one of my neighbors sending their kid over to play with us when me and my sister came down with it. Because there wasn't yet a good vaccine, and chicken pox was seriously nasty if you got it first as an adult, but was no big deal as a kid.

Today, Covid is no big deal if you contract it as a kid, and for a while the vaccine wasn't available, so it actually would have made sense to want kids to catch it. It's still arguably better or a wash to catch Covid than get vaccinated, over a significant age range.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Except for that pesky problem the medical community is calling Long Covid.

But who cares what the experts have to say on the subject, Brett here says otherwise!

[Brett Bellmore]

And there's long chicken pox, otherwise known as "shingles", whose existence is much better established. (Though not at the time I was speaking of.)

But you have to get past the acute effects before you worry about the long effects.

[James Pollock]

I've had shingles. Get vaccinated for it, you don't want to have an outbreak.

[jb]

Europe has had a much more sensible relationship to masking in general.

People in Europe mostly masked inside during higher risk phases of the pandemic, and not outside. They didn't have a bunch of people hysterically crying about their oxygen levels or their freedumb, but at the same time there wasn't a lot of virtue signalling outdoor masking either. For whatever reason (well, probably just because Trump didn't like masks) in the US the Republicans decided to turn masking into some sort of culture war topic, which resulted in a silly over-reaction by Democrats as well. Maybe rather than trying to turn every fucking topic into something that there needs to be a political valence to, next time we can just try to act sensibly. We could simultaneously limit the spread of dangerous diseases and get rid of unnecessary burdens like over-masking!

[Ben_]

You know what leads to people mostly acting sensibly? Telling them something is strongly suggested and the honest reasons why.

What leads to the opposite? Mandates, requirements, punitive mask-policing, bullying, ridiculous mask rules for toddlers, extremist rules, etc. And then lying about why.

We can see how well masks work by looking at mask use versus Covid cases in Japan and Korea where masking is 98-99%:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/why-did-masks-stop-working-japan-and-south-korea

Masks help a little sometimes. (Cutting your chances of getting Covid in half has limited benefit when you’re at significant risk 200 times a week.) Not enough to justify mask-policing and bullying.

[jb]

There's lots of studies on masks; you can definitely find one that confirms your existing bias. I agree they're not magic. In a lot of contexts they're very useful. This is why they've been used in medical contexts for decades.

Like I said, the US has been super dumb about this. You can choose to believe that it's all the fault of the other team, but it's pretty obvious that there's plenty of hysteria on both sides of the debate and it hasn't been good for personal freedom, health outcomes or societal cohesion.

[Ben_]

It’s clearly both teams.

Public health professionals have done the worst job relative to the needs the country had for their performance. They seem to have a culture that’s distinctly alien from the public at large, and a near-perfect inability to bridge that gap.

[James Pollock]

"You know what leads to people mostly acting sensibly? Telling them something is strongly suggested and the honest reasons why."

Doesn't work on Conservatives.

[James Pollock]

"Masks help a little sometimes. (Cutting your chances of getting Covid in half has limited benefit when you’re at significant risk 200 times a week.) Not enough to justify mask-policing and bullying."

The point of the mask isn't to keep pathogens out, it's to keep pathogens in. the surgeon in an operating room isn't wearing a mask because he's afraid of catching something from the person he's operating on.

The problem with COVID is that you can be sick (and spreading the disease) long before the virus makes you sick enough to know you're sick. That's why waiting for people who know they're sick to take steps to prevent the spread of the virus didn't work, and more active prevention of spread was required.

Now that you know the reasons why you were expected to mask up, are you going to do it voluntarily?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Who hear knows what a woman is?

[John F. Carr]

Woman is an old fashioned word for womxn.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Back in my day the feminazis preferred womyn.

[Ben_]

Everyone knows. It’s only a question of who is afraid of cancel culture bullies and who genuinely prefers to lie about it.

It will be fun watching every candidate running for every office in 2022 be asked this question. A lot of them are going to look foolish or worse.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah the old 'everyone secretly agrees with me and is lying about it.'

[Jimmy the Dane]

The left is full of liars and cheats. This is known by all including the liars and cheats of the left.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[James Pollock]

"The left is full of liars and cheats. This is known by all including the liars and cheats of the left."

This is why the hero of the right is the biggest liar and cheat in American society.

[Ben_]

Maybe you can tell us what a woman is then

[Jimmy the Dane]

To be fair Sarcastro really has no idea about anything in that department....

[Bob from Ohio]

"Sarcastro really has no idea about anything in that department...."

Be fair now, just because he hasn't been touched by a woman doesn't mean he doesn't know one when he sees one.

[Ben_]

It should be noted that Sarcastr0 has still not told us what a woman is.

[Sarcastr0]

It should be noted how clearly unserious this entire thread is.

[Michael P]

It's always hilarious when you complain about other people being unserious.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it describes a lot of people here well.
People like you, for instance, who seem to think every insult applies to someone who doesn't agree with them.

Bottom line, it's hard to argue I'm less serious than this thread going in for the big laffs calling someone a big virgin.

[Jimmy the Dane]

More Sarcastro playing fast and loose with the facts. No one called him a "big virgin" just that he didn't know anything about women. The fact he read into that comment to be "big virgin" probably is telling though.

[James Pollock]

" The fact he read into that comment to be "big virgin" probably is telling though."

Your interest in other peoples' sex experiences says as much about you.

[Ben_]

Tell the people receiving death threats that it’s not serious. Tell the Loudoun County Virginia girl that got raped in the ladies room that it’s not serious.

Every political race this fall will have this issue because it’s one of the easiest ways to show the difference between regular people and out of touch zealots.

[Jimmy the Dane]

These people think incidents like that are acceptable collateral damage and that, just like open air drug markets, looting, and homeless people on public transit, these must be tolerated for the greater good.

Leftists are all seriously mentally ill and instead of treating them as such for some reason we just make huge societal attempts to justify that mental illness. It is actually sort of sad.

