Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[santamonica811]

Open question: You are the president of the United States. (Or of France. Or PM in Britain. Et al). Your aim is to get accurate information about the atrocities in Bucha (and, alas, many other places in Ukraine) to the Russian people. With the goal of undermining Putin's propoganda, weakening him politically, and just generally getting truthful information to the average Russian civilians. What additional things would you do, to effect this? Is Biden or Macron or other leaders doing something "wrong" (ie, helping promote Russian propaganda) that you would stop or modify?

When you give your suggestions, I'm also interested in how you classify them. I'm sort of dividing ideas into (a) realistic ones and (b) effective but unrealistic ones. (Ex: Slapping a proverbial muzzle on Tucker Carlson would certainly hurt Putin's efforts to lie to his own people, but is unrealistic, due to the strong Constitutional protections that help ensure Carlson's right to give his opinions, and to do so publicly.)

I'm interesting in hearing both categories.

[AmosArch]

Having a goal and getting out the truth is often if not always mutually exclusive. This includes having the goal of getting out the truth* ie your truth.

[Commenter_XY]

What else can we do?
Radio Free Europe: realistic
Increased use of social media (Ukraine has proven to be very effective here): realistic
Release raw imagery of dead, mutilated Russian conscripts with a 'Z' superimposed on them: Maybe
Release raw satellite imagery of Russian positions: realistic
Release unencrypted Russian communications from Ukraine: maybe

What are they doing 'wrong'?
They talk too much, esp POTUS Biden with intemperate remarks: telling a politican to shut up is not realistic
They are not thinking through the exit ramp for Russia to extricate themselves from Ukraine: realistic
We are not arming Taiwan to fight Communist China (who will invade): realistic
Develop alternate supply chains for semiconductors, metals, energy: realistic. but slow

Longer term: America needs unabashedly to articulate the moral and intellectual case for liberty, freedom and capitalism. This is critical, but not happening, SM811.

Chag Semeach Pesach (a little early)

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not happening because it's hard for politicians to unabashedly articulate the case for something they don't believe in.

[David Nieporent]

Yep: look at Republicans going gaga for Victor Orban.

[Cal Cetín]

How about 20-year sentences for hindering the war effort, like under Wilson. The Supreme Court upheld such convictions before, and could do so again.

(We *are* at war with Russia, aren't we?)

[BillyG]

Legally, no we are not at war with Russia. Congress has not declared a war since WW2.

[John F. Carr]

An Authorization for Use of Military Force has been held close enough for government work. We had one of those within the past 20 years. I do not expect one against Russia. I could imagine Congress looking the other way while Biden has Russian targets in Ukraine attacked.

[James Pollock]

There is approximately 0 chance that Congressional Republicans look the other way while Biden does anything.

[Armchair Lawyer]

On that note...some of the sanctions may be counterproductive in this respect, and should potentially be reversed.

Certain sanctions are certainly useful. Those on the super rich, those for electronics and so on. But other sanctions and company pull-outs may be counterproductive.

To give an example, McDonald's pulled out of Russia. I think McDonalds has fairly little impact on the war effort in Ukraine. On the other hand, pulling companies like this out weakens the "common Russian's" exposure to Western ideas, while helping to solidify their opinion against the west.

[Cal Cetín]

Ronald McDonald says, "respect the national sovereignty of other countries!"

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"To give an example, McDonald's pulled out of Russia. I think McDonalds has fairly little impact on the war effort in Ukraine. On the other hand, pulling companies like this out weakens the "common Russian's" exposure to Western ideas, while helping to solidify their opinion against the west."

To nobody's surprise, your conclusion is wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

If our experience with China is any guide, having our companies operating in totalitarian states causes a leakage of totalitarian principles into our own country, not a leakage of libertarian principles into theirs.

[James Pollock]

So when the student protest at Tiananmen Square broke out, that fed into Trump's interest in putting tanks in public squares, is your thesis?

[Nelson]

I agree completely, Brett.

I'd go further and say that totalitarian regimes give them some new ideas for their HR policies.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I suppose you could offer reasons or logic why you think my conclusion is wrong.

Or you can just heckle.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Aside from the damage to their economy, Russians have largely become used to having Western companies in their lives. They LIKE McDonald's. They LIKE having our companies there, just the same as we like having those options available here.

Removing those companies causes unrest. It causes questions to be asked as to why all of a sudden all of those companies decided that Russia itself is persona non grata. It directly harms their economy.

Maybe you should be the one offering up rationale for why you're right, and the strategists across the globe who have agreed upon these measures are wrong.

[Armchair Lawyer]

They do like those companies.

But if those companies pull out, people ask...whose fault is it? Is it Russia's fault? Or is it the West's fault?

[Nelson]

And with a minimum of thought, the loss of several large companies at the same time makes them ask, "what could have happened that made them willing to lose so much income?".

[Armchair Lawyer]

"The west made them pull out because they hate Russians"

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And you wonder why people laugh at you?

JFC your logic is abysmal.

[shawn_dude]

Because McDonalds doesn't really present "Western ideas" other than capitalism in general. If we're having trouble getting through Putin's authoritarian media control aparatus, closing Western companies isn't a bad way to send a message to the average Russian that the West is unhappy with them. Maybe that will encourage some of them to ask why and seek out real answers.

Having said that, and having just gone through many years of massive right-wing misinformation campaigns across a number of topics including COVID where so many Americans believed the misinformation, despite having easy access to more accurate information, that conservatives died in larger numbers, I have little hope that most Russians are interested in peering around their state-driven propaganda machine to find out the truth.

[James Pollock]

"Because McDonalds doesn't really present "Western ideas" other than capitalism in general. If we're having trouble getting through Putin's authoritarian media control aparatus, closing Western companies isn't a bad way to send a message to the average Russian that the West is unhappy with them. Maybe that will encourage some of them to ask why and seek out real answers."

The main problem there is that Putin's apparatus is there to explain how the cowardly West is beholden to bad actors, and therefore must be opposed. You know, the way partisans who only get their news from one side act and react here.

[Ben_]

Why wouldn’t the President of France focus on the affairs of France instead?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why wouldn’t the President of France focus on the affairs of France instead?

Because war in Europe is of no concern to European countries?

[Ben_]

Trying to micromanage the opinion of Russian store clerks and retired grandmothers should be a high priority? Why?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Did you strain your back moving those goalposts?

[James Pollock]

France got invaded through an ally not that long ago. so the fact that there are NATO allies between France and Russia is only slightly comforting.

[Ben_]

Staying on topic isn’t moving goalposts, sport.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Staying on topic isn’t moving goalposts, sport.

Then maybe you should give that a try, Sparky, rather than trotting out pathetic straw man arguments.

[Ben_]

Arguments about what? A country's president staying on task instead of worrying about some mostly irrelevant thing? Yeah, that's waaaay out there.

[Nelson]

It's almost like the President of France is more aware of what is important to France than some random, relatively uninformed American posting on a libertarian website.

[Ben_]

Probably. It’s weird to think that random world leaders are keenly fixated on the precise details of random, mostly powerless Russian civilians' opinions.

So there’s this question about why that’s supposedly important enough to random world leaders for them to focus on.

Instead of answering that question by explaining why … well, you see the responses in this thread. None of the seem to communicate much.

[James Pollock]

"It’s weird to think that random world leaders are keenly fixated on the precise details of random, mostly powerless Russian civilians' opinions."

I would think that worrying about Russian civilians would vary directly with the distance to those Russians. We're further away from them than are all those western Europeans, and the Ukrainians are closer still.

[James Pollock]

"When you give your suggestions, I'm also interested in how you classify them. I'm sort of dividing ideas into (a) realistic ones and (b) effective but unrealistic ones. (Ex: Slapping a proverbial muzzle on Tucker Carlson would certainly hurt Putin's efforts to lie to his own people, but is unrealistic, due to the strong Constitutional protections that help ensure Carlson's right to give his opinions, and to do so publicly.)"

I suppose they could deport him to Russia.

[AmosArch]

Let me tell you something. I'm from Kyiv, and I say kill them all!

[James Pollock]

I'm not from Kyiv, and I say let the people who are, kill as many Russian soldiers as they can find in Ukraine. But closing the skies over Ukraine isn't something we should be doing. It's something they should be doing.

[shawn_dude]

"Closing the skys" is something we're helping them do by giving them anti-aircraft munitions. Anything more direct than that and it's not really a discussion about "closing the skies" but about declaring direct war with Russia.

It should be very clear to everyone by now, especially Putin, that Russia would lose a conventional war rather quickly against NATO. And that is the key problem with "closing the skys" over the Ukraine.

[Brett Bellmore]

The first shoe has fallen in the bureaucracy's program to spike SpaceX's Starship development program:

Army Corps of Engineers closes SpaceX Starbase permit application citing lack of information

They could, of course, have done this months ago, if the issue were genuine, and they weren't under directions to run out the clock.

[Sarcastr0]

While SpaceX did provide its response to comments and an analysis about alternative infrastructure in October, the company did not provide its mitigation plan and other required responses, according to a letter sent by the Corps to SpaceX on March 7th.

Not seeing a conspiracy here.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe if you swapped the word retaliation for conspiracy...?

[Sarcastr0]

I see a beurocracy following the rules here.

[Commenter_XY]

Yep, they are (following the rules). The question Brett posed goes to intent, though. It is also plausible that it is a form of bureaucratic retaliation. We won't know either way for some time, I suspect.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t see much abuse of discretion.

And, as always, Brett offers zero proof of the perfidious intent he posits.

[Queen Amalthea]

In other news, acorn falls, Brett strongly suspects sky is falling and bad faith on the issue attributed to Democrats.

[bernard11]

You left out, "it's part of a conspiracy."

[James Pollock]

"Brett offers zero proof of the perfidious intent he posits."

Because it's so damn OBVIOUS, to anyone with Brett's warped perception of the world.

[bernard11]

The absence of proof just shows how clever the conspirators are.

[Nelson]

Less evidence + baseless speculation + unreasonable assumptions + saying "they want" = incontrovertible truth.

Don't you guys understand how these things work?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And, as always, Brett offers zero proof of the perfidious intent he posits."

Lol. Pot-kettle. Remember your evidence free insistence that the accurate Hunter Biden story was a Russian op?

[Sarcastr0]

You mean the letter signed by all those intel officials?

[TwelveInchPianist]

The letter that said that they had no evidence it was a Russian op?

And of course pot-kettle is whataboutism? So what?

[Sarcastr0]

Also, whattaboutism.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Also, the fact that some (even all) of the information about Hunter Biden was accurate, doesn't prevent it, as the letter indicated, from being a Russian op.

[James Pollock]

It was an op with all the hallmarks of being run by Trump. It was poorly-managed, not believeable in the slightest, and totally ineffective.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Again, there is no evidence that it was a Russian Op. It's up to the people making the claim to support it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe if you noticed that SpaceX responded to the Army Corps of Engineers in October of last year, and the Corps waited five months before acting? And instead of simply asking for supplementary information, canceled the process and told SpaceX to start over from the beginning?

[apedad]

Did you even read the story in the link YOU provided?

There was a 45-day public comment period.

ACE didn't "wait" for anything.

If anything, this seems to have moved rather quickly.

[BillyG]

I'm going to agree with apedad here. Reading through it, I'm guessing ACE requested info during the process and didn't get it. If ACE was trying to draw it out, more time would have passed. Permits have been sat on for years before. ~5 months is what I would expect for public comment, review, and attempted reconciliation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sounds like Biden doesn't like Elon...

[Jjh_Esq]

Yea, shocker. The White House had an electric vehicle summit and didn’t invite Tesla. It’s almost like they don’t like Elon because he is not liberal and won’t cow-toe to their agenda. . .

[Kazinski]

Tesla is union-non-grata to the Whitehouse.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Musk's record on customer safety and regulatory compliance issues inclines skepticism -- especially among those responsible for establishing and enforcing the rules -- concerning anything with which Musk is involved.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's case was roundly mocked above, but some folks just love a good narrative too much to check for truth!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Mocking...but not anything like proof.

Biden would probably prefer we just have to buy Russian rocket engines instead.

[Sarcastr0]

The proof is usually on the person with the conspiracy theory.

The article, if you bothered to read it, indicates a pretty normal timeline with all the required public comment times.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You never provide proof, even when you make the theory. So, really, what's your "opinion" worth?

[Sarcastr0]

It’s Brett’s theory at issue, you ad hominem addict.

[Archibald Tuttle]

Elon Musk will never get along with government. SpaceX has the resources to go offshore. They should do that.

Then to thumb their nose at government, they could send a rocket to the Moon, plant a flag and declare the Moon to be SpaceX sovereign territory.

[James Pollock]

"to thumb their nose at government, they could send a rocket to the Moon, plant a flag and declare the Moon to be SpaceX sovereign territory."

then they can try to defend their claim against China's manned moon landing project.

[apedad]

OK.

But wouldn't they be illegal aliens if they wanted to come back to Earth, at least without a planetary 'green card?'

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Then to thumb their nose at government, they could send a rocket to the Moon, plant a flag and declare the Moon to be SpaceX sovereign territory. "

Didn't the United States already plant a flag at the moon?

If Musk is dumb enough to think he can take on the United States (or, for that matter, just about any country), I would enjoy watching him be schooled.

[James Pollock]

The United States DID in fact, place several flags on the moon. But we haven't sent anybody up to check on them since 1972. The Chinese currently are working on a manned moon landing, while we've spent 50 years working on near-Earth orbit (and Elon wants to go to Mars).

[shawn_dude]

Musk is too firmly latched to the government teat to risk losing all of that green government money. He built Tesla almost entirely on the electric car subsidies and carbon market revenues. He may be the richest person on the planet, but his fortune is nearly worthless if various governments and private individuals decide they don't like him thumbing his nose.

OTOH... Musk moving to the moon would make a lot of people happy. Bye Felicia!

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

For readers who like children's fantasy-books of the Oz/Narnia/Wrinkle-in-Time/Harry-Potter type - books about ordinary "real-world" kids who have magical adventures in fairy-tale worlds, ...

... there's one which is almost entirely overlooked, but which is (IMHO) fantastic, beautiful, thought-provoking but not didactic, a gender-bender of sorts but not promiscuously or obnoxiously so, mostly gentle but with some thrilling scenes of conflict between the young protagonists and evil magic. It had one edition only, in 1929, and until now has only been available as a pricey, fragile antique for at least a hundred bucks per copy, if you can find it. It's THE CHILDREN'S COUNTRY by Kay Burdekin. She was better-known in her time for some of her grown-ups' books, but today no one remembers them either.

THE CHILDREN'S COUNTRY is now available online, free. Here:

https://kayburdekinthechildrenscountry.wordpress.com/2022/04/04/6/

I'm 99% sure it's in public domain, and in any case, I'm not charging any fee for reading it.

(It was published by William Morrow, Inc. in 1929, and the copyright was probably not renewed when it was up for renewal (sometime around 1955). Morrow has been bought and sold several times since 1929, and now belongs to the company we used to know as Harper-Collins (now it's Harper-Collins-Morrow). So I called them and asked about it, and no one there had ever heard of it, and no one could find any record, trace, shade, or spoor of it, virtual or hard-copy. So I'm not expecting any copyright trouble.

You ask, why not look up the Library of Congress' records? Because the records for the years in which it might have been renewed (mid 1950s) are not online in searchable form. There are published images of the microfilms, but the person who scanned them didn't realize that microfilm scans require high resolution scanning. Apparently they just took the microfilms and laid them on a low-resolution scanner, and the results are not intelligible.

One can, apparently, hire someone there to read the microfilms in person on one of those antique scrolling enlargers, but they charge $200.00 per hour and offer no guarantee at all about how many hours will be required, and you can't even count on them to stop searching if you specify a time limit. So to file a request like this would be to risk one's entire savings. Your tax dollars, not at work.)

[GreenLanternCorps]

On that subject, the short story "Relentlessly Mundane" by Jo Walton from the "Strange Horizons" online magazine is a nice story about what happens after you return from saving a magical world and have to deal with life on non-magical Earth.

http://strangehorizons.com/fiction/relentlessly-mundane/

[James Pollock]

Has Project Gutenberg ever heard of this work?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Yes, the Gutenberg people have heard of it, from me! They won't let me upload it until I can prove it's in public domain. The maximum lifetime of a copyright is 95 years, even if you renew after the first 28 - that's according to current law. You publish, then 28 years later you have to either let the copyright expire or renew for a nominal fee (although the fee seems to get less and less nominal each year), and if you renew, the copyright stays alive for another 67 years for a grand total of 95 years of copyright-pleasure. (I am not sure when the copyright of this book had to be renewed - I keep saying, I think it's sometime in the mid 1950s - because the law about renewal has changed, and although now the copyright expires after 28 years unless you renew, that time-length may have been different when books published in 1929 had to be renewed.)

So unless someone changes the law again, the copyright will certainly expire sometime in 2024, with no further option to renew. I actually have a standing date to upload the thing to Gutenberg early in 2025, but I got annoyed and decided not to wait. I don't know for sure whether I'll still be alive in 2025! If someone at Harper-Collins-Morrow wants to send the Copyright-Storm-Troopers after me, bring it on. I'll take the upload down if they insist. But based on my interactions with them by phone, I don't think anyone there cares. As I said, they didn't have a damm clue that there ever was such a book until I called and asked about it.

[James Pollock]

They have people who research copyright, to make sure things are in the public domain.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

They told me I'd have to find the proof myself. Maybe they have some but they are busy.

[not me]

There's always Project Gutenberg Australia.

[santamonica811]

Toad,
I don't see it (7:30 pm, PST, on Thursday). Did it disappear? Is it behind some sort of paywall or firewall?

[susancol]

Alas, the link leads to a "coming soon" page . . . I'll keep checking, though!

[Commenter_XY]

Professor Volokh, a few things are on my mind.

First: Professor David Post, I await your response on our Gentleman's Wager. Declare a winner.

Second: Passover (Pesach) is right around the corner. This year, I want to do a good brisket. I have a traditional brisket recipe, and a West African brisket recipe - both are excellent (courtesy of Tori Avey website). But Commenter_XY is always on the prowl for great recipes (yeah, I cook for relaxation) that are efficient (not elaborate) workwise.

VC Conspirators, tell me your absolute best brisket recipes. Next Tuesday, I will go shopping for brisket. Think ~10lbs to ~15 lbs....we like leftovers in our home. 🙂

Bonus points for a great Kosher wine; price cap of 50/bottle.

[Commenter_XY]

note to apedad: We did the Pillsbury brunch ring again for family get-together. That recipe you gave me was a HUGE winner. Thank you!!!

[apedad]

🙂

[ThePublius]

David Post conceded the bet, here:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/04/the-war-in-ukraine-iii/

[John F. Carr]

Post's surrender is at https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/04/the-war-in-ukraine-iii

[Commenter_XY]

Gentlemen (Publius, Carr): Thank you.

Any good brisket recipes?

[bernard11]

XY,

The brisket recipe here is fabulous, as is her corned beef recipe.

You are basically braising the brisket on a bed of onion and garlic, though there is more to it than that. At $3.42 how can you go wrong?

[Commenter_XY]

Ooooooooooooooooh......I'll have to pick that up.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

First: Professor David Post, I await your response on our Gentleman's Wager. Declare a winner.

???? He not only declared you the winner 3 days ago, you responded to that declaration...multiple times...less than 2 hours after it was posted:

Commenter_XY
April.4.2022 at 4:12 pm

Professor Post...Thank you sir, for the wager. Now we need to arrange to meet, and I collect my winnings....and immediately proceed to buy us some nice glasses of red wine.

[Commenter_XY]

Must be impending CRS.

[apedad]

Court orders Jan. 6 defense lawyer disbarred

A Virginia state court has disbarred Jonathon Moseley, an attorney who has represented a slew of high-profile Jan. 6 defendants, including a member of the Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy, as well as several targets of the House select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol.

On Friday (4/1/22), after a two-day hearing in Prince William County Circuit Court, a three-judge panel ordered Moseley’s law license revoked, court records show.

Details of the bar discipline case against Moseley were not immediately available, but a summary posted on the Virginia State Bar website on Tuesday said the court found that he violated “professional rules that govern safekeeping property; meritorious claims and contentions; candor toward the tribunal; fairness to opposing party and counsel; unauthorized practice of law, multijurisdictional practice of law; bar admission and disciplinary matters … and misconduct.” The decision was effective on April 1.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/05/jan-6-defense-lawyer-disbarred-00023314

Hmmm… anyone have “ineffective counsel” on their 1/6 score sheets?