[James Pollock]

"Leftists are all seriously mentally ill"

Swell. Are all mentally ill persons categorically leftist, as well?
If so, you're a self-hating leftist. Or are we to assume that some mentally ill people are leftists, and some are totally not leftists, like you?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Allegedly got raped. Although regardless of whether it happened or not, you will still try to make political hay from her. Disgusting, but not surprising.

[Ben_]

Showing you care about pointing fingers and don’t care about women and girls being assaulted.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My point is that you really don't care about them either, except to the extent that they support your partisan psychobabble. That poor girl in Loudoun County is going to be used extensively this election season, by "carers" like you.

[Ben_]

As an example to help prevent it from happening to more victims.

[James Pollock]

"Showing you care about pointing fingers and don’t care about women and girls being assaulted."

We should absolutely make a law criminailzing assaulting women and girls. We can call it "Ben_'s Law", so we can remember who brought the problem to our attention.
Punishing trans people for having bladders that need emptying is not the law you need to protect girls and/or women.

[jb]

"Tell the Loudoun County Virginia girl that got raped in the ladies room that it’s not serious."

She was raped by someone she had previously had consensual sex with and that she consensually met in the bathroom to hook up again. That's not to say it wasn't rape or that she can't change her mind. It's to make the point that the bathroom was just the convenient place that couple was meeting up. It could have been a store room or under the bleachers or any number of other places that teenagers manage to sneak off to to have sex and you would have had the same outcome.

If this is the best example that anti-trans folks can find of the dangers of allowing trans folks into the bathroom of their choice, it basically shows that there's no danger at all. This is the farthest thing possible from someone pretending to be a woman and waiting in the bathroom to prey on unsuspecting victims.

[Ben_]

It’s a response to the claim that the topic is "unserious", not "the best example" of WTF-ever.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Are there other examples? Do they outnumber the cases of transgender teens being assaulted when forced to use bathrooms not consistent with their gender identity? You caring so much and all.

[Ben_]

Probably other examples, yes. Do your own research if you want. One rape answers "unserious" without the need for a second example.

Trying to make this about me shows you basically have nothing to say on the subject. It’s not about me. Do you ever have anything to offer besides finger-pointing?

Can you tell us what a woman is? So far no one who has been asked can tell us.

[James Pollock]

the case for "potty purity" laws boils down to a couple of (not actually very) scary hypotheticals...

1. What if a poor, helpless little girl goes into a public ladies' room and sees someone with a penis? (as if the ladies' rooms don't have stalls in them.)

2. Once you make it OK for dudes to pop into the ladies' loo, the rapists will go in there and rape everyone they can, and there won't be any crime the cops can charge them with because it's legal for dudes to be in the ladies'. That's why we need a new law enforcing potty purity... so that if a female person is raped in a ladies' room, we can charge the dude what done did the raping with being in a ladies' room while possessing a penis.

If you got a trans woman who's in the ladies' room because she has to pee and that's where ladies go to pee, that's none of your (or anyone else's) business. If it bothers you to be in a restroom with a trans person, don't go in the public restroom while there's a trans person in there, and the problem is solved. If you got a dude who's hanging out in the ladies' room because they want to peek at body parts not normally visible to the public, bust them for being a peeping tom, that's already a crime. If you got somebody who's hanging out in the ladies' room looking to rape somebody, bust them for attempting rape, that's already a crime.

Or, pass a comprehensive potty purity law: all persons who want to enter a sex-segregated restroom MUST disrobe completely prior to entering, so there's no possibility of smuggling in any incorrect anatomy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Basically boils down to, "If a guy wants to expose himself to a little girl, what's it to you? Get used to it, you Neanderthal!"

[James Pollock]

Exactly, Brett. It's not like we have any laws against guys exposing themselves to little girls, or anything.

[David Nieporent]

The issue with this argument is that it proves too much. If your "It doesn't matter" is right, then it applies to the existence of women's bathrooms and locker rooms in the first place, not merely to the issue of whether trans women use them.

The same arguments would apply to cis men: oh, it's no big deal if they're in a women's bathroom since there are stalls, and also the police can arrest them if they do something otherwise illegal.

For that matter, the same argument — people's discomfort doesn't matter; get over it — applies to the trans people themselves. Why can't they use the restroom that matches their biological sex?

[James Pollock]

"The same arguments would apply to cis men: oh, it's no big deal if they're in a women's bathroom since there are stalls, and also the police can arrest them if they do something otherwise illegal."

True enough.

[James Pollock]

"For that matter, the same argument — people's discomfort doesn't matter; get over it — applies to the trans people themselves. Why can't they use the restroom that matches their biological sex?"

Why stop there? Why can't those trans people solve all the problems for us, and just not be trans?

[James Pollock]

"Every political race this fall will have this issue because it’s one of the easiest ways to show the difference between regular people and out of touch zealots."

You have miscalculated which category you belong to.

[James Pollock]

"It should be noted that Sarcastr0 has still not told us what a woman is."

Should it be noted that you don't already know the answer?

[James Pollock]

"It’s only a question of who is afraid of cancel culture bullies and who genuinely prefers to lie about it."

Funny thing about "cancel culture" is that right-wingers were absolutely fine with it when it only applied to people who disagreed with them, but as soon as it was applied to people who agree with them, suddenly it's the worst thing ever...
We have to kick John Lennon out of the US, because he once joked that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. And buy more Beatles records so we can smash them in the public square.

[James Pollock]

It's you. You are a woman.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Hear him roar.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Wordle is fine for a quick 10 minute game, but if you want something a little more challenging and interesting, try this:

https://semantle.novalis.org

[KenveeB]

Wordle takes you 10 minutes??

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ha ha! Usually only when I have to put my phone down and carry my 15 year old dog out to pee.

[Paladin_44]

Cool!

[Brett Bellmore]

I find Wordle entertaining, sort of a word based version of Mastermind, but being able to play it only once a day is limiting.

I've been on vacation the last week, and binging Word Trip between walks on the beach.