[Cal Cetín]

And I suppose his former clients stay in prison while their 6th Amendment claims get litigated?

[apedad]

They have the right to appeal - and I sincerely hope they take advantage of all options available.

[James Pollock]

If they could have afforded competent counsel, they would have already had one.

[not guilty]

Moseley has the right to appeal in the appellate courts of Virginia. His clients don't have appellate rights.

I think the trial of the seditious conspiracy defendants is scheduled for July. I wonder if this will cause a delay.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Gulag is the appropriate term. Prison is for criminals, gulags are for members of the wrong political tribe.

[Queen Amalthea]

Ideologues suddenly discover bail reform, when their team is impacted. Projection is a hell of a drug.

[apedad]

BCD, if that were true, wouldn't you be in one by now?

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/january-6-committee-subpoenas-google-facebook-twitter-and-reddit-in-probe-of-capitol-attack.html

It takes time to sift through that treasure-trove of data. You sent an email to your buddy questioning the presidential election results? Congratulations, you're guilty of "conspiracy to subvert democracy!"

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone charged with just questioning the election, or are you so hungry for oppression you're making stuff up?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The new law just passed allows them to do so.

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone who replied to your post on that explained why that's not true. Even Brett.

Why are you still posting as though that didn't happen?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you deliberately lying or are you simply confused?

Brett spoke to a different part of my comment.

[Sarcastr0]

Your comment had only one theses I could see.

So yeah, I’m confused. Walk me through the part of that bill that criminalizes speech, given the analysis of those who replied to you.

[James Pollock]

"The new law just passed allows them to do so."

In legal circles, it's customary to specify which law you're referring to using extremely formalized citation formatting. Failing to do this invites the reader to internally respond "yeah, right!" and ignore any further attempt to argue the point.

[James Pollock]

"Gulag is the appropriate term. Prison is for criminals, gulags are for members of the wrong political tribe."

Geez, you try to overthrow one government and suddenly politics are serious business!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How defenseless our government must be to be cowered by unarmed grandmas and grandpas following the velvet ropes and taking selfies.

Gen. Milli Vanilli should be fired.

[James Pollock]

It helps if the commander-in-chief of the military forces is part of the coup, otherwise, armed troops might show up.

[not guilty]

There is no Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an unlicensed lawyer, Cal.

[Cal Cetín]

An excellent rebuttal to the voices in your head. This sight is full of such rebuttals.

Or maybe the voices aren't coming from your head. Have you checked the tin foil lining of your hat?

[Cal Cetín]

site not sight

[Cal Cetín]

By the way, ng, I referred to the guy's *former* clients.

So, for the slow learners, I will mention that many of these prisoners are being held without bail.

Should they be kept in prison while their 6th Amendment claims get litigated?

[not guilty]

A small fraction of the January 6 defendants -- those who have been determined to be a flight risk or a danger to the public after an adversarial hearing -- are being detained pending trial. They retain speedy trial rights, but the delay in case of the Moseley clients is not attributable to the government. Pre-trial detainees have priority in setting cases for trial. Having to obtain new counsel does not negate findings of risk of flight or danger to the public.

If these defendants can show prejudice from the delay, they have a stronger argument for dismissal, which I suspect many of them would prefer to a trial.

[Cal Cetín]

What do you mean, Hitler was an OK guy?

[Cal Cetín]

Or were you simply trying to say that Himmler had some good ideas?

[James Pollock]

Seems to be you saying those things.

[Cal Cetín]

Which reminds me, about that $20 I left on you Mom's dresser...I overpaid her by $19.50.

[Cal Cetín]

The one time Brennan and Marshall were right, you spurn their wisdom.

"This case brings before the Court for the first time a statute in which Congress declares that a person innocent of any crime may be jailed indefinitely, pending the trial of allegations which are legally presumed to be untrue, if the Government shows to the satisfaction of a judge that the accused is likely to commit crimes, unrelated to the pending charges, at any time in the future. Such statutes, consistent with the usages of tyranny and the excesses of what bitter experience teaches us to call the police state, have long been thought incompatible with the fundamental human rights protected by our Constitution. Today a majority of this Court holds otherwise. Its decision disregards basic principles of justice [established centuries ago and enshrined beyond the reach of governmental interference in the Bill of Rights."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/481/739.html

[Sarcastr0]

No one is being jailed indefinitely. Except for at Gitmo.

[Cal Cetín]

I guess it falls to me to defend Brennan and Marshall - by citing Merriam-Wokester.

Definition of indefinite
: not definite: such as
a: not precise : VAGUE
b: having no exact limits
c: typically designating an unidentified, generic, or unfamiliar person or thing
the indefinite articles a and an
indefinite pronouns

[Cal Cetín]

And meanwhile, there's the context staring one in the face:

"jailed indefinitely, pending the trial of allegations which are legally presumed to be untrue"

Sounds like a definite application of the definition of indefinite.

And before you ask, I was against this law before January 6, 2021. Were you *for* it before then?

[Sarcastr0]

You claim it's not special pleading, but this is the first I've heard you talk about it, and you're conflating is and ought like a pro, as well as playing semantic games about what indefinite detention entails.

If you're not a conservative tool looking for an out for your tribe, you do a great impression of one.

[Cal Cetín]

Why not put it where the sun doesn't shine, I've criticized Scalia by name on religious freedom and federalism, don't project your team loyalties onto me.

I affirm Brennan and Marshall's definition of indefinite detention, you only criticize the definition because you find their conclusion inconvenient and you are willing to endorse Rehnquist's majority opinion.

As for "ought," you ought to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine.

[Cal Cetín]

I seem to recall saying quite recently that it's a good thing for Justice Jackson to reserve judgment on the definition of "woman," since the issue (absurdly though it is) could come up before her as a judge. I did, of course, criticize the "biologist" remark because it's silly, but I rejected the "she must commit herself in advance on legal definitions" meme.

I seriously challenge you to provide instances where you criticized a "left-wing judge," or praised a "right-wing" one, outside the context of "maybe [left wing bad thing] is bad, but [right wing bad thing] is worse."

[Cal Cetín]

Let me press the issue: What was your position on the (Rehnquist-approved) Bail Reform Act of 1984 before January 6, 2021?

[Sarcastr0]

If you can’t be bothered to read my comments on criminal justice reform, I can’t be bothered to respond to yet another series of your voluminous shitposts and bad reading comprehension.

[Cal Cetín]

You never bothered to read my comments - or a least you pretended not to read them - yet you expect me to follow your comments faithfully.

If your comments on other topics are as dumb as what you post in response to me - and I would presume they are - why should I bother to read them in any case?

[not guilty]

Cal, it is at best misleading for you not to acknowledge that you are quoting Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987). Do you have any authority that Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion of the Court is not controlling law?

I have problems with Salerno. For one thing, the case should have been mooted when Mr Salerno was sentenced to 100 years in prison in an unrelated matter. But to paraphrase the late Donald Rumsfeld,we go to court with the law we have, not the law we wish we had.

Detention pending trial is not indefinite -- it is pending trial. The speedy trial clock continues to run, and I expect that will be an issue in some January 6 defendants' cases.

[Cal Cetín]

Oh, get off it. Did you miss this from the quote: "Today a majority of this Court holds otherwise. Its decision disregards basic principles of justice" [etc.]

Were you misled into thinking Brennan and Marshall spoke for the court? I presume you were not such a moron. Or perhaps you think others are even more moronic than yourself, if that were possible.

[Cal Cetín]

If Brennan and Marshall spoke for the court, *all* the J6 defendants would have been allowed to post bail. Since they obviously weren't, the obviously Brennan and Marshall didn't speak for the court, and Rehnquist's opinion was "controlling law" in exactly the same sense that Henry Billings Brown's opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson was controlling law from 1896 to 1954.

To mix metaphors, your straw men keep popping up like a Whack-a-Mole, you beat one down and you pop up another.

You impute to me a belief that the Sixth Amendment allows you to hire a non-lawyer, then you pretend that I passed off a dissent as a majority. You can piss right off with that stuff.

Instead of rebutting every straw man, I'll erect some straw men of my own for you to deal with.

Why do you think nude bathing is an infallible cure for cancer?

I got more where that came from - I can match you straw man for straw man.

[Cal Cetín]

So to sum up - on two separate occasions you attributed statements to me which I did not make - therefore you're the one whose remarks are "misleading at best."

[James Pollock]

" on two separate occasions you attributed statements to me which I did not make"

Gee, Cal, you know you're replying to yourself, right?

[Cal Cetín]

And here's the problem with TEAM thinking - you look at the scorecards and say:

"OK, I guess team loyalty means denouncing Brennan and Marshall, or pretending that a dissenting opinion saying the court was disregarding basic principles of justice could somehow be mistaken for a majority opinion, etc., etc. Let me take some tweezers and remove my remaining brain cells so that these things seem plausible...there!"

[James Pollock]

Apologies, Cal. It seems that you DON'T know that you're replying to yourself.

[Cal Cetín]

No, jackoff, I didn't see the need to reply to you, I simply thought I'd point out how droolingly stupid you are.

[Ben_]

It’s classic trolling. The block feature is useful for that.

[James Pollock]

"So, for the slow learners, I will mention that many of these prisoners are being held without bail."

Maybe they should have gotten better legal counsel before their bail hearings.

[Cal Cetín]

"Why do you make me hit you?" becomes "why do you make me lock you up without bail?"

[James Pollock]

"why do you make me lock you up without bail?"

There is a hearing in which the prosecution asks for a high bail (or no bail) and the defense asks for a low bail, or to be released without bail at all.
The judge has the job of deciding, based on the arguments made by the two sides, how much bail is enough bail to make sure the defendant shows up to trial. If the defendant has legal representation that lets him say things about how he's not coming to trial no matter what, then the judge isn't going to ROR that defendant.
Then, maybe "why did you make me lock you up in jail with no bail" is, in fact, a rational response.

[Cal Cetín]

"The judge has the job of deciding, based on the arguments made by the two sides, how much bail is enough bail to make sure the defendant shows up to trial."

You can't even read the statute correctly, moron. You obviously don't give a shit what the statute actually says, but for anyone who's interested here it is:

"If, after a hearing pursuant to the provisions of subsection (f) of this section, the judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3142

Or as Brennan and Marshall put it concisely and accurately in 1987:

""This case brings before the Court for the first time a statute in which Congress declares that a person innocent of any crime may be jailed indefinitely, pending the trial of allegations which are legally presumed to be untrue, if the Government shows to the satisfaction of a judge that the accused is likely to commit crimes, unrelated to the pending charges, at any time in the future. Such statutes, consistent with the usages of tyranny and the excesses of what bitter experience teaches us to call the police state, have long been thought incompatible with the fundamental human rights protected by our Constitution. Today a majority of this Court holds otherwise. Its decision disregards basic principles of justice [established centuries ago and enshrined beyond the reach of governmental interference in the Bill of Rights."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/481/739.html

Suppose for a moment that the defendants weren't wearing Trump hats and you'd understand why this is a problem, dollface.

"

[BillyG]

Interesting. Summary judgement. Looks to me like someone wants to undermine his clients defense.

[not guilty]

None of Mosley's clients has been convicted yet, so there is no way to show prejudice from any ineffective counsel.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"None of Mosley's clients has been convicted yet, so there is no way to show prejudice from any ineffective counsel."

If you think that will deter any of the delusional clingers as they seek to avoid the proper consequences of their conduct, I have some Trump steaks to sell to you.

And Trump water.

And Trump University vouchers.

And Trump casino chips.

And . . .

(It sounds like this lawyer and any Jan. 6 client deserved each other.)

[apedad]

Supreme Court Reinstates Trump-Era Water Rule for Now

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era rule that had curtailed the power of states and Native American tribes to block pipelines and other energy projects that can pollute rivers, streams and other waterways.

States, Native American Tribes and environmental groups sued. Several mostly Republican-led states, a national trade association representing the oil and gas industry and others have intervened in the case to defend the Trump-era rule. The states involved in the case are: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming and Texas.

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-04-06/supreme-court-reinstates-trump-era-water-rule-for-now

So much for the Republican “states rights” mantra.

You guys are a joke.

[Cheerio]

The Biden administration conceded in their filings that the lower court technically didn't have the power to issue the (initial) ruling quite yet, but nevertheless simply asked the courts to sort of let it go anyway...so, not too surprising that SCOTUS found that approach to be lawless.

The shadow docket is overused, but probably not in this case.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Was there an emergency? No.

SCOTUS is abusing the so-called "Shadow Docket."

[Armchair Lawyer]

States can pass their own laws if they like. They don't need to rely on federal laws to sue.

[Queen Amalthea]

Seems challenging to rely on states to handle clean water issues, what with it, you know, flowing between states so much.

[John F. Carr]

My town had to adopt a new catch basin bylaw to appease the EPA even though no water from the town leaves the state before entering the ocean.

[Queen Amalthea]

I think the Clean Water Act applies to more than the ocean.

[James Pollock]

The city I used to live in was required to install filtering for cryptospiridium, even though the unfiltered water was below the federal standard for cryptospiridium content.

[BillyG]

So much for the Republican “states rights” mantra.

You guys are a joke.

You're forgetting what came before. The Trump-era water rule replaced the Obama-era water rule which was much more intrusive.

[Bob from Ohio]

Libs only like states rights when they can taunt conservatives with it.

[James Pollock]

Bob cares deeply about states' rights. Like the states' right to execute people without trial. He's a big fan of that one.

[Krayt]

So are the Democrats, who love federal government ordering all the states around.

Except on this issue.

It's almost like the power hungry just hold that up as a high value when it support their power grabs, and disdain it when it doesn't, on the very next issue.

[bernard11]

Federalism is generally just an argument of convenience.

This is unfortunate, because it means it gets trotted out inappropriately a lot, and hence loses credibility as an argument when decentralization is a good idea.

[Nelson]

This!

[Ben_]

Yeah, every policy and court decision is only about pointing fingers at the other. You must be one of The Good Guys.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is this one of the decisions Amy Coney Barrett suggested we read for assurance the current Court is above politics?

[apedad]

Seems like we have a fair amount of readers with ties to Boston so this might be of interest.

Does Boston's Mayor Hate the City's Restaurants?

A couple weeks ago, as outdoor-dining season approached, Mayor Wu announced the city would charge North End restaurants $7,500 for the privilege of offering outdoor seating under the pilot program. Under that same program, restaurants in other parts of the city face no such fees. "Restaurants that use public property under the city's permanent outdoor dining program pay fees, but not those participating in a three-year pilot the Walsh administration launched so more restaurants could operate patios to make up for revenue lost during the pandemic," the Boston Globe reported this week.

The city claims so many restaurants in the North End have taken advantage of outdoor dining under the pilot program—their customers clearly like it—that it's resulted in increased complaints about rats, noise, and traffic and parking issues.

https://reason.com/2022/04/02/does-bostons-mayor-hate-the-citys-restaurants/

And here’s the other side of the story.

Sooner or later, North End restaurant owners are going to lose their fight over outdoor dining

I was surprised, at first, that North End politicians were lining up behind the mayor’s proposal. But for their constituents, outdoor dining has been a major pain.

Lydia Edwards, who represents the neighborhood in both the state Senate and the City Council, says bluntly: “Residents hate it.”
She says it’s been a huge problem right from the start.

“Places that didn’t have indoor dining, suddenly had outdoor dining,” she pointed out. “Having outdoor dining on both sides of Hanover Street, with traffic running in both directions as well, has been a mess. We’re changing traffic patterns to accommodate outdoor dining.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/29/metro/sooner-or-later-north-end-restaurant-owners-are-going-lose-their-fight-over-outdoor-dining/

This is another chapter when there are competing political interests – but that cross normal political party lines (ranchers vs farmers, urban vs rural, coastal vs inland, etc.).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Radio news coverage in the Boston area asserted that the outdoor dining fee in the North End was intended to reimburse local residents forced to give up on-street parking, and instead pay to park in garages.

I have no insight whether that coverage told the whole story, or was even accurate. It does sound like a typical Boston-area parking fracas.

[shawn_dude]

I cannot speak for Boston, but here in SF we're experiencing something similar. We love the new outdoor dining and hate the loss of the street parking. I think it's important to note that our tiny restaurants (normal dining spots may only have 4-10 tables max) practically doubled their dining space at the expense of public parking. That was a fair trade during COVID lockdown, but is it still today when indoor dining is back to normal (in most places)?

We've transfered land to the business owner without receiving compensation.

OTOH, it's re-oriented the focus of the streetscape on the sidewalks and not the street itself, which I enjoy. Cars suck.

[Cal Cetín]

“Places that didn’t have indoor dining, suddenly had outdoor dining”

Those greedy restauranteurs, moving their operations outdoors without consideration for the neighbors.

[Cal Cetín]

Wait, they didn't have indoor dining before? I guess I don't know much about the Boston situation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

CC, it is an enduring point of local pride that if you do not live there, you do not know much about the Boston situation. But the overall Boston frame of reference under-describes the minute particularity normally insisted upon.

[James Pollock]

"Those greedy restauranteurs, moving their operations outdoors without consideration for the neighbors."

Using other people's land to do it? Yeah, that's greedy.

[John F. Carr]

As I said in the Reason main page thread, space in the North End is tight. It makes sense to discriminate against restaurants there while being more generous with space on the Back Bay's wide sidewalks. And basically they are screaming about a temporary program coming to an end. "How quickly does the world owe him something that he knew existed only 10 seconds ago?" - Louis CK

[OtisAH]

Restaurants were allowed private use of public sidewalks and parking areas during the time when indoor dining was either banned or severely restricted. This was to help businesses continue to operate under an emergency situation. Now these restaurants believe it’s their right to not only have full restaurants but to expand those restaurants out into public spaces at no cost to themselves.

That’s what’s going on.

Outdoor dining is great. I was surprised at how little of it there was in a major metropolitan area. Regardless, the emergency is over and restaurants can operate indoors at full capacity. Additional use of public spaces for their private businesses is a privilege, not their right.

So, if the city is going to allow them to continue operating on sidewalks, forcing people to walk in the street, and/or in public parking spaces in a city where parking is… difficult, then licensing/operating fees charged for the privilege is not an egregious ask.

But to answer the original stupid question: No, the mayor does not “hate” the city’s restaurants.

[apedad]

Nearly 70% of medical debt in collections will be removed from credit reports, bureaus say

Medical debt is a costly burden that weighs on millions of patients who seek life-saving care — it's the leading cause of bankruptcy in America and the largest source of personal debt among consumers.

In an effort to support those who are faced with unexpected hospital bills, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion will soon remove nearly 70% of medical debt in collections from credit reports.
"Medical collections debt often arises from unforeseen medical circumstances," credit bureau executives said in a joint statement. "These changes are another step we’re taking together to help people across the United States focus on their financial and personal wellbeing."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/medical-debt-in-collections-credit-report

This is a tough call but I'm not sure this is a good idea.

If I’m a bank or a credit issuer, I would want to know about someone’s medical debt.

If anything, then at least I would be more willing to work with the person if I fully know their circumstances, i.e. debt forgiveness/consolidation, new terms, etc.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe if there was a way to note (meaning, list it so people pulling credit know the debt exists) the debt, but not include it in scoring...?

I have to agree, apedad. If I am an employer, I will want to know. If I am making a loan to someone, I will want to know. To me, it is risk mitigation. If I have a sensitive position I am hiring for, I am not going to hire someone who is financially compromised by medical debt, and more susceptible (meaning tempted) to bribery, embezzlement.

[Brett Bellmore]

This clearly defeats the purpose of credit reports. The point is to know if the person is safe to loan to, denying relevant information will clearly lead to bad loans that will be defaulted on.

This is somewhat similar to the lead up to the subprime mortgage crisis, when Congress was pressuring lenders to make mortgages for people who didn't qualify for them. Shockingly, those people defaulted on them.

[James Pollock]

So start your own credit reporting business, and report debt the way you think it should be reported. If you're right, you'll capture the market in no time!

[Brett Bellmore]

How exactly did the big three in credit reporting end up making this decision all at once? Outside pressure, maybe?

Are there no anti-trust implications when the dominant players in an industry all simultaneously agree to degrade their product?

[James Pollock]

Quit whining and jump into action to capitalize on the opportunity presented.
Generally speaking, weakening your own product (and creating opportunities for new competitors to enter the market) is NOT an anti-trust matter.
It sounds more like anti-trust enforcement to people who don't see conspiracies all around them.

[Nelson]

I see it as a way to measure the creditworthiness of a borrower absent extreme and unexpected expenses.