I appreciate the progressive difficulty level, and that you can play it for hours. The intrusive ads are a pain, though; I'm almost to the point of buying a subscription just to be rid of them.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Excellent, I'll give that a try. I think you'd really like semantle, although it requires a bit of random guessing before you start getting on the trail. Based on word usage and meaning, rather than just spelling.

[Brett Bellmore]

Guessing games tend to leave me a bit cold, especially if the criteria are a bit vague. I view Wordle as more of a code breaking game, for all that you break it with "guesses". At least the criteria are perfectly objective.

I suppose from the perspective of my goal here, (Intellectual stimulation to stave off mental decline.) the very vagueness I'm complaining of might be a plus, though. I suppose I'll give it a try this weekend.

[James Pollock]

"I suppose from the perspective of my goal here, (Intellectual stimulation to stave off mental decline.) "

Isn't working, Try harder.

[dwb68]

Roberts wrote an opinion from the Nov sitting (Ramirez v. Collier argued nov 9th).

It's unlikely that Roberts wrote two from Nov. Also not Gorsuch or Alito, both have written. That means Barrett, Thomas, or Kavanaugh are writing NY Guns.

My money is on Barrett.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I'm hoping it is Thomas. Constitutional carry in all 50 states here we come!

[dwb68]

Neither of us is that lucky.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I own $23 is a 50/50 raffle last week, so who knows....

[James Pollock]

"Constitutional carry in all 50 states here we come!"

Get your musket ready!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A worldwide pandemic leaked from a bioweapons lab that has allegedly killed millions and cost the world trillions.

Why are the Federal Class politicians and bureaucrats completely silent on holding those accountable for this?

[Ben_]

Complicity? Or maybe because it turned out to be a big net benefit to them.

[Longtobefree]

Follow the money.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside your completely-made-up "fact," how exactly would you "hold accountable" someone if it were true?

[ThePublius]

Occam's razor.

[Sarcastr0]

Donald Trump has filed a sprawling RICO case against Hillary Clinton and others, alleging a conspiracy to make him look compromised by Russia.

Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust.

Yeah, you get to judge the lawyers who filed this.

[Absaroka]

I thought you must have gotten that from a satire site, but sadly not.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Hillary would engage in sleazy politics, but so what? That's not something you sue over.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know about that: True, Trump is a public figure, but if Hillary literally paid to have lies fabricated and disseminated about Trump, that's plausibly actionable defamation.

[not guilty]

Trump is not suing for defamation. The complaint repeatedly and specifically disclaims harm to reputation as an element of damages.

I surmise that Trump does not want to put his reputation at issue before a jury.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Does anyone else smell Streisand effect level outcome to this? I don't see how this works out well for Trump or his attorneys.

[not guilty]

I suspect the suit will be shut down before Trump has to provide any discovery.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Of course. But the dismissal may very well point out the somewhat obvious fact that many of the "distortions" were proven true in FBI, etc., investigations, as well as the fact that there was more than enough predicate for investigations.

[James Pollock]

"I suspect the suit will be shut down before Trump has to provide any discovery."

By this, do you mean before having to provide any discovery, or before answering complaints that the discovery is full of lies?

[David Nieporent]

No. I mean, the theory is right, but the Streisand Effect involves taking action to silence someone that actually amplifies it. There's nothing about Trump that could be amplified; everything's already at 11.

[NOVA Lawyer]

David, that's exactly right. Just, this seems like it could blowback in his face depending on how it's ultimately dismissed, to include whether there are sanctions and whether the judge points out that what Trump is claiming as a smear actually has substantial evidence supporting it.

But you're also right, it's one of those: he files a lawsuit so the usual suspects say "yep, definitely Hillary's a crook" and the lawsuit gets dismissed and they say "And the courts are in on it too!"

When your base is that stupid, I guess anything that gets coverage counts as a win for you. I mean, there was Sidney Powell and her kraken.

[James Pollock]

When Trump gets into the business of selling textbooks, and his allies make sure that schools are forced to buy them, then history will trumpet the glorious success of the kraken in exposing the fraud that cost rightful winner of the 2020 election Donald Trump the office of the Presidency. leading to his ascension to heaven directly from Florida.

[James Pollock]

"No. I mean, the theory is right, but the Streisand Effect involves taking action to silence someone that actually amplifies it. There's nothing about Trump that could be amplified; everything's already at 11."

What you're seeing is Mr. Trump's attempt to monetize anything he can, so he'll have some money to pay off debts.

[Absaroka]

"I don't know about that: True, Trump is a public figure, but if Hillary literally paid to have lies fabricated and disseminated about Trump, that's plausibly actionable defamation."

My point is: so what? If you don't expect to be defamed, you shouldn't run for political office.

(OTOH, given my deep affection for both Trump and Hillary, I wouldn't object to settling the point of honor with a duel)

[Brett Bellmore]

Regardless of what you think of Trump or Hillary, (Lesser and greater evils, respectively, IMO.) I'd love to see Fusion GPS, whose business model is fabricating lies and then using media contacts to disseminate them, face their just deserts.

[James Pollock]

Somebody's mad that Fusion GPS doesn't work for his guys.

[Commenter_XY]

Wait.....RICO?

[not guilty]

I fail to see how Trump is a person injured in his business or property by reason of a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt, as a civil RICO action requires. His principal claim of damages is that he has had to pay out attorney fees.

[David Nieporent]

His principal claim of damages is that he has had to pay out attorney fees.

And that's almost certainly false, too! He's a grifter; he raised all those fees from his MAGA marks.

[James Pollock]

Nah. He just didn'[t pay them, and kept all the MAGA money.

[not guilty]

Is Agency Holding v. Malley-Duff, 483 U.S. 143 (1987), still good law? Trump's lawyers had best hope their professional liability insurance coverage is up to date.

[not guilty]

I haven't yet read the complaint, but how is a filing complaining of events occurring six years ago arguably timely? And what gives the Southern District of Florida personal jurisdiction of Hillary Clinton?

I hope Trump's lawyers got paid up front.

[not guilty]

I have now read the complaint. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.1.0.pdf I am no more enlightened.