If the person was hanging an 820 and had never missed a payment in 50 years, the fact that they had a heart attack on vacation and needed out-of-network medical care to save their life doesn't make them a credit risk. Their responsible credit history shows they are a good risk.

If the person is a serial (but incompetent) entrepreneur who defaulted on multiple loans and is attempting to become the first person with a negative credit score, the fact that they had a heart attack on vacation and needed out-of-network medical care to save their life doesn't make them a credit risk. Their irresponsible credit history, however, does.

That's how I read it.

[Ben_]

Yes it makes them a much worse credit risk. If they’re one health incident away from not being able to pay their bills, that’s a huge amount worse than someone who is actually able to pay their bills.

And the fact that the incident actually happened and they actually had payment trouble makes it a real issue, unlike the story you just made up.

[David Nieporent]

Their responsible credit history shows they are a good risk.

No. The problem here is that you are looking at a credit score solely as a moral judgment. It can be, sure. But it's also a practical judgment. If you owe a lot of money that you can't pay back, you are a poor risk no matter how responsible you were/are, because… you can't pay your debts. If the out-of-network hospital sues you and gets a judgment, you're potentially going to be forced into bankruptcy and your new lender won't get paid.

[John F. Carr]

I think, without evidence, that a division into voluntary and involuntary debt would be better. If I owe $50,000 for an ER visit for an ingrown toenail or for crashing into my neighbor's Porsche that is relevant to my ability to repay loans, but less relevant when predicting my future life choices.

[Kazinski]

Medical debt is not the leading cause of bankruptcy, it was junk science promulgated by Elizabeth Warren and exposed by the VC's Todd Zywicki and Gail Harriot:

"My GMU colleague Todd Zywicki and Gail Heriot (USD) have an op-ed in the Washington Times exposing Harvard Professors David Himmelstein and Elizabeth Warren's study on medical debt and bankruptcy, presented to Congress earlier this week, as "one of the most misleading pieces of research ever placed before Congress"

[bernard11]

I don't know who you are quoting, but as I recall, Zywicki's work on this was, unsurprisingly, nonsense.

Among other things, he didn't count credit card debt as medical debt, no matter what the charge was incurred for.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, but Warren counted alcoholics and problem gamblers as medical related, and anyone who had charged over 1000 of medical expenses on their credit cards in the last few years as medical related, even if a thousand was a drop in the bucket compared to their other spending. Nobody declares bankruptcy over a 1000 in medical debt

[James Pollock]

" Nobody declares bankruptcy over a 1000 in medical debt"

True, because nobody has a low-4-figure medical debt.

[Cheerio]

So regarding the Blackburn/HuffPo kerfuffle, what do folks around here think is a reasonable (i.e., non-woke) definition for "woman"?

The standard/conventional definition, "an adult human female," seems fine to me as a general matter. But even for those who still agree with a biologically-based definition (as Judge Jackson notably indicated that she does...), some folks understandably point out that such sex characteristics are not always completely aligned (e.g., due to certain relatively rare conditions).

Could this issue perhaps be resolved by simply adding a qualifier, such as "an adult human female who does not have intersex characteristics," or "an adult human female with substantially typical human female sex characteristics," etc., with the understanding that the qualifier simply won't usually be needed...?

FWIW -- I believe in focusing on people primarily as individuals, but the reality is there are situations where the categories do matter. Sometimes we'll be able to accommodate more than the conventional two genders, but sometimes that just won't be feasible and we'll need to base it on biology (e.g. sports, prisons...).

[Brett Bellmore]

I go with the chromosomes as a definition. With appearance just being a way to infer the chromosomes.

Granted, some tiny, tiny fraction of the population are ambiguous, or end up with a body that doesn't match them. But we don't pretend humans aren't bipedal just because a tiny fraction of the population are born with an odd number of legs.

[Queen Amalthea]

We do however as a matter of law and society accommodate those born with (or even who develop) issues with bipedality.

[Brett Bellmore]

But we don't accommodate them by pretending they're normal, or humor people who decide to cut off a healthy leg.

[Queen Amalthea]

Uh, I'm not sure about where you work, have your kids go to school, but we indeed do 'pretend' the disabled are pretty normal...

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They play on the regular basketball and football teams in their wheelchairs?

[Queen Amalthea]

A deaf girl plays on my daughter's soccer team, the teammates and officials agree at the start of the game to use hand gestures to let them know play has been ruled stopped and such.

And legally blind kids ran in track with my son's team.

[Queen Amalthea]

And in my workplace we absolutely have a guy on the softball team who has trouble getting around (he hits and elects to have a base runner to his running after 1st).

[Queen Amalthea]

To take a somewhat potentially relevant example, from that notably progressive rag Forbes, so take with a grain of salt:

"When disability awareness campaigns address language, they tend to focus mostly on which terms should and shouldn’t be used to refer to disabled people. In a way, the answer is easy: use the terminology each disabled person prefers for themselves."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewpulrang/2019/11/04/how-to-make-workplaces-more-welcoming-for-employees-with-disabilities/?sh=2df5270453d8

[Queen Amalthea]

More thoughts about this 'sure some are born different but this remains a feature we can cite as defining of the class because it is generally true...", humans are generally heterosexual. Does that mean homosexuals are not human? Humans are generally brown eyed, does this mean those without are not human?

[Brett Bellmore]

Where did that come from? I've known people who were born with birth defects, (I have one myself.) and nobody suggested that departing from the normal body plan meant that you weren't human.

Not being heterosexual is just another birth defect, it's just a birth defect of the brain, rather than arm or whatever. Birth defects aren't morally blameworthy, and they deserve some accommodation, but we don't need to pretend they are normal. Literally, they're not, in the statistical sense.

[Queen Amalthea]

You say we can define trans women as not women because generally 'women' are born with certain chromosomes, but humans are generally born with brown eyes so does that mean we can classify Sinatra as not human?

And this generality argument, what percentage does it need to get to? Will a mere 'preponderance' get us there (51% is the 'norm' and anyone in the 49% can be classified outside it)?

[Queen Amalthea]

Do blue eyed and blonde haired people have a birth defect?

[Brett Bellmore]

Does being blue eyed or blonde interfere with any critical biological function, such as being able to reproduce? Does it have any negative Darwinian consequences? I have hazel eyes, personally, and it hasn't had any negative consequences. Not like being an albino, which renders you much more subject to UV damage.

[Queen Amalthea]

Why does 'Darwinian function' have anything to do with our laws and morals? I mean, I can remember some guys who thought that (and who had strong opinions about blue eyes and blonde hair as well) but I think we all figure their way of thinking was wacky.

[Brett Bellmore]

What do our laws and morals have to do with this? I thought we were discussing "birth defects", and that's a matter of biology and medicine.

[Queen Amalthea]

We're going to have to have legal definitions and societal understandings of woman. You were saying that we could a definition that excludes trans women based on what's 'generally' true of women.

[Sarcastr0]

Wasn't being lefthanded considered a birth defect back in the day?

We tried to correct it, make people act like they were righties regardless of what they said.

Man, good thing those silly days are behind us.

[Krayt]

"Back in the day" means at least through 2000, as I know of a case where a kid was forced to write with his right hand.

[JSinAZ]

Many studies have indicated that left-handedness is associated with increased risk of different types of injuries.27–29 Lefties are six times likelier to die in an accident, and four times likelier to die while driving than righ-handers.30 Several mechanisms might be responsible for increased prevalence of injuries among sinistrals.27 Firstly, majority of unimanual activities is biased in favor of right-handers. Therefore left-handers have to use tools, devices and consumer items designed for right-handed usage. Many of left-handers tend to use both sides of the body for different behavioural activities. Therefore both sides of the body are exposed to traumas. Secondly, left-handers are more likely to be involved in potentially dangerous activities where trauma can easily be sustained compare to right-handers. Thirdly, attacking lefties have an advantage because they are able to hit an opponent from the left side but defending sinistrals are in disadvantage position. Therefore in confrontational activities when they have to defend themselves, the rate of traumatisation increases.

Forcing the young to adopt the handedness that results in fewer injuries hardly seems like chasing the sinister devil away. Forcing righthandedness might not actually accomplish the end of safer children, but it’s hardly irrational especially in an early industrial environment.

[James Pollock]

"Forcing the young to adopt the handedness that results in fewer injuries hardly seems like chasing the sinister devil away."

Left-handed people are left-handed people. Forcing them to do things with their right-hand instead of their left one doesn't make them right-handed. It makes them left-handed but writing with the wrong hand.

[Nelson]

"being able to reproduce"

Would this include those that can't reproduce? Those who need fertility treatments to reproduce? Post-menopause women? Men with a low sperm count?

I don't know why reproduction would be relevant.

[wreckinball]

Trans woman are not woman. They are literally men pretending to be women.

[Queen Amalthea]

Who saw a mere conclusory statement from w-ball coming?

[Sarcastr0]

Man, imagine if wreckinball really is as omniscient as he thinks he is. Just a really frustrated godling eternally cursed to wander the Internet telling people the real truth, but never able to back it up since he arrived at it from divine insight.

There's a tragicomedic short story there, I think.

[Bob from Ohio]

I bet his statement is a majority view.

It is also in fact the "real truth".

[Sarcastr0]

'real truth' is a pretty good attempt to double down on ole wb's behalf. But you don't pull the act off as well as wb, not that it's a very good act to begin with.

You need to cut the appeal to popularity if you're going to compete at ipse dixit at wb's level.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thanks for the laugh, Sarcastr0. It is a great tragicomic short story.

[James Pollock]

Stop pretending Brett is normal. It offends him/her/it/they.

[bernard11]

Homosexuality is a "birth defect?"

Really?

To be charitable, I suppose you are just saying homosexuals are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals are, but that really doesn't make it a birth defect. Is physical unattractiveness a birth defect? Is a desire to become a Catholic priest some sort of mental defect?

And what exactly do you mean by "some accommodation?" What is your implied limit?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying: It gets in the way of reproduction. I'm trying for an objective definition of "defect" here.

Is physical unattractiveness a birth defect? Quite often, sure.

[bernard11]

You're not going to get one.

[Commenter_XY]

100% genetics. Anything else is just a waste of time.

[James Pollock]

"100% genetics. Anything else is just a waste of time."

The problem is, not many people actually understand genetics, and few are actually prepared to do DNA testing. Still, that's much better than the alternative plan, wherein you just ask somebody if they are a woman, and let the women tell you they are women.

[Commenter_XY]

JP...If people generally do not understand the basics of genetics, what a damning indictment of the state of public education in America, circa 2022.

[James Pollock]

so many parents don't want their children taught, and you're surprised that the result is that children remain untaught.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" 100% genetics. Anything else is just a waste of time. "

What about superstition? Do you make special allowances for superstition, or is that a waste of time?

[Krayt]

It's not, though. Humans are two evolving data streams, one DNA, the other memes.

Social pressures (memes) kept gays reproducing. Now most of that pressure is gone. Insofar as it is DNA, gayness will evolve away.

For some reason, this unremarkable prediction pisses off both sides.

The correct answer does, too. Society should never have been in the business of outlawing adult sexual activity. Ergo whether you were born that way becomes a scientific curiosity rather than a required statement just to be free from tired religious laws holding sway when theys houldn't have.

[Nelson]

"I go with the chromosomes as a definition. With appearance just being a way to infer the chromosomes."

How would you characterize those with XXX, XXY, and or XYY chromosomes? Or monosomy (only one X chromosome)? Or hermaphrodites? Or any other intersex condition?

Granted, between all of those we are only talking about roughly 1% of all births. With about 4 million births annually, that would be 40,000 kids a year.

The problem with thinking there is a simple answer to complex questions is that in order to make it simple you have to pretend that any complexities aren't relevant and dismiss any additional factors that complicate the issue (like the possibility that gender identity and gender biology aren't always aligned).

I have said before that I don't understand transgenderism. It literally makes no sense to me. I don't understand the various different categories. I don't understand the pronouns. None of it makes sense to me.

But it doesn't hurt me. It doesn't impact me at all. It isn't hurting anyone if Steve wants to become Amy or Julia wants to become Mike.

When it does (like when transgender men who transitioned post-puberty want to compete against cisgender women), I will argue against it. As I did on the whole Lia Thomas thing. I was unambiguously against it.

I believe the libertarian position is to treat people like people, whether they are gay, straight, transgender, identify as a rutabega, or believe in ghosts or aliens or sky wizards. Just don't be a duck to people. If you don't like their lifestyle, great.

Why people feel the need to aggressively confront, challenge, and belittle someone else's lifestyle choice is beyond me. Why people feel the need to conflate transgenderism and sexual predation is baffling and phobic.

Maybe someone can explain without descending into unfounded hyperbole and baseless accusations of sexual predation and child abuse. If so, would you be willing to explain?

[Nelson]

Sorry, I meant transgender women, not transgender men, who transitioned post-puberty

[James Pollock]

"I go with the chromosomes as a definition."

Yeah, but when you did, you got it backwards.

[Queen Amalthea]

Very thoughtful comment. I'm not sure what the answer is going to be, but I do know it's going to be not as simple as the GOP Congresscritters who thought they had such a gotcha moment with the question recently, as this article lays out:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/04/06/republican-woman-definitions/

[Moderation4ever]

The confirmation hearing of Ketanji Brown Jackson brought to our attention that we don't really have a legal definition of "woman", or I suspect "man". What we really have is cultural definitions that we typically accept. The reality is that these could be challenged legally and there is no definition in law to give a reference point.

I would suggest the following definition,

"an individual is defined as a man or a woman based their own self identification and on the their consist following of generally accepted cultural characteristics of that gender with which they identify."

Not a perfect definition but one that will work.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it clearly won't work, and you can ask Lia Thomas' teammates about that. Whether you're a man or a woman, or, rarely, intersex, actually objectively matters for some purposes.

[Moderation4ever]

But would you create a legal definition for just this case and then have it applied broadly. The case of trans athletes is a very specific and limited case. I am not aware of any trans-male playing on a sports male team, but would there be an objection here? Would you apply this problem across all sports? Do you care if a trans-female is on a bowling team?

[Brett Bellmore]

Keep in mind that the reason it matters is that men, biologically, tend to have better physical performance than women, for almost, (But not quite!) all sports. So that, if women are going to have fair competitions among themselves, men must be excluded, even if they call themselves women.

Or else you get situations where all the women's records end up held by men.

The reasoning is not symmetric; The only concern about allowing women to compete in men's competitions is the potential for injury.

[James Pollock]

It's also true, generally, that taller people are better at basketball. Should we set up a basketball league that excludes anyone over 5'6" tall?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not an entirely silly idea; Boxing and wrestling do something like that.

[James Pollock]

You lose credibility, both for your inability to recognize a silly argument as silly, and for thinking that boxing and wresting exclude people over 5'6" tall.

[Moderation4ever]

First it is not all women's record will be held by men, but rather by trans-women.

I don't disagree that having trans-women compete against cis-women is a sticky issue. What I would argue is that this is best handled at the level on the sponsoring authority for the particular sport. As I noted for some sports this is a minimum issue. These could be sports like bowling, curling, trap shooting, etc. where coordination is more important than strength. I would agree that for track and field, or swimming the strength of a individual transitioning after puberty gives an unfair advantage.

As for trans-men in men's sports I think the call is the same. I don't think a 125 pound individual trans or cis should think about trying out for left offensive tackle. But would you object to the trans-man trying out for the men's golf team?

I don't think it is an issue for Congress or state legislatures but rather for the particular sport's authority. They are closest to the issue and can make the best call.

[Brett Bellmore]

"First it is not all women's record will be held by men, but rather by trans-women."

Since "trans-women" are a subset of men, rather than a different group, it's a distinction without a difference.

[James Pollock]

"Since "trans-women" are a subset of men, rather than a different group, it's a distinction without a difference."

If you think there's no difference, why do you keep fussing about it

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If there isn't a difference, why do they refer to themselves as 'trans-men' or 'trans-women' or simply 'trans?'

Hint: Because they aren't actually what they're pretending to be.

[James Pollock]

" Whether you're a man or a woman, or, rarely, intersex, actually objectively matters for some purposes."

Swell, how does the objective observer make an observation that settles the matter?

[wreckinball]

XX vs XY. Look between the legs and make a call. That's what's still done at birth when the parents don't want to know the sex pre-birth.

[James Pollock]

The problem with that being that some babies are born ambiguous, because XX and XY are NOT the only possible combinations in living human beings.

[Brett Bellmore]

Very, very few, and that's not what we're dealing with at present. Lia Thomas isn't intersex, he's 100% a guy, with conventional guy genetics, hasn't even bothered to have his junk cut off. (Even if some media outlets have taken to airbrushing his photos to obsucre this.) He's just calling himself a girl, so that he can get some trophies reserved for women.

[Queen Amalthea]

You think he's just doing the whole trans thing for women's sports trophies?

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes.

Until he gets castrated its just a grift.

[Queen Amalthea]

Whatever you say Prof. X.

[James Pollock]

Feminist Bob makes an appearance.

[mse326]

Whoa. That's a hell of a claim. I fall into the camp that says trans female athletes shouldn't compete in female leagues, divisions, etc. if they have gone through puberty male.

But to suggest that a specific person, this case Lia Thomas, as doing it for the purpose of winning trophies? That is something that would require some actual evidence and I would imagine has never and will never happen. Even places that allow them to compete require certain hormone treatments and levels at the least, so I seriously doubt anyone is going to go through that just to win a swimming competition.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But to suggest that a specific person, this case Lia Thomas, as doing it for the purpose of winning trophies? That is something that would require some actual evidence and I would imagine has never and will never happen.

The fact that he's choosing to compete against women rather than against other men is something that most people with an above-room-temperature IQ would consider a clue.

[David Nieporent]

The fact that he's been undergoing hormone treatments for a year is something that most people with an above-room-temperature IQ would consider a far more significant clue.

Do I think that a trans woman is a woman? No. Do I think that a trans woman should be treated as a woman in most situations? Yes. Do I think that sports is one of those situations? No.

Do I think that people should make up insane conspiracy theories about trans women? Definitely not.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The fact that he's been undergoing hormone treatments for a year is something that most people with an above-room-temperature IQ would consider a far more significant clue.

Not if that person had any real understanding of the effects of hormone treatments and the time spans involved.

Do I think that people should make up insane conspiracy theories about trans women?

Your labeling of "Individual X dishonestly did Y because s/he is motivated by a selfish goal" as an "insane conspiracy theory" (or any sort of conspiracy) makes you either an idiot or as much of a liar as Sarcatr0...or both.

[Nelson]

If there is no evidence that the motivation is what you say, yes it is insane.

You're clearly one of those envious never-achievers who believes that massive upheaval in your life are worth it for baubles and trophies. People who actually achieve things wouldn't think like that.

Do I have any evidence? Nope. But apparently I don't need any indication whatsoever to make radical accusations of the motivation of a person who I've never met.

[Ben_]

We’re supposed to believe Thomas is competing but not with the motive to win?

Is there evidence that Thomas intentionally loses sometimes? Or declines to participate to avoid winning? Why engage in lame hairsplitting about unknowable and irrelevant nuances of someone’s motives when the goals of competing are crystal clear to all?

[James Pollock]

"The fact that he's been undergoing hormone treatments for a year is something that most people with an above-room-temperature IQ would consider a far more significant clue."

You need to provide a clue that works for someone with a below-room-termperature IQ if you want to reach Wuzzie.

[Bob from Ohio]

"their own self identification"

A cat is still a cat even if it thinks its a dog.

"following of generally accepted cultural characteristics of that gender"

Still a cat even if it fetches sticks.

[Sarcastr0]

Men and women are not different species. Your analogy is tellingly inapt.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its to point out the absurdity of his "definition".

"self identification" is just code for "delusion"

Wearing make up and a skirt doesn't make you a woman either

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you think people who 'self-identify' as their adopted kids parents are delusional? Should we treat them as such?

[Sarcastr0]

So it's just the attack helicopter joke again?

That's even lamer than what I thought you were saying!

[James Pollock]

""self identification" is just code for "delusion"

Wearing make up and a skirt doesn't make you a woman either"

sounds like Bob found out the hard way.

[Nelson]

Going to church on Sunday doesn't make you a good person.

As long as it doesn't impact anyone else that you're deluded into thinking you're a good person, why does it matter to anyone but you? And why should I go out of my way to make you see that you are delusional?

This is the part I don't understand. Why do people who are overty hostile to trans people think that they need to be listened to? What is wrong with 'live and let live'?

[Ben_]

"What is wrong with 'live and let live'?"