[James Pollock]

Trump's lawyers were probably not paid up front, because Trump has insufficient income to pay them with. So they're firing off crazy attempts to find someone, anyone stupid enough to cover der Trumpfenfuhrer's bad debts.

[James Pollock]

"Donald Trump has filed a sprawling RICO case against Hillary Clinton and others, alleging a conspiracy to make him look compromised by Russia."

Is truth a defense to this kind of case? Are Mr. Trump's lip-prints on Putin's ass admissible?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes, it is. Also, I'd be serving a notice of deposition of the plaintiff post haste.

[Michael P]

Lip-prints? Is that why Putin only invaded Ukraine after Obama said he would have more flexibility after re-election, and then again after Biden authorized a "minor incursion"?

[NOVA Lawyer]

I think you're missing the Helsinki tape.

You're also missing the part where Obama and the rest of the G7 kicked Putin out of G8 as part of the punishment for Russia's invasion of Crimea but Trump's "tough" response was to try to invite Putin back into the G8.

And on and on.

(Oh, and it's a bald-faced lie to say "Biden authorized a 'minor incursion'." He signaled uncertainty about what the U.S. and allies would do if there was a "minor" incursion which was a mistake, but not, in any sense, an authorization. The full quote:

I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.

It suggests a proportional response that holds Russia "accountable", but certainly not a green light to invade or grab more territory. And he immediately began trying to clean up any ambiguity he created. So you just lie.

Did Trump walk back his credulity at Putin's "very strong" denials of 2016 election interference? Of course not. He doubled down and blamed Ukraine. What a tough guy! Putin never had such passionate ass kissing.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Michael has a rather lengthy history of forming ridiculous conclusions based on his interpretation of his own half-truths.

[NOVA Lawyer]

LOL.

I thought you were joking.

So, basically, Stormy can just pay the $300k directly to Hillary and the DNC once the dust on this clusterf**k settles.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I find the misinformation/disinformation/false flags/biased coverage of Ukraine fascinating. It goes to show you how much a clamp the Western corporate elite media has on public discourse. Outside of the echo chamber articles almost 100% in praise of anything Ukraine, you can get absolutely zero news without going to the hinterland of the dark web or anonymous apps like telegram.

The you get all the completely fabricated stories using actual crisis actors which if someone points out "hey that is the same person in a different costume in a different city!" the public are now programmed to be denounced as a "conspiracy theorist". And just also completely made up tales of things like Chechen hit squads sent on a secret mission (except for some reason the NYT got info on it) to kill the Ukrainian President. Followed up another completely fake article about how the Ukrainian military has killed the entire hit squad in some kind of ambush.

When war comes to our shores (and it is coming) there will be no way to rely on anything to give you factual information except for back channels and your own personal observations. Keep that in mind when planning your emergency comms.

[David Nieporent]

See, some people here are purely partisan hacks, like Bob from Ohio. Other people here are simply certifiably loony, like Jimmy the Dane.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I object to that assertion and would include that I am ALSO a partisan hack....thank you very much....

*Off to grind my axe*

[James Pollock]

What you are, mainly, is stupid. Be careful with that axe, you'll hurt yourself.

[Jimmy the Dane]

It is really sad to see a bona fide retard calling someone stupid. The difference between me and you is that I know I'm not stupid, but you have no idea you are an actual retard.

[James Pollock]

"It is really sad to see a bona fide retard calling someone stupid."

But you do it anyway.

" The difference between me and you is that I know I'm not stupid"

If wishing things were true made things actually true, you might have a point. Besides that one under your cap.

[SimonP]

When war comes to our shores (and it is coming)...

Because you intend to start it?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Obviously not. It will probably be started by the Satanic, child porn worshipping occult elitists who seek something called the "Grand Reset".

[James Pollock]

Tell us more about your fantasies.

[Estragon]

Oh jimmy jimmy. Any day now. Make sure you’re ready, we’re coming for you first my friend.

[James Pollock]

The people who aren't too disgusted to get close are coming for him.

[James Pollock]

You're welcome to head over to Ukraine and learn the truth directly.

Back in the 1980's right-wing nuts were reliably anti-Russia without any media manipulation.

[Frank Drackman]

Fuck Uke-Raine!, a bunch of losers, cut corners on defense for years, gave up their Nuke-ular Weapons (be nice to have a few now, dontcha think?) and abandon their country faster than Common-Law Harris's staffers leaving. War's not over yet, my money's on the Bear (Yes, there is a Bear in the Woods, and He's not friendly)

[James Pollock]

Twit, having nuclear weapons but no way to deliver them is not particularly helpful. Ask your buddies in North Korea.

[ThePublius]

Often a catch-phrase is crafted to denigrate one's opponent. One that really stuck with the left-leaning media outlets is that "Kavanaugh was credibly accused of sexual misconduct." "Credibly accused."

In fact, if one constructs any reasonable definition of credibility of accusation, Kavanaugh was not at all credibly accused.

Blasey-Ford's (scripted) story was not even corroborated by her friend who was supposedly there, not to mention by no-one else. She didn't know the date, and was even foggy on the year this occurred. She didn't know exactly where the house was. And so on, and so forth. Kavanaugh had exculpatory evidence that he wasn't even there when they established about when and where this was supposed to have occurred.

Such B.S. How can reasonable people counter this widely promulgated false narrative?

[Frank Drackman]

I would have loved Kavanaugh (looks like Ed Meese, Google it) to have responded to "Leaky" Pat Leahy, Dick "The Dick" Durbin, "Danang Dick" Blumenthal, Chris (really should change his last name) Coons, and Corey "I'm not gay" Booker,
"Shit guys, I wouldn't have fucked that Bitch with any of your Dicks"
Might not have made the Surpremes, but could look at himself in a mirror....

[James Pollock]

In your imaginary scenario, does a guy who looks like Ed Meese have any choice about fucking or not fucking anybody?

[Commenter_XY]

I have to confess, the 'credibly accused' does set teeth on edge. That was not right, what happened at the Kavenaugh hearing. Glad we are not seeing a repeat spectacle.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yeah, this time, the Senators are yelling at the nominee while smearing her instead of the nominee yelling at the Senators. Somehow, you seem to think that's a good look (coming and going) for the Republicans.

[Commenter_XY]

It is not a good look for anyone, NOVA Lawyer.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's a good look for KBJ as she has testified with grace and class in the face of disgusting smears. Pretty much the opposite of how Brett "I like beer! Do you like beer?!?!" Kavanaugh handled the allegations against him.

[Michael P]

Some of us think that fabricated accusations of serious crime, and duplicitous attempts to prop those up, are more serious than whether tone of voice can be interpreted as "yelling". But I guess that's the hill you choose to die on.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So you're fine with the dishonest smearing of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as somehow soft on child pornographers when any honest assessment of her sentencing record would acknowledge the many Republican appointees who were supported by these same Senators and who gave similar sentences for similar crimes?

And, faced with those smears, she managed not to yell back at the Senators like a petulant child Brett "I like beer. Do you like beer?!?!" Kavanaugh.

He showed an utter lack of judicial temperament. It would be interesting to see how he would react to an attorney yelling questions back at him when flummoxed during oral argument, but, of course, Supreme Court advocates have far more class than Kavanaugh displayed during his hearings.

[James Pollock]

"So you're fine with [...]"

His ilk are "fine with" anything his party's heroes do or say.

[not guilty]

The confirmation hearings of Judge Jackson have brought out the culture war crazies. Senator Cronyn compared Obergefell v. Hodges to Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Senator Blackburn cavilled that Griswold v. Connecticut is constitutionally unsound.

Senator Braun complained that Roe v. Wade and Loving v. Virginia regulated matters that should have been left to the states. (He later tried to walk back his commentary on Loving.)

The Supreme Court appears ready to jettison stare decisis and overrule Roe. Three of the Obergefell dissenters are still on the Court, and three right wing justices have since been added. Griswold has long been a bugbear to the right. What will the next target be?

A chill wind blows.

[Cal Cetín]

I agree depending on the meaning of "chill." 🙂

Of course Loving was right because it *upheld* and *defended* the institution of marriage. And Obergefell was wrong because it *attacked* the institution of marriage, and even its seeming promise of an opt-out by religious dissenters has not been fulfilled.

[not guilty]

Obergefell, which was decided on June 26, 2015, did not "attack" the institution of marriage. Everyone who was eligible to marry on June 25 remained so eligible on June 27. Obergefell merely expanded the universe of eligible persons.

[Cal Cetín]

"Everyone who was eligible to marry on June 25 remained so eligible on June 27."

That was very generous.

And bakers, florists, etc. remain free to pay huge penalties for dissenting.

[Cal Cetín]

Also, are there any limits to who has the right to get their purported marriages recognized by the government? Is there any form of union which shouldn't be extended official recognition as a "marriage"? If not, why limit a principle which, sayeth you, doesn't harm anyone?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've long thought that, despite the negative societal implications, the constitutional case for polygamy was actually hugely stronger than for SSM: Unlike SSM, it's actually a traditional form of marriage, widely practiced. Suppressing it in the US was a major 1st amendment violation against the Mormons, too.

I'm kind of surprised that they haven't made any moves in that direction. Instead, early signs are that they're teeing up pedophilia for the next major outrage.

[James Pollock]

The case for acknowledging SSM included the fact that the required change was relatively trivial, merely deleting the requirement that spouse be of differing genders, but otherwise leaving the role of spouse unchanged. Rewriting marriage laws to accommodate plural marriage would be far more challenging. (example: existing marriage laws establish spouses as default agents for each other, so if spouse W is lying in the hospital, and a risky procedure might significantly improve recovery but potentially also has negative consequences, then spouse H is empowered, by default, to select for the incapacitated spouse W whether or not the procedure is performed. If there are multiple spouses, you have to now account for possible disagreement among the spouses on how to proceed. Spouse 1 is lying incapacitated in the hospital. Spouse 2 wants to take extraordinary actions to preserve life, but spouses 3 and 4 say to pull the plug and stop the billing. What can (should) the doctors do?
This not an insurmountable problem, and it's one that could be solved if we (collectively) wanted to make it happen badly enough. But the divorce bar is busy enough dissolving the ordinary 2-person marriages we already have, and nobody is advocating that we need to make it more complicated, except for those loons who keep providing suggestions to make divorce harder.
the big challenge in all of that is separating the people who thing marriage is a religious artifact, and the ones who think it's entirely Earthly and need not be religious at all. Catholics have had separate religious rules for marriage and legal rules for marriage for decades, but there's other "religious" folk who figure the rules their religion imposes on members of the faith should also be imposed on people who aren't of that faith. If God has any opinion on the question of same-sex marriage, He continues to keep His own council.

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree that polygamy is considerably more complex to manage, as a legal matter. Does that really determine the constitutional question, though?

[James Pollock]

I guess that depends on whether or not the people who decide Constitutional questions have any concerns with administration of law.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Wow, Cal! He only disputed your statement that Obergefell didn't "attack the institution of marriage," so I don't see how dissenting bakers and florists are relevant. And where does he sayeth anything about people not being harmed? You're usually more on point than this.

[Cal Cetín]

You can attack *defenders* of marriage without attacking the institution itself? That's slicing the salami pretty thin.

[James Pollock]

If the "defenders" of marriage are not actually defending marriage, then yeah, you can attack those "defenders" without attacking marriage.

[James Pollock]

"are there any limits to who has the right to get their purported marriages recognized by the government?"

That depends ENTIRELY on the government, and what interests it wants to promote by recognizing marriages.

How, exactly, is your marriage (or lack thereof) affected if those two dudes over there can get their marriage recognized by the state?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. filed their joint brief in New York's Supreme Court, Appellate Division, seeking to overturn the trial court's ruling that each of the Appellants would have to give deposition testimony in the New York Attorney General's civil investigation. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21458753-trumps-appeal-engoron-subpoena-order
t
The brief mostly yaps and yammers about various statements critical of Donald Trump that the Attorney General made both before and since her election. The brief, however, cites no legal authority for the proposition that the subject of an investigation is entitled to a friendly investigator.