Censoring people is "live and let live"? Babylon Bee was censored off Twitter for gender humor.

Fining bakers and photographers for refusing specific work is "live and let live"? Explain how fining someone is "live and let live".

"Live and let live" only works when it’s reciprocal. Get back to us with this argument at that time, because it’s completely phony right now.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Men and women are not different species. Your analogy is tellingly inapt.

The biological distinctions between men and women (except for the aforementioned rare exceptions) is at least as bright a line as most distinctions between species. Your pedantry is almost as tiresome (and stupid) as your pathological dishonesty.

[Sarcastr0]

The biological distinctions between men and women (except for the aforementioned rare exceptions) is at least as bright a line as most distinctions between species.

Now who is denying the current science?

You're ignoring intersex, and the normal distribution of individual abilities and even biology (see hormone production which can overlap from men to women in lots of areas previously unsupposed - a problem in pro sports), and what about neuroscience?

Your pedantry is almost as tiresome (and stupid) as your pathological dishonesty.
Why are you like this? You can just address the comment; it's more pleasant for everyone that way.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You're ignoring intersex

You're lying, as usual:

"except for the aforementioned rare exceptions"

Using actual clinical evaluations of intersex conditions (rather than agenda-driven pop "sciencey" ones) the prevalence of intersex is something like 0.018% of all births. Most reasonably intelligent people would regard that as a "rare exception". So, no...I didn't "ignore" anything you lying sack of crap.

and the normal distribution of individual abilities and even biology (see hormone production which can overlap from men to women in lots of areas previously unsupposed - a problem in pro sports), and what about neuroscience?

None of which have anything to do with your pedantic bullshit response.

Why are you like this? You can just address the comment; it's more pleasant for everyone that way.

I did address the comment, which was an exercise in pedantry, you lying sack of crap.

You know, you could save yourself all this whining if you would just stop being such a pathologically lying sack of crap. Has that ever even occurred to you?

[Sarcastr0]

1) There are no dog-cat intersex situations.

2) The examples I gave which you think are irrelevant are all about how the distinction between men and women is not a bright line in a lot of important ways.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

1) There are no dog-cat intersex situations.

What in the hell are you babbling about now, you lying sack of crap?

2) The examples I gave which you think are irrelevant are all about how the distinction between men and women is not a bright line in a lot of important ways.

They are irrelevant to the statement that you responded to. I wasn't referring to any distractions you want to interject...you lying sack of crap.

Are you going to acknowledge that you lied about me "ignoring intersex" (or any other rare biological anomalies)?

[Sarcastr0]

You did not ignore intersex; I got that wrong. But I wouldn't call that a lie.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You did not ignore intersex; I got that wrong.

You got it wrong intentionally...a tactic you use in damned near every discussion you take part in.

But I wouldn't call that a lie.

Of course you wouldn't.

[Sarcastr0]

You got it wrong intentionally

No...this is something you are bringing into this.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You got it wrong intentionally

No...this is something you are bringing into this.

Uh, I didn't "bring" anything into this. You made the accusation, the falseness of which was blindingly obvious to anyone who actually read what you were responding to...which is the case with the vast majority of your involvement in just about any topic here. Your pathetic dishonesty is your persona's defining feature, and always has been. I mean, I suppose you could try going for the defense that your constant displays of dishonesty are really just the result of you being too much of an imbecile to understand anything that you read, but I'll leave decision that up to you.

[James Pollock]

"You know, you could save yourself all this whining if you would just stop being such a pathologically lying sack of crap."

Such a lack of self-awareness. Sad. Delusional, even.

[James Pollock]

"A cat is still a cat even if it thinks its a dog."

A dog is a cat if Bob thinks it's a cat.

[Don Nico]

In other words, there is no definition.

[Sarcastr0]

It needs to be functional. Different standards for different functions.

For some stuff (sports) it's hormones. For others it's neurobiology. Genitals for dating purposes. For more than you think it's how you present, since the others take a while to figure out.

I don't see a lot of scenarios where genetics should be the baseline (though I could be wrong) - too removed and variable in outcome when it comes to actual functions experienced in the real world.

[Commenter_XY]

Sorry, but this is just wrong = I don't see a lot of scenarios where genetics should be the baseline (though I could be wrong) - too removed and variable in outcome when it comes to actual functions experienced in the real world.

Tell me more about those 'real world actual functions', Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

Genetics is the start, but by the time we encounter it's effects in the real world, it's been mediated through all sorts of stuff.

Behaviorally/neurologically, there's some in utero stuff that seems to mediate, and then gets filtered through nurture.

Phenotype is not purely determined by genotype either - that's this whole new epigenetics craze. And then phenotype has all sorts of human-made ways to tinker with it, whether it's hormones or eye color or correcting genetic defects.

[James Pollock]

"Tell me more about those 'real world actual functions', Sarcastr0."

In the real world, very close to nobody has any access to genetic testing methods and equipment.
In the real world, your choices are to observe and infer, and the most obvious secondary sex characteristics are generally not offered for inspection on demand.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the real world even young children can pick out the difference between men and women almost instantly without a strip search. Why, it's almost as though this had enough importance in our lives that evolution saw to it that we had the capacity to notice the difference!

[Sarcastr0]

The faces they chose were notably unambiguous.

Meanwhile, in the real world, dude looks like a lady (and vice versa) has a long and storied legacy.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"In the real world, very close to nobody has any access to genetic testing methods and equipment."

Not really. FULL genetic sequencing...that's more rare. But genetic testing to see if there's an x chromosome or y chromosome. That's pretty simple. Those sorts of tests are done pretty commonly.

[James Pollock]

" That's pretty simple. Those sorts of tests are done pretty commonly."

By people on the street?

[Ben_]

And Sarcastr0 will be there to police the definition everyone else uses by endlessly complaining.

[Sarcastr0]

Cheerio asked a question, and I gave my opinion.

You gotta get that chip off your shoulder.

[Ben_]

If you don’t like complaints aimed at you, consider offering fewer complaints yourself.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That would require honesty

[Sarcastr0]

I really is a helluva thing how many of the conservatives on here call everyone who disagrees with them liars.

Kind of a minor solipsism, where they can't handle people thinking differently than they do.

[VinniUSMC]

No Sarcastr0, many people pointing out that you are regularly full of shit is not the same thing as "conservatives call everyone who disagrees with them liars".

[Sarcastr0]

No one establishes dishonesty, they just call me, and everyone to the left of Trump, a liar.

[Life of Brian]

No one establishes dishonesty as defined by me

FTFY, Mr. HSA.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for the great example of just name calling without backing it up, Brian!

[Life of Brian]

I backed it up in the other thread I referenced. You've remained dead silent. Which is what you always do when you get squarely caught misrepresenting and there just isn't any way to pivot and squirm your way out of it.

[Don Nico]

I would not go there S_0.
You seem to call most people you disagree with conspiracy theorists.

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, that's mostly Brett.

[James Pollock]

Brett accuses people of being involved in conspiracies, but hardly ever calls anyone a conspiracy theorist.

[Sarcastr0]

That's mostly me calling Brett a conspiracy theorist, I meant.

[OtisAH]

What would he eat for breakfast then?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You gotta get that chip off your shoulder.

You admonishing others about dealing with their character flaws is the ultimate exercise in hypocrisy.

[Sarcastr0]

I generally critique particular comments.

You, for lifetime achievement in consistently responding to comments with insults at the commenter, I make an exception for.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I generally critique particular comments.

As I just did, by pointing out the hypocrisy of yours.

Ditto your other complaints when you are the most consistently dishonest piece of shit here.

[James Pollock]

self-awareness score: -1

[David Nieporent]

For some stuff (sports) it's hormones.

No; the difference between men and women in terms of sports performance is not limited to hormones. Men and women are structurally different. (I can draw you a picture, if you'd like.)

[James Pollock]

I'd love to see your diagram as to how internal vs. external reproductive equipment makes a difference in sports performance, unless the sporting competition consists of gestating a live human being.

[David Nieporent]

So I guess you in fact do need a picture. Hint: the musculoskeletal systems are different, and make a difference in sports performance.

[VinniUSMC]

Don't bother. Pollock is about as bright as a light bulb without a filament.

[James Pollock]

Says the dimmest bulb in the tool shed.

[James Pollock]

"So I guess you in fact do need a picture. Hint: the musculoskeletal systems are different, and make a difference in sports performance."

This one of those religious claims, about how men don't have the same number of ribs that women have?

[Ben_]

Why do we need to define terms to the satisfaction of insane people or people who disagree for personal gain or people who disagree just to be jerks or to push an agenda for evil aims?

"An adult human female" is an adequate definition and whomever wants to complain about it can be (if you really want to be tolerant) politely ignored.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Why do we need to define terms to the satisfaction of insane people or people who disagree for personal gain or people who disagree just to be jerks or to push an agenda for evil aims?"

It's true, we shouldn't care about defining this to Ben's satisfaction.

[bernard11]

Why do we need to define terms to the satisfaction of insane people or people who disagree for personal gain or people who disagree just to be jerks or to push an agenda for evil aims?

We shouldn't need to. But Lindsay Graham is on the Judiciary Committee, and gets to ask stupid questions, and push an evil agenda. This is also true of Hawley and Cruz.

[Ben_]

Representative government causes elitist frowning.

[Sarcastr0]

Policies promulgated by our representative government never cause Ben to frown!

[Ben_]

Incorrect

[Sarcastr0]

Representative government causes Bennist frowning.

[Don Nico]

And Whitehouse and...

[Josh R]

In the overwhelming majority of cases, it doesn't matter because you reach the same answer for all biomarkers and gender identity. In the cases where the biomarkers are in disagreement with each other, or the biomarkers are in disagreement with gender identity, the answer depends on context.

[James Pollock]

The real problem lies with people who are overly concerned with what is going on in other people's pants.

[Kazinski]

Eh first world problems. I just got back in the US from being abroad since November 15, and after traveling extensively in 6 countries mostly in the Turkey and Balkans, but including Cambodia I could count on one hand the number of obviously non-CIS individuals I saw.

Now obviously the count would have gone up a lot if I managed to get to Thailand, there are a lot of "Ladyboys" there, but I think it's because there is a market for it.
Hey maybe that's why it's so prominent a social phenomena here, not an occupational market, as in Thailand, but a Social market if you will.

Anyway it is striking how binary the rest of the world is compared to the US.

[Ben_]

Seems like a key difference is that many other countries' governments and elite insider types don’t actively hate the regular population of those countries. Or if they do, they don’t make it so obvious as in the US.

They don’t all seem to spend their time inventing new ways to divide people and creating new woke nonsense every few years to name-call and scream at everyone about.

[Nelson]

Up until you said "woke" I was sure you were talking about cultural conservatives. I'm still pretty sure you were, you just weren't aware enough yo realize it.

[Ben_]

Because conservatives are the media and Hollywood elite? And the governing class? And the university ivory tower elite? And the Silicon Valley techno-elite?

Conservatives are the regular people who are just trying to get by out in the country. Your comment doesn’t make even a tiny bit of sense. But you know that. You think lying is clever.

[Nelson]

You make a lot of assumptions in a short post:

1) The "regular people" are all conservative
2) The "elites" are all liberal
3) "Regular people" are inherently good and "elites" are inherently evil
4) Active hatred is the emotion and the impetus
5) Cultural "controversies" like widespread election fraud, CRT being taught in K-12 schools, trans/homosexuals groom children for sexual abuse, abortion is murder, religion is under attack, immigrants are criminals, and various other paleo talking points are baseless cultural conservative nonsense that conservatives "name-call and scream at everyone about". Yes, the far left does it, too. But both fringes are the culprits, not just the left, and those of us in the middle are the victims.

If you think that only one extreme is the problem, you are not being honest. Cultural conservatives are more guilty of the things you claimed the "woke" are guilty of, but it's only a matter of volume, not irrationality.

Anyone who demonizes, dehumanizes, and paints broad stereotypes of the "other side" are the bad actors, whether liberal or conservative, is equally guilty. And the majority of us who have more moderate or heterodox views (and it is a very large majority) are the ones who have to take shit from both sides as we try to argue for nuance and moderation.

[Ben_]

Snarky bullshit isn’t argument, nuance, or moderation.

[Ben_]

Nelson here thinks CRT is conservatives' fault.

You really think government K-12 school teachers shouldn’t be told not to stigmatize kids based on their race? You really think that’s "controversial"? How can it simultaneously be "controversial" and a non-issue about something that never happens?

Blindly accepting leftist framing of issues to attack conservatives is so very, very moderate.

[James Pollock]

The biggest supplier of gender-change surgery in the world is Iran.

[apedad]

'We did the right thing': Manager of Oak Forest gun shop speaks about moments when Ketura Wilson demanded ammunition and was denied

“CHICAGO (CBS) -- There are new developments in that shootout between a woman and police in south suburban Oak Forest

The CBS 2 Investigators learned the woman tried to buy more ammunition the morning of the shooting. CBS 2 Investigator Megan Hickey spoke exclusively with employees at the gun store.

They refused to let her buy more bullets. The manager confirmed that Ketura Wilson was there on Sunday morning. She wanted a box of 9mm ammo. They come 50 rounds in a box.

Employees refused to sell them to her because of the suspicious way she was acting. That's the store policy. Eagle Sports Range in Oak Forest confirmed that Wilson came in around 10:00 a.m.

Eagle Sports Range confirmed that Wilson had a valid FOID card and was also trying to sign up for a concealed carry class when they turned her away because of her behavior.

They said she was on the phone, seemed very agitated and unholstered her gun on a few occasions, which also made them uncomfortable.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/manager-of-oak-forest-gun-shop-speaks-about-moments-when-ketura-wilson-demanded-ammunition-and-was-denied/

Ok gun peoples. . . what’s your take on the gun store refusing to sell ammo to a valid, card-carrying customer but only based on a hunch (or whatever store policy they have)?

What’s the difference between this store and Twitter denying their customers service – based on whatever terms they desire?

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, the employees of Eagle Sports Range deserve a pat on the back. The article makes clear it was Wilson's observable behaviors that prompted their refusal to sell her ammo. They (employees) were situationally observant, used their brains, and exercised common sense. Thank God.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's no different than a bar refusing another drink to somebody who's visibly drunk, just responsible behavior.

Not at all the same as Twitter systematically discriminating against half the population's ideology. More like the sort of moderation Section 230 actually contemplated.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Twitter systematically discriminating against half the population's ideology"

You see this claim all the time, but rarely any offer of proof.

[Brett Bellmore]

Candidate who got nearly half the vote banned from the platform. Murderous dictators keep their accounts. QED.

[Queen Amalthea]

Didn't Trump's banning come from what he did *on the platform?*

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretextually, yes. They claimed that they banned him for using the platform to promote violence.

On the basis of a tweet that said his voters would have a big voice going forward, and another saying he wouldn't attend the inauguration!

Total bullshit reasoning.

[Queen Amalthea]

He'd repeatedly violated their rules, right (election fraud claims, vaccine misinformation and/or such)?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, he violated their censorship rules. But the actual pretext for the banning was that those two tweets promoted violence.

[Queen Amalthea]

So he violated their stated rules (repeatedly) but those dictators didn't. Boy, that is strong evidence!

[wreckinball]

Ha the rules are ban stuff we don't like. We'll see that may be changing despite the little temper tantrums of the Twitter libs.

[Queen Amalthea]

It's like that darn restaurant down the street discriminating against people for just doing what they don't like such as going barefoot and shirtless.

[David Nieporent]

Ha the rules are ban stuff we don't like.

And?

That's presumably the same rule you apply to your own private property. Why shouldn't Twitter?

[James Pollock]

"Ha the rules are ban stuff we don't like."

OK. And? The point of owning something is deciding who gets to use it and for what purpose(s).

[David Nieporent]

He'd repeatedly violated their rules, right (election fraud claims, vaccine misinformation and/or such)?

Yep. In fact, if he hadn't been a "candidate who got nearly half the vote" he'd have been banned a lot sooner.

[James Pollock]

So your claim is that murderous dictators keep their Twitter accounts, but YOUR murderous dictator was unfairly deprived?

It's Twitter's system, they get to decide who uses it, and/or for what. If you don't like it, don't use Twitter.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'd have to HAVE a murderous dictator to be concerned about mine.

[James Pollock]

Your guy lost an election but he still exists.

He's currently still claiming that he won in 2016, in 2020, and is planning to run in 2024. Poor fellow can't count to two.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just neither murderous nor a dictator.

At least, no more murderous than your average President, I mean. Certainly not a dictator.

[James Pollock]

"Just neither murderous nor a dictator.

At least, no more murderous than your average President, I mean. Certainly not a dictator."

He's a particularly INEFFECTIVE murderous dictator. Cheney did it better.

[bernard11]

Bullshit, Brett.

Banning Trump is not "systematically discriminating against half the population's ideology."

That's a giant load you just dumped. What policy positions does Trump favor? Immigration restrictions, tariffs, lower taxes, less regulation of business? (Actually, he probably doesn't give a shit about any of those things, but let's pretend.)

So you seem to be claiming that Twitter will ban someone who supports any of that on the platform, or tweets out "Trump is the greatest," or something.

That's beyond stupid.

[Kazinski]

Elon Musk is convinced that Twitter is censoring too many people for insufficient reason, and he looks like he is starting to do something about it.

He has a good combination of traits to do it, an active Twitter user, free speech absolutist, fabulously wealthy.

[apedad]

Brett, there are laws that bartenders are legally obligated to refuse to serve visibly drunk persons.

Is there a same law about weapon/ammo purchasers?

Is a gun shop keeper legally obligated to refuse to see based on some sort of criteria?

[apedad]

...refuse to sell....

EDIT FUNCTION PLEASE!!!!!

[BillyG]

Is a gun shop keeper legally obligated to refuse to sell based on some sort of criteria?

Yes. They want to stay in business. The criteria is what could a leftist lawyer successfully sue them over.

[James Pollock]

Too bad for this excuse that Republicans have placed immunity on gun-sellers for what people do with their products. so leftist lawyers can't successfully sue them. On behalf of the people injured by their dangerous products.

[BillyG]

Care to try again? There's an explicit exception in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act for negligence.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

So yes, they could be sued for negligence given all the suspicious behavior listed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mind, some people of Pollock's persuasion have attempted to argue negligent entrustment just on the basis that "You knew some fraction of the guns you sold would be used in crimes!", without any specific evidence about any purchaser.

[James Pollock]

You're putting words in my mouth again, Brett. After flailing about wildly trying to complain "you can't accuse me of misquoting you if there aren't any quotation marks" or something extremely similar. Well, this time you misquoted me using actual quotation marks.

Loser.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You really do go full retard whenever you talk about firearms.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You really do go full retard whenever you talk about firearms wake up in the morning.

FIFY

[James Pollock]

You forgot to post the picture showing that you were pointing to yourself, again. The words don't make sense without the image.

[Brett Bellmore]

S.397 - Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

This simply restored firearms manufacturers and dealers to the same legal status enjoyed by other industries. You sell a legal product, legally, it's on the purchaser if they do something wrong with it.

[James Pollock]

"This simply restored firearms manufacturers and dealers to the same legal status enjoyed by other industries. You sell a legal product, legally, it's on the purchaser if they do something wrong with it."

Sounds like bad news when the leftist lawyer tries to sue.

[Brett Bellmore]

The leftist lawyers trying to sue weren't anticipating winning many of the suits. They were anticipating bankrupting the industry with litigation costs. They were quite open about that.

[James Pollock]

So, they're trying to sue people for something they can't be sued for, in order to impose litigation costs? How much does it cost to say, "you can't sue us for that?" Assuming normal competence, I mean.

[Ed Grinberg]

what’s your take on the gun store refusing to sell ammo to a valid, card-carrying customer but only based on a hunch (or whatever store policy they have)?

Simple. Is it a private establishment? If so, they should be free to deny service to anyone for any reason. Period.

[Longtobefree]

Can a business open to the public be a private establishment?
Compare and contrast; Masterpiece Cakeshop.

[James Pollock]

Which state's law are you applying?

[Kazinski]

Probably about the same as when a bartender refuses to serve someone because they're drunk or beligerent.

Nobody ever got killed on Twitter.

I also got no problem with a gun store refusing to sell a gun to someone who obviously doesn't know how to use it, waving it all around finger on the trigger, unsure how to check if it's loaded, etc.

Guns are dangerous, that's why people need them, and it's also why people need to be very careful of them.

[Armchair Lawyer]

January 6th Defendant declared Not Guilty.

You may have missed this, but a defendant in the January 6th protest has been found not guilty by a court of law. Turns out there was reasonable doubt involved, since the defendant assumed the police were letting him into the building, so it was OK for him to be there.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/matthew-martin-january-6-defendant-not-guilty/

Why it took over a year to get to this place for fairly minor crimes.....who knows.

[John F. Carr]

I saw the story and used the opportunity to repeat some advice I got from a prosecutor. If the facts are on your side elect a bench trial. The judge will understand reasonable doubt. Don't risk a DC jury when you are a conservative.

We also had a discussion "why did it take so long?" The prosecutor's office is overloaded and if the case is weak and the crime minor the defendant is unlikely to be held in jail awaiting trial.

[apedad]

Also have to add in when the indictment was issued, any COVID delays, etc.

[Bored Lawyer]

What was his crime and what is the maximum punishment for that?

I vaguely recall something from law school that the government cannot keep you locked-up pre-trial longer than the maximum punishment. For serious crimes, that obviously makes no difference, but for minor crimes it can.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't recall that; it'd be a good thing to have, though.

Maybe a state law thing?

[Noscitur a sociis]

He was charged with two misdemeanors that are punishable by a year in prison, and two that are punishable by 6 months, so a theoretical maximum sentence of 3 years.

He was also released on his own recognizance at his arraignment.

[bernard11]

Not sent to the gulag, you mean?

[Armchair Lawyer]

He lost his job for more than a year for a crime he was not guilty of.

Seems a bit rough, doesn't it?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I see that you're unfamiliar with security clearances and the plethora of reasons why they get revoked.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't risk a DC jury when you are a conservative.

Somehow I doubt the prosecutor told you that. Because that requires some ignorance about the voir process.

[John F. Carr]

The prosecutor told me about practice in the Midwest. The DC aspect is modern conventional wisdom.

[Sarcastr0]

Why does federal criminal practice take so long, asks person who has never bothered to look into this before.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, Sarcastro, you seem to be a know it all...

What is the average length of time from indictment to trial for a federal misdemeanor trial. Can you be of any help here?

Or can you just make allusions and insinuations.....

[Sarcastr0]

That's not hard to Google. Try 'Federal criminal case timeline.'

[Armchair Lawyer]

What a surprise. You don't offer any evidence.

Just once in your life, provide evidence for your assertions. Provide a link to the average time for a federal trial for a misdemeanor.

Just once.

[Sarcastr0]

YOU are the one positing there is an extraordinary delay here.

And now you're super offended I'm not doing your homework for you.

Sometimes I do provide such stuff - accusing me of never linking to evidence is pretty funny.

But today, I am lazy, and the burden is on you. Not that you ever do any work to check up on whether your own beliefs are legit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Today, I am lazy"

You are always lazy. You basically never provide proof for your assertions.

And once again, you fail to. Another Sarcastro assertion. Another lack of proof when asked. It's a pattern. It's typical.

You're a joke.

[Bored Lawyer]

Apparently a key factor is that it appears that Capitol police waived him in, and that means that he did not believe he was trespassing. That has been a contention of many about some of the Jan. 6 protestors, and now a federal judge has found at least a reasonable doubt on the issue.

[James Pollock]

The apologists come armed with any number of reasons why it really wasn't illegal to try to steal the election.

[James Pollock]

"You may have missed this, but a defendant in the January 6th protest has been found not guilty by a court of law. Turns out there was reasonable doubt involved, since the defendant assumed the police were letting him into the building, so it was OK for him to be there."

It's unusual to see a stupidity defense that works out well for the defendant.

[Armchair Lawyer]

In a disturbing case, pro-life protestors have been arrested by the FBI.

What the protestors did was pretty simple. They noted a medical waste company loading boxes from an abortion clinic. And they asked the driver if he knew what he was loading. He did not. So, they told him, then asked if they could have one of the boxes. Inside, was what was expected...and also five 3rd trimester fetuses. Alarmed, they called the cops about the potential for illegal abortions here.

Instead, the pro-life protestors were arrested.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/feds-dc-police-silent-arrest-anti-abortion-activists-after-they

[Queen Amalthea]

Why would you rely on 'news' from that ridiculous John Solomon source? Even if you weren't aware of his goofball journalistic past, that cite looks as reliable as the National Enquirer.

[bernard11]

It just tells you where he gets the crap - I wouldn't call it information - he spreads here on a regular basis.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Why not? Follow it up with other links, but it provides evidence and backs up its assertions.

Something the NYT rarely does, and seems to get major stories wrong, consistently.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's what Democrat Justice looks like. Get used to it.

[Krychek_2]

And here's the story reported from a pro-choice perspective:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2022/04/06/creepy-ghouls-squared/

Are there seriously no post-birth children in need of assistance that these wingnuts can help instead?

[Noscitur a sociis]

To be clear, The "protestors" were indicted for "forcefully enter[ing] the clinic and ... blockading two clinic doors using their bodies, furniture, chains and ropes."

In October 2020.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ah yes... Interesting that timing....

In March of 2022, the protestors are handed a box of fetuses from a medical waste disposal company. Included among them are several that look to be 3rd trimester abortions. Being good citizens, the protestors contact the police, who arrive the next day to examine the evidence.

But just before the police get there, the FBI raids the place, in regards to a completely different "crime" from nearly 18 months ago. Absolutely coincidence that the protestors had just contacted the police regarding evidence of potential infantcide. This being the clinic where the doctor said in 2013 if an infant was born alive, they wouldn't save it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The episode with the purported box of fetuses happened on March 25.

The indictment was filed on March 24.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, let's review the timeline here.

On March 9th, 2022, the protesters gain access to a number of aborted, third-trimester children.

On March 23rd, 2022, they post on Twitter that there are questions about the third trimester abortions.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/31/five-fetuses-found-anti-abortion-activists-home-dc

On March 24th, 2022 (according to you), the FBI gains an indictment against the group for an entirely unrelated protest that happens nearly 18 months previously, and was widely known about, and use that indictment to raid and arrest the people.

Yeah, nothing suspicious about that at ALL... Maybe they could find a jaywalking crime on camera next to arrest them for.

Sure you don't want to rethink things?

[James Pollock]

sounds like somebody got caught with some dead fetuses, and had to scramble up a story about getting them from a clinic.

[Ben_]

Do you expect The Good Guys to care?

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read Noscitur's post? You once again jump into your narrative about liberals being utopia justifies the means villains and ignore the facts.

[Ben_]

No, I was just wondering if anyone expected the blue team to care.

[Sarcastr0]

About people getting in trouble for civil disobedience? I don't see why; that's part of the civil disobedience deal.

The right are the ones special pleading all over the place these days. Liberals are the ones for systemic reform.

[Ben_]

Civil disobedience is a matter for the FBI?

[Sarcastr0]

Sometimes. Whether something is civil disobedience or not is orthogonal to jurisdiction.

[Ben_]

Blue team interest depends on arcane distinctions about jurisdiction then. Never a shortage of rationalizations.

[Sarcastr0]

Not what I said.

[James Pollock]

Doesn't matter.

[James Pollock]

What happened between "they asked if they could have one of the boxes" and "they found..."

If they're contending that a biohazard disposal company just handed over a box of medical waste, I don't believe it.

[Nelson]

I thought that they cut off limbs, sucked out brains, and crushed skulls in those illegal third-trimester abortions. With the "babies" screaming in pain. And probably begging for their lives and calling for God to save them.

It seems like if you have intact fetuses, it wasn't a "partial birth abortion".

Honesty, decency, and integrity aren't prevelent in the anti-abortion movement. They will tell any lie to get the government to force everyone else to live the way they want. This is probably just another example of the bullshit.machine they have created.

Because the ends justify the means. And that never ends poorly, right?

[Ben_]

"Honesty, decency, and integrity aren't prevelent in the anti-abortion movement."

At least no one needs to believe you’re anything close to a "moderate". Why do you guys always pretend?

[not guilty]

The arrest was not for handling of the fetuses. It was for interference with access to an abortion clinic.

[Armchair Lawyer]

A well known "crime" 18 months before the incident. That the FBI just happened to get an indictment for, the day AFTER the group posts on twitter that they have obtained evidence of third trimester abortions. Color me suspicious at the timing....

I can put it in an example for you to better understand

1. March 24th, NG: "We have evidence that Trump actively colluded with Russia in 2016! We'll hand it over to the cops tomorrow
2. March 25th, FBI: Whoops. Looks like we're going to get an indictment on you for jaywalking in 2014. Then raid your house and seize the materials.

No problem there, right?

[Queen Amalthea]

NYT Report on how conservative, GOP events/rallies are becoming not only more explicitly religious but often particularly Christian.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/us/christian-right-wing-politics.html

1. Do the conservatives here who attend such events notice this?
2. Is it a change (I remember the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority having a big place in GOP politics decades back)?
3. For those conservatives who do experience it but who aren't that religious, what's it like?

[bernard11]

They are also becoming more openly authoritarian. CPAC is holding a conference in Budapest with Orban as the keynote speaker.

[John F. Carr]

My hypothetical related to recent events in Ukraine:

You are a prosecutor with a time machine, but you still have to try your cases in the military or civilian justice system of the late 1960s. Who do you charge with crimes related to My Lai and the coverup, and who do you think you can convict? The record to beat is one conviction with a ten year sentence.

[Moderation4ever]

My Lai represented a specific event. As such it focused on those individuals specifically involved in the events.

In most cases where war crimes are taken to a court of law, we are looking for broader violation like targeting civilian target. In Ukraine we are see a consistent pattern of attacks that appear to suggest the goal is to terrorize rather than win a military objective.

[John F. Carr]

My Lai highlights the problem that in most cases you need to prove a specific act or omission that makes a specific person liable, and that's hard to do for people who didn't have their fingers on a trigger. I don't think you can connect Put to the war crimes around Kiev. He is unlikely to have been aware. You have the triggermen, and you have the officers who gave the orders, and you have the ambiguous case where somebody still higher up said "will nobody rid me of these turbulent residents?", and you have the top command which didn't know.

Mariupol is another story. Putin reportedly said the shelling would continue until the city surrendered. Starting a war of aggression is another story but there is no established tribunal to hear the case against Putin. The ICC disclaimed jurisdiction. The Security Council is subject to Russian veto. You need an ad-hoc Nuremberg type tribunal.

There is a modern German precedent that some groups are so evil that you don't need to prove actual knowledge of crimes. Like the typist in a concentration camp. I don't want to imprison everybody in designated Russian military units. (Rumor has it Putin is hoping they will all die in combat.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"Like the typist in a concentration camp."

Germany let every real Nazi war criminal we turned over to them out no later than 1958, now they persecute 90+ year olds.

[James Pollock]

Which Germany? After the war, there were two...

[Bob from Ohio]

West Germany.

[James Pollock]

So, it was not-the-Commies coddling Nazis

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No Nazi wanted to end up anywhere controlled by the Soviet Union.

[bernard11]

He is unlikely to have been aware.

I doubt that. Do you really think some Russian soldiers just went nuts, and that killing civilians wasn't condoned by Putin?

[John F. Carr]

I think Putin did not have sufficient knowledge of the treatment of civilians around Kiev to be charged with their murder or abuse. I'm not saying he would have objected if he had known. Leaders of countries give general orders like "bomb Cambodia" or "invade Iraq" more than they give specific orders like "pacify My Lai" or "teach those prisoners in Abu Ghraib a lesson".

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hidden in the recent anti-lynching bill is the creation a new law criminalizing "conspiracy" against the ruling elites.

How long do we have before the horror that the Democrats have done to the J6 Capitol tourists gets applied to mom's who won't trans their kids, or dad's who won't let some mentally ill boy rape and sodomize his teenage daughter in a locker room, or Christians for calling out Democrat Grooming?

I'm guessing the Democrat DOJ will start to apply this after the midterms, and with a child-rapist/pedophile enabler on the SCOTUS it might get deemed constitutional.

[Queen Amalthea]

"a new law criminalizing "conspiracy" against the ruling elites."

Notice when the nuts say these things there's no citation.

[apedad]

Notice how him considers himself/herself/verself part of the "ruling elite."

[Brett Bellmore]

"and with a child-rapist/pedophile enabler on the SCOTUS it might get deemed constitutional."

Oh, come on. Even if she's seriously soft on pedophiles, she's only going to be one vote on the Court, and rarely a different vote from Breyer's. Her getting on the Court is more of an effort to move the Overton window, rather than change the outcome of cases any time soon.

[Queen Amalthea]

I like that Brett's criticism of the laughable hyperbole here is not about the 'child-rapist pedophile enabler' but 'come on, it's only one vote!'

Welcome to Extremismtown!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if she gets confirmed, she will have only one vote. Do you dispute that?

The specific factual allegation is that, in child porn cases, she consistently sentences at the bottom end of the sentencing guidelines, regardless of aggravating circumstances. I have not seen this allegation denied.

If that's not being "soft on" such offenses, would you say that always sentencing at the upper end of the guidelines wasn't being "hard on" them?

[BillyG]

She doesn't consistently sentence at the bottom of the guidelines.

She consistently sentences below.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, looking it up, I see you're right. But she will still be only one vote on the Court if nominated.

[BillyG]

Agreed. R's should just confirm her unanimously and get it over with.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, the Democrats don't need their votes, no reason for a Republican who's uncomfortable with her to give them their vote.

Just because it's not a hill to die on doesn't mean you have to desert it.

[Bob from Ohio]

No reason for any Republican to vote for her period.

No Dem voted for Amy.

[Krychek_2]

Except that the specific reason no Dem voted for Amy was the hypocrisy of rushing Amy through after denying Merrick Garland a vote.

[Bob from Ohio]

"specific reason"

Don't care about the reason.

No votes for one, no votes for either.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't care about the reason.

We know, Bob.

[BillyG]

Krychek_2 Except that the specific reason no Dem voted for Amy was the hypocrisy of rushing Amy through after denying Merrick Garland a vote.

What hypocrisy would that be?
President/Congress same party & election year: vote.
President/Congress different party & election year: no vote.

[Krychek_2]

BillyG, because no one believed it, that's why. Everyone knew that McConnell made that up as an excuse and it was nothing but a result-oriented expedient.

[David Nieporent]

What hypocrisy would that be?
President/Congress same party & election year: vote.
President/Congress different party & election year: no vote

Um, the hypocrisy you just described.

That's not an actual distinction; that's just a "We have the votes" difference.

[not guilty]

Can you defenders of the disparate treatment of Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett deign to acknowledge Anthony Kennedy's confirmation by a Democratic Senate in 1988? Or are you afraid it will break the keyboard?

[BillyG]

Um, the hypocrisy you just described.

I clearly articulated the rule. Hypocrisy is giving a rule and then not following it. You may not like it, it is consistent behavior.

Looks to me like you two (Kyrcheck, Nieporent) are just complaining about politics as usual. The Democrats would behave the exact same way were the situations reversed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Democrats would behave the exact same way were the situations reversed."

Dem yes votes on last 4 GOP nominees

3, 2, 1, 0

Reasons vary, results basically the same.

[Krychek_2]

Billy, if the parties were reversed-Republican President, Dem Senate, election year Supreme Court vacancy- do you think for one split second that Mitch McConnell would keep his position? Of course not.

And that’s the hypocrisy. It’s not that he’s articulated a rule; it’s that he’s articulated a rule that everyone knows he would abandon at the drop of a hat if it were in his interest to do so.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, how many of those were post Merrick Garland?

What you’re not getting is that the Garland shenanigans did in fact gain your side another seat on the Supreme Court, but at the cost of permanent damage to the process. Though I’ll be surprised if you care.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Though I’ll be surprised if you care."

I hate surprises. Even for others.

Politics ain't beanbag. Mitch took a shot, it worked out. Next time don't run a horrible candidate like Hillary.

[Krayt]

Refusing to vote for Amy because of Garland holds is politics, not (on the surface, anyway) based on content of judging.

[James Pollock]

"What hypocrisy would that be?
President/Congress same party & election year: vote.
President/Congress different party & election year: no vote."

Which part of the Constitution is this drawn from?

[BillyG]

It steals a Dem talking point during the election. I expect Dems to scream Racism for anyone who votes against her. Imagine if she was confirmed unanimously.

[Bob from Ohio]

Most people can't name a S/C justice, the number of votes it would change is microscopic.

Fundamentals [here inflation and gas prices] will decide the election as they always do.

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect Dems to scream Racism against every Republican candidate regardless of how they vote. You can't take away talking points when they don't have to be true.

[James Pollock]

Say Bob, just an observation here.

Isn't inflation just the free marketplace at work, setting prices based on supply and demand?

Are Conservatives such as yourself so at odds with reality that you're discarding the "free markets fix everything" mantra?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Isn't inflation just the free marketplace at work, setting prices based on supply and demand?"

Not as long as people are required to accept dollars in payment of debts. THAT isn't the "free" marketplace, and it's the only reason we can't route around inflation by denominating contracts in some other currency or specie.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Isn't inflation just the free marketplace at work"

4+ trillion in covid money isn't the "free market".

[bernard11]

Not as long as people are required to accept dollars in payment of debts. THAT isn't the "free" marketplace, and it's the only reason we can't route around inflation by denominating contracts in some other currency or specie.

Don't be ridiculous. You are free to contract for payment in anything you like, including gold.

[James Pollock]

"Not as long as people are required to accept dollars in payment of debts. THAT isn't the "free" marketplace, and it's the only reason we can't route around inflation by denominating contracts in some other currency or specie.."

So demand that debts to you be paid in rubles, or Bitcoin, or whatever. It works for the ransomware guys well enough, I'm
sure it'll work out for you, too.

[James Pollock]

"4+ trillion in covid money isn't the "free market"."

Those dollars aren't usable in free markets?

[bernard11]

By the way, there;s an even easier way to deal with inflation.

Just put a CPI adjustment or something in your contract. This was commonplace in the 1970's.

There are tons of other ways, also.

So no. Despite what some idiot told you the big bad federal government is not stopping you from protecting yourself against inflation.

[VinniUSMC]

Those dollars aren't usable in free markets?

The free market didn't create those dollars, and those dollars caused inflation, not the market. Do you understand anything about... anything?

[James Pollock]

"

[James Pollock]

"The free market didn't create those dollars, and those dollars caused inflation, not the market."

which dollars were created by the market, Vinni? (Hint: Not one of them) Markets don't create resources, they allocate them.

It's like you prefer to show your ignorance rather than learn. Why is that?

[Queen Amalthea]

Yes, that surely means the terminology " child-rapist/pedophile enabler " is a-ok, amirite?

[James Pollock]

These guys are so twisted around.

There was an actual child-rapist pedophile, and he got caught and put in prison, and according to ehse guys, he definitely was murdered in prison as part of a leftist conspiracy.
the also believe that the leftist ranks are huge and swollen with pedophiles. No conflict between these two positions.

[Sarcastr0]

I have not seen this allegation denied.

1) This is not a charge worth addressing, since the middle of a given sentencing guide is not some communally arrived at average - the baseline assumption is already off the mark.

2) Even allowing for the sake of argument that the average sentence contains some moral imprimatur, no proof of the charge has been offered - are there stats to support this generalization, or is this anecdotes being generalized? The burden is on the one making the charge.

This is political hay, and you are turning it into something legit because you tend to uncritically consume the political hay your side puts out nom nom.

[Brett Bellmore]

"1) This is not a charge worth addressing, since the middle of a given sentencing guide is not some communally arrived at average - the baseline assumption is already off the mark."

The legislature enacts a guideline, they're perfectly entitled to consider whether a judge followed it when deciding whether to confirm them to a higher position. They're as entitled to their opinion, and to act on it within their own authority, as the judge is.

"2) Even allowing for the sake of argument that the average sentence contains some moral imprimatur, no proof of the charge has been offered - are there stats to support this generalization, or is this anecdotes being generalized? The burden is on the one making the charge. "

Can we generalize that? Justice Kavanaugh wants to know.

[Sarcastr0]

The guideline is a range. You are pretending it's not to manufacture a charge.

I don't get your Kavanaugh dig. This was explicitly about her generalized judging. Kavanaugh doing even one sexual assault would have been an issue without any generalization needed.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No proof of the charge was offered."

[Sarcastr0]

You can think the evidence wasn't sufficient, or even worth investigating, but no evidence is flatly wrong as to Kav.

You gave credence to general handwaving and sorta skipped over the statistics. Maybe the stats agree with the charge, but until they exist it's all just blowing smoke. Kinda like your Kavanaugh whattaboutism.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Your actual words, as quoted by Brett:

"No proof of the charge was offered."