The brief tries to claim selective prosecution as a basis for reversal, but it fails to address the sine qua non of a selective prosecution claim -- the existence of similarly situated persons who have engaged in the same or similar misconduct, but who have gone uninvestigated.

The Trumps' lawyers are not serving them well.

[James Pollock]

They're guilty, so it's not clear that there's a good legal strategy to keep them from being found liable for the misdeeds in the Trump Organization.

If you go around long enough telling people that laws that apply to ordinary people simply do not apply to you, you have to expect that eventually, the people in charge of enforcing laws might take note that you consider them less than mandatory.

[not guilty]

A U.S. District Court in Ashland, Kentucky has granted summary judgment as to liability against Kimberly Jean Bailey Wallace Davis McIntyre Davis (better known as Kim Davis) in favor of same sex couples to whom Ms. Davis denied marriage licenses while acting as Rowan County Clerk. The amount of damages will be determined by a jury. https://lc.org/PDFs/Attachments2PRsLAs/2022/031822DavisMSJOpinionandOrderErmold.pdf

When this lawsuit makes its way up the appellate ladder, will SCOTUS regard it as a vehicle to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges? Three of the four justices who dissented in Obergefell are still on the Court, and three additional right wing justices have since been confirmed. The Court appears to be ready to abandon stare decisis when it comes to the culture war.

[Brett Bellmore]

I sincerely doubt that the majority on the Court are ready to fully reconsider Obergefel. Reliance interests and widespread resignation, basically: This is not an issue like abortion, where the opposition never gave up fighting, let alone one like the 2nd amendment, where the right has been winning. It's easy for the conservative Justices to rationalize giving the left this win and moving on.

The most we can realistically hope for is a ruling forcibly narrowing the application of public accommodation laws. And that would be a great victory, even if Obergefel stood.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I would say the opposition to Obergefell still continues to fight, exactly comparable to opposition to Roe. If fact I think the instant condemnation of Obergefell was much more loud and widespread than what happened right after Roe. And just as much a minority opinion in the population at large.

[James Pollock]

The opponents of Obergefell predicted that allowing same-sex couples to marry would lead, inexorably, though a parade of horribles to cats and dogs living together and a collapse of society. The longer we go without seeing a collapse of society, the more silly those people look and the more readily they can be ignored.

[James Pollock]

"When this lawsuit makes its way up the appellate ladder, will SCOTUS regard it as a vehicle to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges? Three of the four justices who dissented in Obergefell are still on the Court, and three additional right wing justices have since been confirmed. The Court appears to be ready to abandon stare decisis when it comes to the culture war."

Depends on who controls the Senate, and how strongly. Dropping stare decisis is grounds for impeachment and removal, unless you have enough Senators who back change.

the interesting thing will be if you do see abandonment of Obergefell, then the issue of same-sex marriage goes back to the states, and some states have expressly authorized same-sex marriages. same sex marriages originally registered in those states would remain valid. In the original states they're valid, and in the other 49 they're still valid because the Constitution requires the states to recognize each other's official acts.
So I'd expect a reversal of Obergefell to create an increase in marriage tourism, as the people who want to be married to people of the same sex travel to states that welcome their type of marriage, to become married. then they can return to their home states as married people.

[David Nieporent]

Dropping stare decisis is grounds for impeachment and removal,

Only in the most reductionist sense that anything — wearing white after labor day — is "grounds for impeachment and removal" if enough members of Congress say it is.

It's not legitimate grounds for impeachment and removal.

[James Pollock]

Abandoning rule of law is absolutely legitimate grounds for impeachment and removal.

[not guilty]

I don't know about that. Stare decisis is a judge-made doctrine. and its authors may decide, however unwisely, to no longer follow it. I don't foresee any impeachments if Roe v. Wade is overruled.

[James Pollock]

Depends on who controls the Congress if that should happen.

[David Nieporent]

That's great. What does it have to do with the topic, which was stare decisis? As the Supreme Court itself has explained on multiple occasions, "Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it is a principle of policy."

[James Pollock]

Abandoning principles of policy is OK with you?

[David Nieporent]

Of course. Who would stick with a policy that no longer served its purpose?

[James Pollock]

Anyone who can see that principles matter.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For the sake of argument, suppose: That the January 6 Capitol assault was indeed a result of a seditious conspiracy, as a court has determined. As part of that conspiracy, and the object of the conspiracy, Mark Meadows, the Chief of Staff to the President, was in November 2020 attempting to organize a coup, to maintain Donald Trump in office regardless of the election outcome.

Please note, I am not asking anyone to accept the above for all time and for every purpose, but just to suppose it for the sake of what comes next.

Assuming that predicate, what legal implications are there for the following concatenation of quotes from Ginny Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who sent these remarks to Meadows:

In one message sent in the days after the election, she urged the chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to “release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down,”

In another, she wrote: “I can’t see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no frickin consequences.”

She added: “We just cave to people wanting Biden to be anointed? Many of us can’t continue the GOP charade.”

In addition to being the wife of a Supreme Court Justice, Ginny Thomas is a long-time professional political operative, and Trump supporter. Her organization is a conduit for funding from anonymous donors, who use her to distribute money to support political operations they want to back. She is an associate of Meadows, and as shown by the quotes above she urges him on to commit sedition, while Meadows is actively doing that.

Do those quotes from Thomas sufficiently connect her to Meadows' conspiracy to put her in legal jeopardy? If Meadows is found to have committed seditious conspiracy, should Ginny Thomas be charged along with him, and with other conspirators as well?

[Michael P]

That is a lot of reality-challenged, unhinged conspiracy theorizing even for you.

First, no court has determined that the 1/6 riot "was indeed the result of a seditious conspiracy". Second, legal process is not "sedition". Third, there was no "Meadows' conspiracy".

For the sake of argument, apply to Republicans the same First Amendment arguments that have been applied to defend Twitter and Zuckbucks and congressional Democrats directing corporations to censor right-of-center views. Watch your elaborately constructed nothingburger disappear.