Your attempt to pretend that you said something completely different:

but no evidence is flatly wrong as to Kav

And you wonder why I call you a lying sack of crap.

[David Nieporent]

And you wonder why I call you a lying sack of crap.

I don't think anyone wonders why you're a nasty piece of work, no.

Or that you don't understand legal terminology.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don't think anyone wonders why you're a nasty piece of work, no.

Coming from a dishonest coward like yourself that means....nothing.

Hands up, don't shoot! Right?

[David Nieporent]

Once again, it's amusing to see someone who's so ashamed of what he posts that he hides behind a username calling someone else a "coward."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Once again, it's amusing to see someone who's so ashamed of what he posts that he hides behind a username calling someone else a "coward."

Most people use pseudonyms when posting online, for which there are very good reasons that have nothing to do with courage/cowardice. You know, of course, but are such a dishonest asshole that you're opting for the Sarcastr0 approach.

And even using a pseudonym I still manage to maintain enough integrity to publicly and freely admit it's proven that I got something wrong. Contrast that with your own behavior. I mean, how many years now has it been since you mindlessly swallowed and repeatedly...and quite arrogantly...regurgitated a narrative that resulted in numerous terribly destructive effects, only to be later shown to be baseless bullshit...and you STILL haven't grown enough of a pair of balls to acknowledge what you did?

That's cowardice.

[James Pollock]

It's still somebody hiding behind a fake name calling somebody else a coward. For all the persuasive effect that has.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only "evidence" was the accusation itself.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the alleged victim testifying does indeed count as evidence.

But also, stay on topic - you're quibbling about your whattboutism now.

Your 8:30am comment jumped the gun, and based on where you've moved your argument, it sure seems like you agree.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yes, the alleged victim testifying does indeed count as evidence.

So you're using "evidence" in the, "She turned me into a newt!" sense.

[James Pollock]

Wuzie, there's this thing called the Federal Rules of Evidence, you might want to look it over. It has (spoiler alert) all the rules about evidence, including what is and what is not evidence.

[David Nieporent]

The legislature enacts a guideline,

Sigh. No. Once again, Brett, you're Dunning-Krugering yourself.

[James Pollock]

"The legislature enacts a guideline, they're perfectly entitled to consider whether a judge followed it when deciding whether to confirm them to a higher position. They're as entitled to their opinion, and to act on it within their own authority, as the judge is."

If the judge(s) aren't sentencing the way the legislators like, they can certainly adjust the sentences the judges are allowed to assign.

[Brett Bellmore]

They can also decide the judges aren't deserving of promotion.

[James Pollock]

Can they, though?

[not guilty]

Uh, Congress didn't enact the sentencing guidelines. Congress enacted the range of punishment.

[James Pollock]

Read what I wrote again. I'll cut and paste it here for your convenience:

"If the judge(s) aren't sentencing the way the legislators like, they can certainly adjust the sentences the judges are allowed to assign."

[not guilty]

I was commenting in response to Brett attributing the sentencing guidelines to the legislature.

[bernard11]

Brett,

Most cases of child pornography possession are sentenced below the guidelines.

Cite.

The charges by some GOP senators are scurrilous and slimy. Then Cruz adds another layer of slime by going on TV and declaring that having served as a PD is disqualifying.

Does Eugene retain his admiration for Cruz, after all these years, I wonder?

[Bob from Ohio]

"scurrilous and slimy"

Dick Durbin [current Judiciary chair] and several other Dems pushed the bogus Julie Swetnick gang rape allegations made by Michael Avenatti.

[bernard11]

Which has what to do with anything? Do you have a trunk full of whataboutisms to throw at anything you don't like.

[Nelson]

It's nice to see hard data that makes the point that the "pediphile-lover" narrative is a crick of shit.

Even more interesting was that top 6 districts for child porn were in four red states (Missouri had not one, but two in thr top six) and one purple state.

I always assumed that pedophilia was equally distributed across the political spectrum, but apparently I was wrong. According to the data, pedophiles mostly come from red states.

[John F. Carr]

Alternatively, prosecutors who care about protecting children mostly come from red states.

[Nelson]

That would be an impossible thing to prove, wouldn't it? So you ignore the simplest esxplanation, skip the part where you provide any basis for your statement, and leave it out there as another baseless example of the false "conservatives hate pedophiles and liberals love them" story conservatives like to tell themselves.

[John F. Carr]

For crimes like murder the reported rate approximates the rate at which they are committed. The number of criminal cases brought is within an order of magnitude of the number of murders. For crimes like possession of contraband the vast majority go undetected. You sometimes see clueless reporters talk about speeding tickets as a measure of driver behavior. Speeding tickets are a measure of police behavior.

[bernard11]

"seriously soft." Deranged. Despicable.

I never thought you were as scummy as Hawley and Cruz. Wrong.

[apedad]

Further hidden in the anti-lynching bill (actually not since it's actually printed),

(5) Lynching.--Whoever conspires to commit any offense
under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall, if death or serious
bodily injury (as defined in section 2246 of this title) results
from the offense. . . .

(6) Other conspiracies.--Whoever conspires to commit any
offense under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall, if death or
serious bodily injury (as defined in section 2246 of this title)
results from the offense. . . .

So in order for these laws to kick in, death or injury HAS TO OCCUR.

So no, it's not criminalizing thoughts.

[Queen Amalthea]

Who knew the actual law would say something different than BCDs framing?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm going to guess he was talking about the earlier version of the bill, from the 2019-20 session of Congress. At least, his complaints make more sense if this is the case.

[Queen Amalthea]

So he was wrong then (I can see why you're sympathetic, just the other day you were carrying on about a law which turned out to be a bill).

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure: I wanted to know if he was simply wrong, or had been seriously misled. Apparently he wasn't aware that he was going by the earlier version, which really did have significant issues.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Those issues being what, exactly?

It appears to me that the older version of the bill increases the penalties for conspiring to commit certain federal civil rights offenses (obviously, such a conspiracy is already illegal) and eliminates an overt act requirement (which is close to ubiquitous in federal conspiracy statutes).

[Brett Bellmore]

The issue being that "lynching" used to have a definition at one time, and the earlier version of the bill made basically anything a civil rights lawyer might take exception to into, legally, a "lynching". Its definition of "lynching" was absurdly broad.

[Brett Bellmore]

The newer version requires death or serious injury. The earlier version just required force, or threat of force. As Paul pointed out, you could have been convicted under a "lynching" statute for merely shoving somebody. Heck, just standing their looking intimidating would have met the language of the bill!

[James Pollock]

Sure, if "use of force" was all that was required, then any Jedi could have violated it while just standing there minding his own business.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but do you know how to read?

Here is the text of the bill that you claimed had "serious issues":

Whoever conspires with another person to violate section 245, 247, or 249 of this title [i.e. Title 18] or section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631) shall be punished in the same manner as a completed violation of such section, except that if the maximum term of imprisonment for such completed violation is less than 10 years, the person may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.

You'll note that this language doesn't criminalize any conduct that isn't already illegal. In other words, to the extent that you could be convicted of a crime for "merely shoving somebody" or "just standing their looking intimidating", that's already the law: this language wouldn't change that.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett suddenly insists laws be about what their title says.

Anti-CRT bills need not apply.

[bernard11]

The issue being that "lynching" used to have a definition at one time,

Not since Clarence Thomas.

[not guilty]

Lynching used to have a definition at one time? That's not what then-Judge Clarence Uncle Thomas said.

[ThePublius]

"Judge Clarence Uncle Thomas"

You're really soiled yourself with that remark.

[not guilty]

If Clarence Thomas's nomination for SCOTUS had been rejected, he would have remained, at age 43, a lifetime appointee to the Court of Appeals. Nice work if you can get it. When Robert Bork and Clement Haynesworth were rejected by the Senate, neither cavilled about being lynched for having to remain on the Courts of Appeals.

Thomas made a career out of being a Republican toady and crapping on the interests of his fellow black folks. It wasn't until his move upward was in peril that he started playing the hell out of the race card.

It is entirely appropriate to ridicule his trivializing of the horror of lynching. If in the next life Uncle Thomas encounters some real lynching victims, I hope they beat the stuffing out of him.

[James Pollock]

"I'm going to guess he was talking about the earlier version of the bill, from the 2019-20 session of Congress. "

You can tell because he was careful not to suggest that his hidden language is not currently in a bill being considered by Congress.

[Brett Bellmore]

H.R.55 - Emmett Till Antilynching Act

While it does criminalize conspiracy, I'm not seeing any "hidden" aspect here. It's quite short, where would you hide anything?

This said, I don't see the point of it; Isn't lynching already illegal under the laws of every state? If not under that name, just as assault or murder?

I'm not a fan of redundant legislation, or of "hate crime" legislation in general.

[James Pollock]

"This said, I don't see the point of it; Isn't lynching already illegal under the laws of every state? If not under that name, just as assault or murder?"

Conspiring to lynch someone can be done over state lines. Traditionally, that's not a state crime, because of jurisdictional issues. that's why you need a federal law.

[bernard11]

Isn't lynching already illegal under the laws of every state? If not under that name, just as assault or murder?

Naive much?

[Bob from Ohio]

This isn't 1950. Southern courts convict racist whites for murdering blacks, see Ahmaud Arbery.

Plus, racist whites are tried for civil rights violations, see Ahmaud Arbery.

[James Pollock]

Pointing to the dead guy as proof that racial justice is all peachy-keen nowadays isn't going to work. The police officer who murdered George Floyd was also convicted.

You know when the problem is solved? When the racist white dude(s) don't just assume that they can get away with murdering a black dude in front of a crowd of witnesses. alas, these guys have a whole political party fighting the "oppression" of preventing them from acting on their racist impulses. And if you point out to those partisans that they're supporting the type of person they're supporting, they whine about it. "it's not all of us" they say. "I know plenty of people who aren't racist" and "oh, yeah, what about (insert some unsourced anecdote about how the criminal thugs are running amuck, and it's all because of the illegal immigrants, the Chinese Commies, and the pedophile Democrats who operate their pedophile rings in the basements of restaurants which are cleverly designed as buildings without basements.

[bernard11]

You may recall that it took quite a bit to get Arbery's killers charged. The first local DA was happy to let it go.

[not guilty]

Lynching is indeed illegal under the laws of every state, just as it was when racists like Richard Russell and James Eastland made the argument that enacting federal anti-lynching legislation would encroach upon states' rights. The argument was spurious then and it is spurious now.

[Krychek_2]

BCD, you remind me of the old math joke about pi: Why is pi seeing a psychiatrist? Because he's irrational, and he goes on and on and on.

[James Pollock]

"How long do we have before the horror that the Democrats have done to the J6 Capitol tourists gets applied to mom's who won't trans their kids, or dad's who won't let some mentally ill boy rape and sodomize his teenage daughter in a locker room, or Christians for calling out Democrat Grooming?"

You have to wait until there's evidence that any of your fantasies are real. So... forever.

[David Nieporent]

How long do we have before the horror that the Democrats have done to the J6 Capitol tourists gets applied to mom's who won't trans their kids, or dad's who won't let some mentally ill boy rape and sodomize his teenage daughter in a locker room, or Christians for calling out Democrat Grooming?

I'm more worried about the horrors you have imposed on the English language. What do you think an apostrophe is used for?

[Moderation4ever]

Last Tuesday was Wisconsin Spring election. Like most Spring elections it had a low turnout. I was a poll worker as I have been in past years. What I did notice was there a strong turn out by absentee ballots. More balanced with in person voting than during the pandemic, but larger than pre-pandemic. My city, Madison, processes absentee ballots at the polling sites and efficiently counts the ballot on election day.

I think people like the convenience of voting absentee and in my opinion, it will continue to be a larger part of how people vote. I noted some grumbling about new rules requiring the personal turn in of absentee ballots. Mostly complaints were that spouses were not allowed to turn in ballots for the both the pair.

[James Pollock]

Oregon has no polling-place voting any more, it's all mail-in.
They have official collection places for people who don't want to pay for a stamp. there's the county elections office, and most of the public libraries are also outfitted with ballot collection boxes.

this is blatantly unfair to Republican voters, most of whom live in the larger counties, and thus further away from the county elections office. Plus, those counties tend to vote down library spending, with several of them closing their libraries entirely. Meanwhile, the Democrats are all concentrated into just a small number of counties, which coincidentally have the best and most extensive library systems.

My experience with all-mail-in elections was positive. It turns out that the parties can obtain from the elections offices lists of their party members who haven't yet returned a ballot, and can tailor their get-out-the-vote efforts to target people who haven't yet voted. This means that if you return your ballot as quickly as possible, the onslaught of phone spam dries up, because nobody wants to waste their time and money trying to convince you that Senator So-and-so is a corrupt monster if you've already returned your ballot. The push-polling disappears like magic.

[Moderation4ever]

Like the story about getting harassed to vote.

I own stock in a company that once had a contested election. Because you can change your vote until the actual time of the annual meeting, I was repeatedly contacted by both sides, even after I voted. As the date of the annual meeting approached, I was receiving a FedEx letter from each side every single day. I don't know how much was spent to get the vote for my 30 shares of stock, but I wished I had gotten the money in dividends instead.

[James Pollock]

What I really wish is there should be a way to opt out of receiving broadcast political ads. I've no idea how that could work, but if I ever get that bottle with a djinni in it, it'll be his problem to figure out how to make it work.

[Queen Amalthea]

Your GOP on defense attorneys:
"On Sunday, Ted Cruz told Fox News that one of the reasons that he opposes the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court is that she was a public defender. “Public defenders,” Cruz said, “often have a natural inclination in the direction of the criminal.” “Their heart,” he added, “is with criminal defendants.”

"It’s not just Ted Cruz. This afternoon, Tom Cotton said the following in explaining why he intends to vote against Ketanji Brown Jackson:

You know the last Justice Jackson left the Supreme Court to go to Nuremberg and prosecute the case against the Nazis. This Judge Jackson might have gone there to defend them."

"https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-cheap-shot-from-tom-cotton/

[Moderation4ever]

Just curious, did the defendants at Nuremburg have lawyers?

[BillyG]

Yes, they did.

[John F. Carr]

A list is at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Portal:Nuremberg_trials/Nuremberg_Defendants_and_Defense_Counsel

Some and maybe all of them were German. I recognize none of the names.

[Cal Cetín]

Robert Servatius later defended Eichmann.

Servatius didn't exactly pull off a big string of victories with this class of client, but then, given how guilty the clients were, I'm not sure how much more he could have done.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Dr." and "Professor Dr." are German honorifics for lawyers.

[James Pollock]

Whereas Americans prefer "Esq." for some reason.

[rsteinmetz]

Only American Lawyers. It's and ABA thing.

[James Pollock]

"lawyers" was implied.

[Bob from Ohio]

"did the defendants at Nuremburg have lawyers?"

Not as volunteers on a lark from a Big Law firm.

[Bored Lawyer]

Calling it a lark is not accurate. The Big Firms decided to provide a defense to the detainees in Guantanamo, and death penalty cases in general.

There was a certain amount of virtue signalling there, but fundamentally there is nothing wrong with providing free representation to an accused. This is something conservatives, who are wary of government power, should support.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Big Firms decided to provide a defense to the detainees in Guantanamo"

They had assigned lawyers. Nobody asked Big Law to interfere. Lark is accurate.

I don't see Big Law rushing to defend the Capitol riot defendants. They have to be happy with bottom feeders like the disbarred lawyer.

[Sarcastr0]

Our system assumes a capable and zealous defense. This is not interference.

I'm not even sure any of the J6 folks were indigent.

[Bob from Ohio]

They had JAG officers assigned. Are you saying JAGs are not able to mount a "capable and zealous" defense?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm saying they're not going to be as good as someone from Big Law.

You agree, otherwise you wouldn't be bent out of shape about their 'interference.'

[Bob from Ohio]

Mind reading as always.

[Sarcastr0]

I explained my reasoning why it seems you agree. Feel free to collect me.

[Sarcastr0]

*ahem* correct me.

L and R aren't even that close together...

[Bob from Ohio]

The Big Law lawyers were not needed. JAGs were fully qualified. In fact, a JAG used to military procedure is probably better qualified.

They wanted to show how much they opposed non-existent "Islamaphobia" and George Bush.

It was virtue signaling of the rawest type in support of America's enemies.

[Sarcastr0]

It sure is virtue signaling.
By doing a good thing for a good cause. - the integrity of our system.

It's bedrock that a lawyer is not the same as their clients. Which we discussed re: Trump's lawyers, who suck for their tactics, but not for defending Trump.

in support of America's enemies.
Oh, fuck off.
Like a defense attorney is in support of criminals? What about public defenders - is that an immoral job?

[James Pollock]

"L and R aren't even that close together.."

Except on Japanese keyboards.

[David Nieporent]

Shockingly, Bob from Ohio doesn't think lawyers should be appointed for defendants, and also doesn't think other lawyers should represent defendants.

[James Pollock]

"Bob from Ohio doesn't think lawyers should be appointed for defendants, and also doesn't think other lawyers should represent defendants."

Unless they're accused of trying to overthow a US election, in which case they should all have BigLaw defense lawyers.

[Cal Cetín]

The last temptation is the greatest treason
Do do the right thing for the wrong reason

[Queen Amalthea]

Why would you want to do do the right thing? Yuck.

[Cal Cetín]

"do do the right thing"

Do do that voodoo that you do so well

[Queen Amalthea]

Do do vodoo? I'm not into black magic, thanks.

[James Pollock]

Maybe though, like Cal, you're interested in rolling around in the do(o)do(o).

[Cal Cetín]

The Volokh Conspiracy - come for the incisive legal analysis, stay for the civil discourse!

Also, tell yo mama to look on the nightstand next to her bed for the twenty bucks I left her.

[James Pollock]

The reason that GOP Senators plan to vote not to confirm Judge Jackson is because she was nominated by President Biden. Anybody who believes anything else is deluded.

[Bored Lawyer]

Not quite. It's because of her judicial ideology.

If SCOTUS decides to reexamine abortion as a right, do you have the slightest doubt what her position will be?

[James Pollock]

"Not quite. It's because of her judicial ideology."

Right. The problem is that her judicial ideology is black, and was nominated by Biden.

[Bored Lawyer]

Do you think you scored some points here? If Biden had nominated a liberal white male, they would have voted against him too.

Using the race card is a sign of intellectual weakness.

[James Pollock]

"Do you think you scored some points here? If Biden had nominated a liberal white male, they would have voted against him too. "

I must have scored some points here, I got you agreeing with me.

[James Pollock]

"Using the race card is a sign of intellectual weakness."

Probably true, but I won't hold it against you.

[Nelson]

"If SCOTUS decides to reexamine abortion as a right, do you have the slightest doubt what her position will be?"

It's more likely than not that she would support the correct view and, using appropriate language, tell the anti-abortionists to stop trying to deprive Americans of their liberty and Constitutional rights.

Unfortunately there are enough pro-totalitarian Justices that she'll be joining in a dissent.

[Sarcastr0]

They were grasping at straws to excuse not voting for her, and vague intimations of socialism and attacking defense attorneys was well above my expectations for awfulness.

I'm just glad they didn't say she was a below average IQ affirmative action candidate or some such.

The charges of condoning pedophilia managed to surprise me. And now it's all the rage on the right for all sorts of stuff. That is not a good trend; pretty easy to rationalize violence towards a pedophile enabler.

[Bob from Ohio]

I guess calling every conservative a "racist" or "Nazi" is just hugs and kisses.

[Sarcastr0]

1) Whattaboutism.

2) That sucks too, and I've consistently said so on this blog. but accusations of pedophilia are of a specific crime. Maybe the most outrageous crime there is.
Cliched accusations of hewing to a bad ideology are not comparable.

I know you think all's fair in politics, so you're probably down with this. But that's why you suck.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Cliched accusations of hewing to a bad ideology are not comparable.

You're right. Accusing someone of hewing to an ideology that involved not only the attempted subjugation of an entire continent, but also the implementation of an attempted genocide (which resulted in the direct murdering of millions, including children) isn't nearly as bad as accusing someone of condoning the sexual exploitation of children.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, it matters whether the accusations are true.

[David Nieporent]

I should say, it matters to decent people whether the accusations are true.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I should say, it matters to decent people whether the accusations are true.

You really are a disingenuous piece of shit.

[Queen Amalthea]

Self-awareness, how does it work?

[James Pollock]

It doesn't work at all for poor, dear little Wuzzie

[Jason Cavanaugh]

David has far more credibility and integrity than you ever will.

[Ben_]

Jason is one of the most consistently hateful and vitriolic commenters here. So consider his endorsement or rebuke in that light.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Of course, it matters whether the accusations are true.

You're saying that most/all of those whom so many on left have routinely labeled as "Nazis" condone genocide?

[Nelson]

Nope. Like most/all of the Democrats that you paleos regularly accuse of being or supporting pedophiles don't condone the sexual exploitation of children.

[Ben_]

Name-calling people is so very, very moderate and nuanced.

[James Pollock]

"Of course, it matters whether the accusations are true."

What matters is if enough suckers believe it's true, or at least believe it might be true.

[Sarcastr0]

People have drained Nazi accusations of most of the association to World War II. As I'm sure you know.

As to your speculation of which is worse, Nazi or Pedophile, that's not a game worth playing.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

People have drained Nazi accusations of most of the association to World War II. As I'm sure you know.

Bullshit. What the Nazis did leading up to and during WWII is all that gives the word any meaning when accusing someone of being one.

As to your speculation of which is worse, Nazi or Pedophile, that's not a game worth playing.

LOL! You're the one who started that game, you dipshit.

[Sarcastr0]

I was comparing specific crimes to ideology, not the specific sins. You're the one that went into what each means.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I've consistently said so on this blog"

Good ole Gaslighto.

You are always implying racism or other bad motives here. X makes comment, then you say "its telling that you said that."

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts.

Calling out comments as racist is not 'calling every conservative a "racist" or "Nazi"

[Bob from Ohio]

You are making a pedantic distinction without a difference.

"Oh, I'm not saying you are a racist, you just make racist comments which totally does not make you a racist."

I just wish we had a simple word for someone who makes racist comments. I know, a "racist".

[Sarcastr0]

I call racist comments racist.

That is not the same as calling conservatives racists and Nazis willy-nilly.

Which is something I acknowledge some on the left do, and which I said was bad.

I'm in no way free of hypocrisy, but this is not an example of that.

[James Pollock]

"You are making a pedantic distinction without a difference.

'Oh, I'm not saying you are a racist, you just make racist comments which totally does not make you a racist.'"

Gosh, Bob, if you don't like being called a racist just because you said some racist things, maybe try NOT saying racist things next time?

Just a suggestion.

[Ben_]

He doesn’t always call everyone those things in those specific words, Bob.

You guys who say things directly instead of implying them by saying something is "telling" are so extreme. Why not hide behind phony ambiguity like Sarcastr0 does? Learn from Sarcastr0 and merely imply that they’re all pedophiles without saying it outright. Then you can have the "I didn’t say that" defense ready.

Playing games with this stuff isn’t fundamentally dishonest at all.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, these Senators should be ashamed of this rhetoric. We have a long tradition, going back to John Adams (in 1770, when they started the proceedings with "God save the king"), that every accused person gets a rigorous defense, even if we find the person distasteful.

[Moderation4ever]

One more historical comment. Senator Robert A Taft, son of William Taft, was profiled in John Kennedy's book Profiles in Courage. Senator Taft spoke out against the Nuremburg Trials and felt the trials employed the use of ex post facto laws. He was a Republican, but also a man that stood on principle and who he did suffer consequences for his beliefs.

[bernard11]

These guys really are descending lower and lower.

Too bad Dante is not around to create a few more circles.

[wreckinball]

Ha still total Reason blackout on the J6 protestors and the legal issues of indefinite incarceration.

Reason is alleged libertarian and the VC less so.

[apedad]

Maybe the process wouldn't take so long if the defendants could get access to people they wish to subpoena.

Armed Secret Service Agent Turns Away Process Server Attempting to Reach Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Jan. 6 Case

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/armed-secret-service-agent-turns-away-process-server-attempting-to-reach-trump-at-mar-a-lago-in-jan-6-case/

[Sarcastr0]

You may want to familiarize yourself with the baseline before you insist anyone is singled out.

But you in particular has always been more into certainty than facts.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What "legal issues" do you perceive here?

[James Pollock]

"What "legal issues" do you perceive here?"

The brave, true, and loyal Capitol tourists are being held in captivity just because they opposed the theft of the election that their great President told them about, and he promised them that he was going down to the Capitol with them... and yet he didn't pardon a single darn one of them!

[not guilty]

The January 6 defendants are not incarcerated indefinitely. They are on track for trial, and a small fraction are detained pre-trial after an adversarial hearing (with a panoply of rights, including an immediate appeal) and a factual finding of risk of flight or danger to the public if released.

[dwb68]

I am all for LGBT rights. I could not care less who you sleep with or marry.

But having a Y chromosome gives you biological advantages. It's science dumb-asses. Why would progressives want to destroy womens sports by allowing biological men into the field?

If they are going to allow that, lets just go full bore and allow hormones and doping. Either hormones and doping are not allowed, or they are, whether they are coded on your chromosomes or not. Pick one.

Heck, why don't we just allow (biological) females to get their DNA altered with the piece of the Y chromosome that builds muscles (in some other mammals females are bigger than males although its not common).

And, no, the cumulative effects of hormones do not wear off as quickly as people think either. Takes years for your muscles to atrophy from hormones. Longer if you keep exercising them.

[Ed Grinberg]

Why would progressives want to destroy womens sports by allowing biological men into the field?

https://reason.com/2022/03/31/department-of-education-prepares-rules-prohibiting-school-discrimination-against-gay-and-trans-students/?comments=true#comment-9427386
"Female sports divisions are inherently discriminatory."
https://reason.com/2022/03/31/department-of-education-prepares-rules-prohibiting-school-discrimination-against-gay-and-trans-students/?comments=true#comment-9427841

[Queen Amalthea]

Ed Grinberg, Crusader for Women's Sports! Lol. You're as transparent as a newly cleaned window.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Why would progressives want to destroy womens sports by allowing biological men into the field?"

Progressives like this guy?

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/utah-governor-veto-transgender-sports-ban-00019417

"I am all for LGBT rights."

Weren't you decrying the Democrats as the party of buggery and baby killing recently? Think I got that bookmarked iirc.

[dwb68]

Now I remember why I put you on mute. Transgender women should not compete against biological women for the same reason we should not mix Paralympic athletes and regular Olympic athletes.

Biology is not a social construct no matter what your CRT PowerPoint says.

[Queen Amalthea]

It's interesting how you didn't address a single thing I said (or more importantly the GOP governor I linked to), but just repeated yourself with more gusto.

Ah, the internet!

[James Pollock]

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts, or if the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.

[Nelson]

I got a call from the tables in cultural conservative households. They want to know why you support their constant abuse by their owners.

[OtisAH]

Don’t bother with the “Hey, I’m totally cool with LGBTQ” preamble. You’re not and no one is fooled into believing otherwise. Just spew your nonsense without dancing around first. You have a very receptive audience here for this stuff.

Since everything after the “but” stinks, leave it out and get on with it.

[dwb68]

The fact that hormones, doping, and having a Y chromosome results in bigger muscles and cardiovascular system is not "nonsense" its science. Mammals are not frogs that can change their biological gender with water temperature. Chimpanzees are significantly stronger than humans despite having 98.8% of out DNA in common. You cant choose science when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't.

If transgender women want separate event, I have no problem with that. But they should not be competing against biological women in women's sports. The end result will be that no biological women will win.

And, the political backlash will be huge. Democrats brand themselves as protectors of women's rights, except not so much.

[Sarcastr0]

You're conflating science and policy.

[Commenter_XY]

No, not really conflating. An alternative way to say what you are saying Sarcastro, is: dwb68 cited objective science to inform a policy choice.

Now, you might not like that. You may take exception to how dwb68 phrased it. You evidently want some kind of social science exception to the physical sciences. None exist for humans.

The genetics (e.g. the science) are crystal clear, and immutable: A trans woman is not a woman genetically, no matter what they think or believe. That is not a political statement. That is not hate speech. That is not bigotry, or prejudice, or racism, or sexism, or heterosexual supremacy, or whatever alternative social construct is the latest fad these days. It is an objective statement of fact.

Personally, I would hate to have to be the father trying to explain all of this to a tween daughter, or teen daughter who lost out on getting an athletic scholarship to a Division 1 school.

[dwb68]

^This. Wish there was a like button.

[Queen Amalthea]

I think what Sarc is saying is that maybe science can answer this about as well as it can answer if we should consider the people who adopt a child the child's 'parents' (they're not genetically!!!!).

[Sarcastr0]

The science he's citing does not really suggest that policy, he just insists that it does. He's citing science on a collateral issue to paper over a policy choice he wants for ideological reasons.

A bipartisan tactic to be sure, but that's what he's doing.

I discuss the actual equities below, taking the science he harps on as assumed.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The science he's citing does not really suggest that policy, he just insists that it does. He's citing science on a collateral issue to paper over a policy choice he wants for ideological reasons.

What is the purpose of the common policy of partitioning athletic activities into men's/boy's and women's/girl's divisions?

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/07/thursday-open-thread-77/?comments=true#comment-9436558

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So now you're just posting random links to previous comments that in no way, shape or form address the question you're responding to? Well, at least it isn't just another blatant lie...I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I linked to the wrong comment - try the one right above it.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/07/thursday-open-thread-77/?comments=true#comment-9436516

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But what hormones you had going on in puberty are a cut above when it comes to benefits. I don't think it's ridiculous to single that out as the thing to regulate.

So you're saying that the science of human biology (including things like the impact of sex-linked hormones, among others) really does suggest the policy of dividing athletic competition based on biological sex. That is, unless someone you generally disagree with says it does, in which case it doesn't.

[Sarcastr0]

That is, unless someone you generally disagree with says it does, in which case it doesn't.

???

[James Pollock]

"dwb68 cited objective science to inform a policy choice."

No. dwb68 cited his(?) own poor understanding of science to defend his own preconception(s), and is objecting to having this pointed out.

"Personally, I would hate to have to be the father trying to explain all of this to a tween daughter, or teen daughter who lost out on getting an athletic scholarship to a Division 1 school."

I was a single parent, but not of an athlete. On the other hand, my daughter did earn a degree in biology when she thought she wanted to go to medical school. The discussion of what made her a "her" wasn't complicated, because she already knew. Plus, we weren't saddled with living in one of those states where sex ed is designed to lead to teen motherhood (AKA "abstinence-only").

[Commenter_XY]

You re-wrote Mendelian genetics books, JP? Is there some new kind of understanding of genetics where Xy and XX became mutable for humans?

I'd like to see your science on that. 🙂

[dwb68]

Maybe ask your daughter the biologist how male hormones affect the body (how it affects muscle, your cardiovascular system, etc.). Ask her why athletes dope with male steroids to become bigger and stronger.

And if you get any other answer than male hormones build muscle, bone, and your cardiovascular system (assuming you also work out), then call the college and demand a refund on that biology degree. I would call the science on this is settled.

[OtisAH]

You’re not saying anything original or anything interesting I already know all these arguments because they’ve been circulating for years. None of them come from people who are “all for lgbtq rights.” Which is the sole point of my post.

You don’t have to add the “I’m a reasonable dude” qualifiers before you spew your ignorance. It’s disingenuous and fools no one. That’s all. Just speak it and bask in the results, which at the VC will be mostly positive.

And though it was directed at you, it’s meant to be applied more broadly to all the hateful folks out there who try to couch their prejudices as coming from a reasonable person.

[dwb68]

"circulating for years" lol. It's almost as if the science about males being biologically different from females has been settled for decades.

Bonus round: biological males without a uterus or ovaries cant get pregnant either.

[Queen Amalthea]

Wow, that's quite a lot of ellision there!

[Nelson]

"But they should not be competing against biological women in women's sports."

This is true, assuming the trans woman went through puberty as a male. That is actually the point where the unfair biological (also called legacy) advantages come from.

As the East German and Soviet female athletes from the 70s and 80s have shown, the changes to the body in puberty are impacted more by the hormones present in the body than the chromosomes of the person.

So a trans woman who was taking female hormones during puberty will develop similarly to a cis woman (there is not as much data to support this), while a trans man who was taking male hormones during puberty will develop more like a cis male (there is a large pool of data on this, due to the Communist doping programs of the 70s and 80s).

Possibly related is the extremely high rate of trans men (those who chose to transition after they retired from competition) from the female athletes who were part of the state-sponsored doping programs. The males who were part of the same programs did not show a deviation from the norm.

Yes, this is nuanced. No, it doesn't support a simple narrative. Yes, that's often how science works.

"The end result will be that no biological women will win"

This is highly unlikely. Elite women beat most men. Using swimming (the sport I am most familiar with), those who make Nationals cuts are roughly the top 2% (1200 of 60,000 16-and-over athletes). The top women usually make the men's cuts for Nationals, so they beat 98% of 16-and-over male athletes. The Venn diagram of NCAA athleres and USA Swimming athletes is virtually a circle, so it is apples-to-apples.

Which the Lea Thomas example proves, since Katie Ledecky's record (4:24.06) is over 9 seconds faster than Lia's time (4:33.24). For context, Katie would have beaten Lia by more than 2/3 of the pool.

So let's keep the argument where it belongs, in the realm of fairness and legacy advantages of going through puberty with male hormones.

Claiming that trans women are an existential threat to women's sports is so hyperbolic and unsupported by facts that it undermines the credibility of the actual, valid, and important things that support keeping trans women who went through puberty with male hormones out of cis-gender women's sports.

[Queen Amalthea]

Btw-here's the statement from that GOP governor, if you're really interested in why some people oppose the bans give it a read.

[Queen Amalthea]

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2022/03/22/gov-spencer-coxs/

[Sarcastr0]

At the pro level, I'm down for some rules. Sports is entertainment, but part of why it's compelling is the perception of a meritocracy in it's competition.
Now, that's nonsense of course - lots of things give a biological advantage, including race and height and a bunch of stuff. But what hormones you had going on in puberty are a cut above when it comes to benefits. I don't think it's ridiculous to single that out as the thing to regulate.

But school sports? That's just culture war bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, why should girls in school expect to have any chance? Crush them while they're young.

You're right that it's culture war bullshit, where you're wrong is that it's YOUR side that's the aggressor in this war.

[Sarcastr0]

On this had you have participating in a school activity in alignment with your identity. I can see that being a pretty formative thing.

On this hand you have winning in school sports. That's not really going to make or break someone's self-esteem.

That's why it's culture war bullshit - you're manufacturing grievances.

[Bored Lawyer]

"On this hand you have winning in school sports. That's not really going to make or break someone's self-esteem."

Being placed in a situation where losing is almost guaranteed because the other person has an unfair advantage will. That's the issue here. Nice try, though.

[Sarcastr0]

I had to swim against people 4 inches taller than I was in high school, with arms down to their knees.

Somehow, I survived.

[Bored Lawyer]

So why have separate women's sports at all? Just have swimming, regardless of gender? Acc. to you, it won't be so bad for the women (or girls, as the case may be).

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to misunderstand my thesis. I'm not saying there is no cost. I rarely think that - everything is tradeoffs.

I explained the competing equities in my 10:25 am post.

[Brett Bellmore]

And one of the competing equities is somebody's supposed right to pretend to be the opposing sex and be humored about it. I don't give that interest any weight.

[Josh R]

That's the honest position which would logically lead to all matters of unpopular policies that disfavor transgender people. But instead, we get arguments on the fringe about sports or showers as a means of driving a wedge in the opposition while hiding the honest agenda. The same tactic is used in abortion rights (e. g., the focus on partial-birth abortion).

[Sarcastr0]

That's not the OP's argument, Brett.

Hell, it's not even an argument - it's just stamping your foot and assuming your argument.

[Queen Amalthea]

You don't give a fig about women's sports. If you had your way Title IX would be gone, we'd fund and back women's sports based on popularity and ticket sales and there'd be pretty much no women's sports.

I think sports is maybe the most tricky thing for trans issues, but the transparency of the hypocrisy of all these conservatives suddenly styling themselves as defenders of girls/women's sports is obvious.

[Bored Lawyer]

Glad you can read the mind of all conservatives. It's a neat, albeit dishonest, rhetorical, trick. AFAIK, conservatives are not against women sports, and if we have them, women should not be put at an unfair advantage.

[dwb68]

Acknowledging science is against womens sports lmao.

Lets let men and women swim, play basketball, play football, play tennis, see how that works out for the (biological) women.

Lets not forget the fact that this experiment has been tried over and over again in tennis (Google it). A biological advantage in speed, strength, and stamina is a real advantage.

[James Pollock]

"Acknowledging science is against womens sports lmao."

Depends. Are you talking about actual science, or the poor understanding of science that too many people have, that any average 9th-grade student should know better than?

[James Pollock]

"Lets not forget the fact that this experiment has been tried over and over again in tennis (Google it). A biological advantage in speed, strength, and stamina is a real advantage."

You'd have thought that would have faded, after Arthur Ashe whupped Billie Jean King so badly.

[not guilty]

When did Arthur Ashe and Billie Jean King play tennis? Are you thinking of Bobby Riggs?

[Queen Amalthea]

Sorry, all one has to do is look at discussions of Title IX to see how conservatives feel about women's sports. That's not mind reading, it's remembering.

[Bored Lawyer]

What discussion? The objections were not to Title IX per se (which originally had nothing to do with sports), but the silly misuse of it by the Obama Administration. On the sports side, for a while, they had the absurd idea of equality of outcome, which meant schools had to spend equal amounts on men's and women's sports, regardless of demand.
Then the Obama Administration tried to use Title IX to force schools to create kangaroo court systems to deal with accusations of sexual harrassment.
So that makes you 0 for 2 in the intellectual honest count. Keep trying.

[David Nieporent]

Sorry, all one has to do is look at discussions of Title IX to see how conservatives feel about women's sports.

Are you talking about, like 50 years ago?

[Queen Amalthea]

I'm talking about now, suggest that women and men's sports in high school should receive equal funding, facilities and such regardless of ticket sales, see what these defenders of women/girl's sport have to say.

" On the sports side, for a while, they had the absurd idea of equality of outcome, which meant schools had to spend equal amounts on men's and women's sports, regardless of demand."

Whoops, they actually beat me to it as predicted.

[Bored Lawyer]

Odd you equate "demand" with "ticket sales." Demand means people who want to play sports. On average, there is more demand on the male side than the female side.

So all you have proven is your own biases.

[James Pollock]

" Demand means people who want to play sports"

Not so much, no. At least, not if you're talking about revenues for sports programs. In that context, demand means people willing to pay money to see the game(s). For most colleges and universities, there are one or two sports which generate enough revenue to cover all the rest of the sports program(s). Most commonly, those profitable sports are the men's football and men's basketball teams. For women's sports, in general, breakeven is still a goal they're trying to reach for. A lot of them can't even fill a venue with students, who get in free.

[Sarcastr0]

Acknowledging science is against womens sports lmao.

While some on the left still do, no one here is denying the science. They're denying the policy upshot you are grafting onto the science.

Quit appealing to authority, and get into the cost-benefit of it all.

[James Pollock]

"conservatives are not against women sports, and if we have them, women should not be put at an unfair advantage."

But what if you don't have them? Women, I mean.

[Bored Lawyer]

One more point for you on the stupid comment tab.

[James Pollock]

Somebody's touchy about their lack of access to women.

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't need "women." Been happily married for 24 years.

[Josh R]

There are legitimate reasons to ban trans women from women's sports (integrity of women's sports) and to allow them as well (it's literally what the doctor ordered). There is no single correct categorical policy. The level of competition matters (Olympics versus junior-high). The sport matters (the impact of current and past exposure to natural testosterone has different effects in different sports).

When the state isn't the governing body, it should leave the decision to the governing private-sector body.

[bernard11]

I agree with Josh here. I'd like the decisions made by sports authorities, and not either side's culture warriors.

Is it truly impossible to have classifications by, say, testosterone level (honest question - I don't know) or something. We do have some classifications in place - by weight for wrestling, by school size - maybe with some actual thought something similar could be set up.

[David Nieporent]

When the state isn't the governing body, it should leave the decision to the governing private-sector body.

That seems inarguably true, but (a) it doesn't address a significant percentage of scenarios; and (b) it doesn't actually provide any guidance as to the rest of the scenarios. (That is, the governing private-sector bodies have the right to do what they want, but they should make good decisions rather than arbitrary ones.)

[Josh R]

The government is not better than the private sector at developing those guidelines. We should be all learning them together through experience. Instead, we are staking out positions to appease voter bases.

That being said, those who oppose trans rights are far more culpable because trans woman in sports is a very small piece of trans rights. They focus on this small issue to drive a wedge into supporters of trans rights a deflect from their unpopular positions on trans rights in general.