For the sake of the next argument, apply to Democrats the same ridiculously broad definition of "sedition" you use to attack conservatives. Watch your allies and heroes be impeached and get jailed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, I am not carrying water for Democrats. If they do the same things which make me think Republicans should be charged and convicted, I am as ready to see Democrats charged as well.

[James Pollock]

To the Conservatives, you're either with them, or you're agin 'em, and reality twists such that their guys always do no wrong, and the other guys always do no right.

It's fun to watch, especially when they turn to variations of whataboutism, as if anybody who isn't a Republican MUST be a Democrat, because there are no other alternatives. Every policy has two and only two possibilities, and there's no principled way to choose a position except "people I don't like choose one, so I have to take the other."

[James Pollock]

Also fun to watch is when reality twists for them such that one of them cannot possibly be considered to be right, in which case the only recourse is to declare that the poor SOB must not really be one of them, and never was.

[apedad]

"Do those quotes from Thomas sufficiently connect her to Meadows' conspiracy to put her in legal jeopardy?"

No.

She might have been a cheerleader on the sideline but she wasn't a player involved in the action (based on your scenario).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thank you, apedad. I am not a lawyer. I am not asking rhetorically. Your answer suggests one follow-up; perhaps you can help a bit more:

I have seen apparent legal experts online who say that to establish conspiracy legally, only one conspirator must commit an overt illegal act in furtherance of an agreement among others. For others who are in contact, mere support or encouragement can lead to guilt. That seems to accord with the notion that the conspiracy itself is a crime, separate from overt acts the participants might commit.

It seems to me you have replied that Ginny Thomas is not a conspirator because she did not herself commit an illegal act. But maybe that is not what you intended.

Could your "cheerleader on the sideline," characterization be off the mark? I would think of a sideline cheerleader as someone who sympathizes, but does so without direct contact with the conspirators—which is not Ginny Thomas.

Can you respond to that?

Maybe also address what you would say if it could be shown that money routed through Ginny Thomas went to support an effort to organize fraudulent electoral college ballots, in furtherance of a Meadows conspiracy.

More generally, are the comments by Thomas to Meadows quoted above sufficient evidence to broaden a Meadows criminal investigation? Do they justify investigation to include Thomas, and/or to subpoena the contact records and financial records of Thomas's political consulting business, to ascertain the extent of her substantive involvement?

[apedad]

"It seems to me you have replied that Ginny Thomas is not a conspirator because she did not herself commit an illegal act. But maybe that is not what you intended."

No, that's why I meant.

If someone sez, "You guys should rob a liquor store," but doesn't take any other action, but then the other guys actually plan the robbery, buy tools, rent a getaway car, etc., then the first person isn't part of the conspiracy - only the two guys who took concrete steps, i.e. planning, preparing, etc., are the conspirators.

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case, it's more like you suggest to somebody that the local liquor store is cooking the books and should be audited.

[James Pollock]

"If someone sez, "You guys should rob a liquor store," but doesn't take any other action, but then the other guys actually plan the robbery, buy tools, rent a getaway car, etc., then the first person isn't part of the conspiracy"

If someone says "WE should rob a liquor store", and then the other guys say, "yeah, we should" and then get guns and masks and a getaway car, and proceed to the liquor store, then you have a conspiracy to commit robbery. There are legal rules for how a person can get out of that conspiracy once it forms, but keeping quiet and staying home isn't one of them.

[David Nieporent]

If someone sez, "You guys should rob a liquor store," but doesn't take any other action, but then the other guys actually plan the robbery, buy tools, rent a getaway car, etc., then the first person isn't part of the conspiracy - only the two guys who took concrete steps, i.e. planning, preparing, etc., are the conspirators.

Only one conspirator needs to take an overt act for the conspiracy to reach the level of criminality. But to be a part of the conspiracy, one has to at least have agreed on the commission of the underlying illegal act (bank robbery, in your hypo).

In your hypo, there's nothing to show that the first person agreed to take part in it; he just suggested that other people do it. He doesn't have to go to the bank to be a conspirator — he could help plan it and sit at home while the others carried it out — but he has to do something more than just suggest it.

[David Nieporent]

Do those quotes from Thomas sufficiently connect her to Meadows' conspiracy to put her in legal jeopardy?

No. It doesn't show her having reached an agreement with Meadows or anyone else to commit an illegal act. And otherwise, it's protected speech.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, that is what I tended to think too.

Except that I also tend to think there is enough on the record associating Thomas with conspirators that an investigation of her consulting business is likely to turn up hard evidence of support—probably as a conduit for money. Would it be legally improper to subpoena her records and have a look?

[wreckinball]

Yea if you make a bunch of stuff up it sounds really bad.

[James Pollock]

Conversely, If you just ignore any facts you don't like and label them as "made up", there's no reason to be alarmed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

wreckinball you understand that the text in quotation marks is not made up, right? Those are quotes from messages Thomas sent to Meadows, as reported by the NYT and other media.

[bernard11]

Tucker Carlson is now claiming that Hunter Biden funded the alleged Ukrainian biolabs that are Russia's (manufactured) excuse for the invasion.

Why have Twitter, Facebook, NYT, WSJ, CNN, etc. covered up this story?

Come on, Brett, A.L., etc. You need to be all over this, spreading the word if the media and Silicon Valley are suppressing it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Heck, I wouldn't even think there WERE Ukrainian biolabs, if the administration hadn't made noises about being worried about Russian troops getting into them. And if we didn't seem to be funding sketchy biolabs all over the place, such as Wuhan.

Anyway, I thought Russia's original manufactured excuse was that Ukrainians wanted to be part of Russia. Did they change pretexts while I was on vacation?

[Sarcastr0]

DTRA is funding biolabs, has been since the 1990s, and they're not sketchy; they're public and open about what they are.

Russia is trying all the pretext. And you seem at least curious about everything they throw at the wall, as laundered through Tucker et al.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wait, you're actually concerned that I exhibit curiosity? Is failure to exhibit epistemic closure a moral failing, now?

As I said, Wuhan changed my perception of what the government might be up to in out of the way places. I suppose you learned nothing from it?

[NOVA Lawyer]

You learned from Wuhan that the United States government has labs all over the world studying communicable diseases? Okay.

But surely learning that was a relief, not cause for concern. At least, if I hadn't thought that was the case, I would be glad to learn it because I don't want the first time we become aware of a virus to be when thousands of people are dying from it. What responsible major world government doesn't have scientists studying obscure viruses and other communicable diseases/pathogens (whether the threat is to humans or domesticated animals or otherwise might affect our health and/or economy)? Oh, I guess maybe they wouldn't do that in Libertopia, as some private company would be expected to do all that research, but pretty much everyone else agrees this type of research is not just a good idea, but essential.

That Wuhan has made you more suspect of the U.S. government is weird.

I mean, anyone who wasn't a little suspect after Tuskegee is really kind of beyond help. But Wuhan added nothing to that particular conversation, other than, it's a good thing our government has at least been trying to identify, etc., pandemic threats.

I would have thought even most of the commenters here were too smart to fall for Putin's propoganda on biolabs in Ukraine. When he gasses Ukrainians, probably you'll buy that it wasn't him, it was us. Great.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no evidence that should have changed your perception of what happened in Wuhan.

What looks to have happened is someone speculated in a way you like and you have given that the weight of facts.

[James Pollock]

I'm fascinated by the people who repeatedly float the theory that those nasty Chicoms attacked us free Americans by releasing the COVID virus. In China.
To them, this makes perfect sense. Which is the problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose there are some people out there dumb enough to believe that straw man.

The real theory goes something like this: Congress outlawed 'gain of function' research as too dangerous, but some bureaucrats thought that was stupid, and covertly funded said research under different names. And did it in foreign labs to make discovering what they'd done more difficult.

Then China's notoriously lax bio-safety practices resulted in a dangerous bug escaping in China. Which bug existed in the first place because of the covert, illegal research.

China, realizing they were screwed, made sure the rest of the world was screwed with them, (To avoid losing relative position!) avoiding warning anybody, and encouraging foreign travelers to leave without any quarantine, even as they imposed restrictions on domestic travel.

Now, that's a much more plausible theory than your strawman.

[James Pollock]

"that's a much more plausible theory than your strawman."

Sure it is, to you. But you aren't constrained by reality.

[David Nieporent]

Congress outlawed 'gain of function' research as too dangerous,

Nope.

[Sarcastr0]

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/11/2002954612/-1/-1/0/FACT-SHEET-THE-DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE'S-COOPERATIVE-THREAT-REDUCTION-PROGRAM-BIOLOGICAL-THREAT-REDUCTION-PROGRAM-ACTIVITIES-IN-UKRAINE.PDF

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, yes, Sarcastro: If you suspect the government is covertly doing things you'd disapprove of, public statements will of course be the perfect proof you're wrong. All covert programs are publicly announced, after all!

I am, of course, clear on the fact that Russia's default mode is lying. That does not mean our own government is always telling the truth.

[Sarcastr0]

You should require evidence of the things you suspect the government of doing.

Otherwise you'll fall for any disinformation out there that matches with your priors.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, I think the likelihood that the US is funding bioweapon research in Ukraine has a femto prefix. Why? Because bioweapons don't really work in a military sense. An *infectious* bioweapon has the pretty serious drawback of eventually infecting your own side[1].

Some nihilistic terrorists might try and engineer something, a la Clancy's 'Rainbow Six'. But a nation state trying to release something infectious to take out the enemy army doesn't seem like something even vaguely rational actors will do.

Covid19 may well be the result of GOF research we were paying Wuhan to do because GOF research was deprecated here. That's a lot different situation that bioweapon research. That kind of extraordinary claim ought to require extraordinary proof, and a US official fumbling a response doesn't rise to the level of extraordinary proof.

[1]with a few exceptions that don't propagate, e.g. anthrax. But at that point, they are more like a chemical weapon.

[James Pollock]

If you ignore the historical cases where bioweapons were deployed, then yeah, bioweapons seem like a bad idea. The trick is to have a bioweapon to which you have a cure or conversely, to stay far away from the afflicted as was the case when Europeans were distributing smallpox to Native Americans. There definitely are people who are stupid enough to believe that bioweapons are effective and will never blow back onto the side that developed them.

[James Pollock]

" If you suspect the government is covertly doing things you'd disapprove of, public statements will of course be the perfect proof you're wrong."

If you suspect it strongly enough, then nothing at all is proof that you're wrong, or ever can be. Prove me wrong.

[James Pollock]

" Did they change pretexts while I was on vacation?"

several times.

[zvwmzvwmzvwm]

Add 1 transgender to each men's team whose goals/runs count as 2x the value of pre-transgender player. And the transgender does not count against max number of player on court, on ice, on the field, in-bounds. So you can only play 4 on 5 when you don't have a transgender basketball player. And not count a transgender who plays goaltender/goalie/full time in the paint. No fouls ever called on a transgender. Men's tennis must add a pickle ball paint for the transgender side. No changing sides. Each professional football team can have a 12th player anywhere on the field (down field, in the end zone, behind the coaches), who is transgender and immune from all penalties. Geldings carry 10 pounds less weight in horse racing. Transgender baseball players can use huge titanium bats, score two runs when they get to 3rd base, get 6 strikes and walks on two balls. Transgender runners get 35% shorter distance to run in men's races. Calvin-ball meets Quiditch.

[James Pollock]

What problem are you imagining you're solving? Underemployment of transgender male athletes?

[Life of Brian]

Big-ticket airlines and airports throughout Europe are dropping mask mandates.

Vulnerable House Democrats are voicing support for the public transit mask repeal bill that passed the Senate 57-40 last week.

CEOs from all major US airlines sent a letter to Biden two days ago calling on him to lift the public transit mask mandate.

Odds that Biden will finally wake up and smell the coffee, as opposed to tripling down and redefining tone-deafness?