[James Pollock]

"But having a Y chromosome gives you biological advantages. It's science dumb-asses."

I've had a Y chromosome all my life, but any of the top-ranked women in the world tennis rankings are going to beat me at tennis, whether 3-set matches or 5-set matches. And not just because I'm distracted by those cute little skirts they wear on the court.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's true. OTOH, any mid-ranked male tennis player would clean the court with the top ranked women.

Battle of the Sexes: When the World No. 203 swept the Williams sisters

It's not that the bell curves don't overlap, but they're centered differently, and that makes a big difference at the end of the tail.

[dwb68]

If not just that the means are centered differently. Hormones also allow you to move your own mean differently. That is, its much easier to bulk up weight training taking steroids and testosterone. Thats why people do it!

[dwb68]

But the top ranked women in tennis cannot beat the top ranked men. Been tried.

[VinniUSMC]

I've had a Y chromosome all my life, but any of the top-ranked women in the world tennis rankings are going to beat me at tennis, whether 3-set matches or 5-set matches. And not just because I'm distracted by those cute little skirts they wear on the court.

You've had a brain all your life, but still can't seem to put that to any use either.

[Ben_]

50% of the population aren’t the special people. That’s why they must give up what they care about for the special 0.1% that elites prefer.

Welcome to the ranks of the second class, ladies. A great many of you voted for the people who are doing this to you. Consider learning from your mistakes.

[David Bremer]

I don't care what the calendar, meteorologists, or astronomers say, Spring begins with the first tee time in The Masters. Welcome to Spring everyone.

[John F. Carr]

Spring begins with the first tick crawling up my leg.

[Bored Lawyer]

Elon Musk, after buying a large stake in Twitter, took his own poll to ask users if Twitter should have an edit function. IMO, a brilliant move, starting off with something non-partisan.

Let's take our own poll. How many here would like that function for the comment section on this blog?

[Brett Bellmore]

So long as it's quite time limited. Say, a 1-2 minute window. I usually spot my own typos within seconds of hitting "submit", sometimes while my finger is on its way down, but to late to stop.

What you don't want is what you see at some forums, where an extended period for editing allows people to edit away what somebody responded to.

[Illocust]

Just have a note at the bottom saying something was edited. People have had this figured out for years.

[bernard11]

That's a good point.

A preview function, with no edit once the comment is posted, would be largely equivalent to that.

I could live with either.

[dwb68]

It was not quite non partisan, in the sense that current management was opposed to it. He intentionally subverted management here.

But yes, many times I would have wished dor andeit deature.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, but having an edit function is not obviously conservative or liberal. Many on both the left and right would consider it an improvement.

[dwb68]

Fair but I interpreted this as a broad swipe at the liberal management in general, since they had rejected it earlier.

[Commenter_XY]

My vote: Edit feature a must, and a note at bottom of post stating it was edited (with timestamp).

[VinniUSMC]

I second a time-limited edit.

[ThePublius]

FSA, HSA, QTEA, DCFSA - Flexible Spending Account, Healthcare Savings Account, Qualified Transportation Account, Dependent Care FSA.

Why do we put up with politicians making laws, rules, and regulations that treat us like children? Almost all of these programs (HSA excepted) have a rule that allows you to put away money before taxes to be spent on the related expense, but you LOSE your balance at the end of the plan period, one year, if you don't use it all. For example, from a dependent care FSA site;

"Please note: As an annual account, the money you contribute to your Dependent Care FSA must be used within the plan year and grace period. So it's important to estimate how much you spend on eligible dependent care expenses each year before you decide how much to contribute to your Dependent Care FSA. You will lose the funds remaining in your account after the benefit period ends."

So, they require one to guess, gamble, on what they will spend in the future - particularly difficult with FSA's, which are for health expenses.

On the QTE you can keep the balance, year to year, but only if you continue to participate. I have such and account and forgot to reduce my contributions to it when the pandemic occurred. I was spending $84 a week on commuter rail, and now I have a $3,00 balance which I will likely never use. I kept my contributions at about 25¢ per pay period just so I won't lose my balance, but there's no other way to get my money out, and if I retire or am terminated, I lose it all!

Finally, if your employer doesn't offer these plans you can't participate. So, the benefit is unavailable to a vast swath of the mostly poor wage earners.

Why is this fair?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm only familiar with HSAs, but those do indeed sound like awful policies set up to trap the poor.
But, I mean, so are lotteries.

I'd wish our government would be better, but we are a government of humans, after all.

Interesting use of the word fair; dunno if that's the term I'd use, but I think I agree with you on the substance.

[Brett Bellmore]

Cutting HSA's free from employers, so that anybody could have one, was one of the proposed conservative reforms the Republican Congress didn't act on.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't much like HSAs either, so I don't like this conservative reform.

They don't risk pool; you lose out on the main benefit of insurance. I wish I wasn't forced into one.

[Life of Brian]

They don't risk pool; you lose out on the main benefit of insurance. I wish I wasn't forced into one.

I'd be extremely surprised if an HSA you were "forced into" isn't paired with a high-deductible health plan.

[Ben_]

It’s not intended to be fair. It’s intended to reward fashionable people and fashionable behavior. Your behavior is no longer fashionable. Consider yourself rebuked.

[Sarcastr0]

That's an interesting formulation. I'd say these policies exploit the poor, not 'reward fashionable people.'

[Ben_]

If doing anything to help the poor were fashionable then we'd see the effects on the poor considered whenever environmental policies are imposed. We see a let them eat cake attitude instead because caring about the poor isn’t fashionable at all.

[Sarcastr0]

For not being fashionable, a whole lot of people seem to do it...

[Ben_]

No they don’t.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, charity is not a thing.

[Ben_]

Not a fashionable thing.

[Sarcastr0]

Charity isn't fashionable?!

That's a ridiculous take.

You have this whole hatred of the 'elites' but you know nothing about anything, do you?

[Ben_]

Fashionable charities are mostly anti-human environmental charities. After that political charities.

Anything that might help a person is at the bottom of the list.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ran into that trap with a FSA once; Set aside money for Lasik, then found I was medically disqualified, corneas were too thin for the degree of correction required. Ended up spending the money on an elective heart scan, since my dad had died of heart disease. Getting an all clear on that front in my 40's was well worth the money, since I was going to lose it otherwise.

With the HSA you can roll it over, but there's still a cap on how much you can put in it each year. It's not a terribly high cap when you're in your 60's with a family, and a son with braces...

[SRG]

If the Supreme Court establishes a precedent or makes a ruling based on its own factual finding which can later be proved to be in error or no longer applicable, why should the ruling continue to be binding? Arguably the ruling was contingent on the facts - else no finding of fact would be necessary - and hence the facts no longer applying, nor should the ruling.

I was thinking about this in the context of Shelby but the principle is somewhat broader obviously.

[Ben_]

Often one basis is chosen as adequate. Were it not chosen, another basis might have been chosen. Discovering that the first basis is erroneous therefore doesn’t change the conclusion unless the entire matter is re-examined and the conclusion is changed based on the new understanding.

So no.

Some changes that allow for errors to be more easily corrected would probably be good though.

[apedad]

The SC doesn't conduct investigations so can't do any fact finding.

It (like all other courts), only deals with the material presented to them.

[SRG]

You are quite wrong that SCOTUS does not engage in fact-finding.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/whitehouse-alleges-demonstrably-false-fact-finding-by-conservative-justices/

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2328&context=facpubs

[apedad]

AMERICAN CITIES WITH THE BIGGEST POPULATION FALLS OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS

9. Wheeling, West Virginia
8. Weirton, West Virginia-Steubenville, Ohio (metro area)
7. Farmington, New Mexico
6. Charleston, West Virginia
5. Decatur, Illinois
4. Johnstown, Pennsylvania
3. Beckley, West Virginia
2. Danville, Illinois
1. Pine Bluff, Arkansas

https://www.lovemoney.com/galleryextended/67595/american-cities-with-the-biggest-population-falls-over-the-past-10-years?page=1

I hope it's not like a Third World brain drain from these areas.

[Queen Amalthea]

This is unpossible. None of these cities are in California!

[Jimmy the Dane]

Context is key....last TEN years....

[Brett Bellmore]

And it's percentages, and none of them are huge cities. The largest was Decatur at 72K, half were under 20K. Only takes a few hundred people moving out a year to reach several percent over a decade.

[dwb68]

Congratulations to our newest Supreme Court Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

I don't agree with her politics, but she is qualified. Her answers to a lot of the questions were not horrible. I can think of a lot worse, currently sitting on the court.

[ragebot]

WTF is going on with the MSM libtards.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/reporters-call-for-white-house-to-simply-ignore-supreme-court-decisions/ar-AAVW58q?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0dfe088651cd49ea9b82f18ba25e8058

[dwb68]

Andrew Jackson called looking for John Marshall.

{thats not exactly a new idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
}

[Sarcastr0]

This was an attack on the shadow docket, not on the substance of a decision.

And I don't know who Will Wilkinson, but he's not President.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Maybe that Will guy is President. Biden "I get lost trying to leave a press conference" Biden certainly isn't.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure are bad at staying in topic.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Do you also get lost in rooms full of people with Secret Service agents trying to tell you where to go?

[Sarcastr0]

Why do you reply, if you just want to talk about something off-topic? You can just make a whole new post.

[OtisAH]

Despite Rand Paul feeling he needs to constantly remind folks what an asshole he is, we can now welcome Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the US Supreme Court, 53-47.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kind of anti-climatic, but we knew she was going to be confirmed once Manchin agreed. Naturally I don't like her ideology, but as I've said before, with Biden it could have been hugely worse.

I'm vaguely curious about the basis for your asshole remark.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Have you not paid any attention to Pauls' behavior over the years?

His neighbor was almost a hero.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's pretty nasty.

[Bored Lawyer]

Stupid comment No. 3.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're a powerhouse of wit, as usual.

[John F. Carr]

We won't welcome her until June or July.

[Darth Buckeye]

Writer Thom Hartmann at Salon Magazine wants the Justice Department to prosecute Ginni Thomas and force Clarence Thomas to resign from the Supreme Court. He uses the resignation of Abe Fortas as a model…claiming that Fortas (an old crony of Lyndon Johnson) was innocent of any wrongdoing and that the Nixon crowd forced Fortas out by threatening to prosecute Fortas’ wife.

https://www.salon.com/2022/04/07/clarence-thomas-must-resign-from-the--and-his-wife-should-be-prosecuted_partner/

Please…Attorney General Garland, have the DOJ bring charges against Ginni Thomas. Please. That would really fire up the political right.

[Sarcastr0]

Salon? You gonna get bent out of shape about what they say in the Jacobin next?

Yes, charging Thomas for his wife being a nutball would be a horrible idea. But luckily that's definitely not going to happen unless there is some very explosive new evidence.

[Cal Cetín]

They could charge Thomas for failing to exercise his patriarchal authority to control his wife.

[Jimmy the Dane]

He probably should have beat her real good for having independent thoughts!

[not guilty]

Clarence Uncle Thomas should have been prosecuted for filing false financial disclosures that omitted his wife's employment. That would have been a slam dunk. His excuse that he was confused by the disclosure form is not worthy of belief.

It's too late now, though.

[loki13]

Whatever good points you make (and you do make them), they are nullified by saying Clarence Uncle Thomas.

I do not like Justice Thomas's jurisprudence for a lot of reasons, and I share concerns about the ethics of his wife's engagements (if only because Judges must be concerned not just with impropriety, but the appearance thereof), but this is not appropriate.

That's what we expect from ... you know, the people we have blocked.

[not guilty]

I use that phrase as an expression of contempt. Do you dispute that the man has made a career out of being an Uncle Tom?

[David Nieporent]

Yes.

[dwb68]

Since biology does not matter any more, 28 year old men should be able to play middle school girls softball.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's math, not just biology. Give it a couple of years.

[dwb68]

Math is racist, so it must be biology.

Stop oppressing me, I identify as an 11 year old girl and want to play softball.

[Jimmy the Dane]

On my last employment application it asked me how do I "self identify" so I just checked African American and woman. Figured if that was good enough to give someone a seat on the nation's high court as their main and sole qualification, might just work for me. Weirdly (or not) I get an invite for an interview about 12 minutes after submitting my application.

[David Nieporent]

This is something that didn't happen.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Says the guy who obviously makes up stuff here and lies every single day....

[Sarcastr0]

Notably, not a denial you made your right-wing cliché story up.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Says another guy who makes up stuff here every single day....(or do you just use two accounts?)

[Sarcastr0]

Still not a denial.

[Jimmy the Dane]

What am I supposed to deny?

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/07/thursday-open-thread-77/?comments=true#comment-9439037

[Sarcastr0]

Well, this is mask of compared to your JAQing off above.

[OtisAH]

You want to play middle school girls’ softball?

[Bored Lawyer]

Saw an article in National Review, of all places, that Disney is going to lobby for yet one more copyright extension, and Republicans may deny it given the current political climate.

In my opinion, the prior extensions were bad policy and of questionable Constitutionality. At this point, Disney has had 100 years of copyright on Mickey Mouse. Enough is enough. Regardless of what you think of the dispute in Florida.

[Ben_]

I agree. Timing worked out well for us to get our public domain rights back.

Watch for Democrats taking the money and giving Disney what they want though. Dems love big money.

[dwb68]

They need a filibuster proof majority.

[Ben_]

Unfortunately some Rs love the same money. So you never know.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they don't. They just need to schedule the vote right. Pass it through the Senate by a late night voice vote, and they don't need a quorum present.

[Sarcastr0]

When has that tactic been pulled off?

Because there are protocols in place I’m both chambers to prevent that pretty elementary trick from happening.

[Brett Bellmore]

I spent a while during the 1990's stuck in bed waiting for a badly broken leg to heal, and watched quite a bit of CSPAN; I can assure you that essentially all voice votes are taken without a quorum present.

But to be more specific to the scenario I suggest, there were some votes like that on the Brady Bill and '94 AWB. And the Democrats actually attempted it last year, with their 'For the people' act; Attempted to pass it through the Senate by unanimous consent at 4AM. Someone leaked the plans to Cruz and he showed up in time to object, but if he hadn't been tipped off, it could have worked.

Just a week ago, a Biden nominee was confirmed on a late night, unscheduled voice vote. Were there any Republicans present who could have objected? The whole point of making it a voice vote was to prevent the roll call that would tell us that.

No, Sarcastro, there are no protocols in place to prevent this from being done, only a very limited stock of scruples, and fear of finishing poisoning relations between the parties beyond any recovery.

[Sarcastr0]

I've worked on the Hill for a couple of years. Had about half a dozen late nights. I never remember a time when both parties didn't have someone present for the duration.

If the ambush tactic you describe is happening to the GOP regularly, they have a pretty big diligence issue.

[Sarcastr0]

A dilligence issue I did not observe, even at the height of Boehner's loss of control of his caucus.

And didn't your idea of what was happening last year get posted here and a bunch of people told you why you were off base on what happened? I should look that up...

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I see no news articles about this thing you claim Cruz managed to barely avoid.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts one of the few Republican politicians spent some weeks sitting nearly alone in the State House during the off season because she thought as soon as she left the Democractic leadership was going to pull a unanimous consent trick to get something bad passed without quorum in an informal session. Like Arthur Dent, she eventually got pulled away from the bulldozer and the measure passed. I think that politician was Karyn Polito, the current Lieutenant Governor, but I could be wrong.

[David Nieporent]

That sounds weird. Why would Democrats in Massachusetts, given their supermajorities in the legislature, need to pull any such shenanigans?

[Brett Bellmore]

I sure hope they deny it, but pessimism suggests to me that it will be snuck through in a late night vote and signed without fanfare, well before the change of Congress, and the Republicans will never have the opportunity to deny it.

Not that they're a particularly serious party; Why, they don't even arrange to keep a member on the floor of the House chamber 24/7 to observe the lack of a quorum, which is something a serious party would do. The sort of scut job freshman members would be stuck with.

[not guilty]

Judge Donald Middlebrooks (S.D. Fla.) has denied Donald Trump's motion for recusal in the civil RICO action against Hillary Clinton and others. The tactic of filing the suit in Fort Pierce (where only a Trump appointed district judge sits) didn't work.

I am highly skeptical that the Southern District of Florida has personal jurisdiction of most of the defendants there, including Mrs. Clinton. I also can't glean from the complaint that Trump is a person injured in his property by a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt, as 18 U.S.C. 1964 requires. Not to mention that Trump attempts to assert causes of action with four year statutes of limitations based on events alleged to have occurred six and seven years prior to filing of suit.

I hope Trump's lawyers got paid up front, and I hope their professional liability policies are paid up. Although I wonder whether malpractice insurance covers Rule 11 sanctions.

[Nisiiko]

Middlebrooks is a Klinton appointee. Probably was in the Oval Office with him while he was being "serviced" by Monica.

[not guilty]

Supporting facts? Judge Middle Brooks in his order stated that he had never met President or Mrs. Clinton.

[ReaderY]

There were several posts about efforts to the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but none on the recent NC District Court opinion holding that the Amnesty Act of 1872 covered not only past acts but all future insurrections, effectively nullifying the Insurrection Clause entirely for all time.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've read the Amnesty act, and that's a pretty strained reading.

The efforts to take out Republican members by Section 3 is stupid enough, but claiming that Congress constructively repealed Section 3 shortly after the 14th amendment was ratified tops that with ease.

[loki13]

It's fascinating to me how the GOP how so quickly turned into the party of bullying. I wonder what ... possible ... recent influence ... might have done that?

Anyway, not to long ago (literally) we had increasing societal concern about actual issues involved with racism, like the justice system. Now? Everyone has their blood all angered up about the true victims in America- white people who might be exposed to ideas like ... oh ... there might be racism.

Or, for that matter, the very small number of trans people in America. It's hard to think of a more marginalized community. But leave it to the brave internet commenters and their leaders in the Republican party to make sure that they continue to be demonized.

There are times I wish there was just a little less hate. Most people ... most average Americans ... just want what is best for the country and for each other. They might not always agree on the means to get there, but they agree on the goal. Getting back to basic policy differences (which are real, and which matter) seems to make a lot more sense that screaming about non-existent pedophile rings.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Threats are all fun and games when you are "punching down", doing some "nazi punching", try to burn down a federal courthouse, or making fun of someone you called the "klan mom". That kind of stuff is hilarious.

Calling a man or a woman or putting public information about a left wing activist online though is violence.

Don't forget the distinction.

[M L]

Eric Trump:

"If I did 1/100th of what Hunter Biden has done, I'd be in jail for the rest of my life."

I don't know if this is true but unfortunately it seems quite plausible.

[bernard11]

1. Plausibility to Eric Trump (and to you) is not the same thing as plausible to a reasonable person.

2. You're right. You don't know if it's true. Neither does Eric Trump.

[M L]

It has to be plausible to any reasonable person that Eric or Don would be facing serious criminal investigations (weren't they already?) and charges if at all possible, if there was actual evidence they had received cash for "business deals" with all kinds of foreign interests in Ukraine, Russia, China and so on.

You have to think back and remember the level of Trump hysteria. If there had been even so much as a report or scant evidence of Don Jr receiving actual cash from foreign interests, it would have been explosive.

[ReaderY]

It’s very plausible that Eric Trump has done considerably more than 1/100 of what he accuses Hunter Biden of doing.

[M L]

Nobody in history was subject to the amount of extensive investigation and intense scrutiny as the Trumps during that presidency.

Any reasonable person has to admit, not only is there no evidence of some grand conspiracy or questionable financial dealings between the Trumps and foreign interests, there is significant evidence against it, given the unending investigations that left no stone unturned.

[Brett Bellmore]

One of the more recent revelations from the Durham investigation is that Clinton had hired IT professionals who abused a security contract with the federal government to penetrate the White House network, in an effort to obtain evidence of such a conspiracy.

Even with that illegally abused access, they failed to pin anything on him. All they found was that Trump wasn't generating any more traffic with Russian IP addresses than Obama was.

[David Nieporent]

Brett Bellmore: always months late and a million dollars short.

As usual, every single thing you think you know is 100% wrong.

1) Even if you had interpreted what happened correctly (you did not), that's not a "revelation." It's an unsupported assertion.
2) Clinton didn't hire anyone relevant to this story.
3) Nobody abused any security contract.
4) Nobody "penetrated" any "network."
5) These events happened before Trump even took office.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, plausible in a "you could get people to read the fanfic, but don't have any evidence" sense.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody in history was subject to the amount of extensive investigation and intense scrutiny as the Trumps during that presidency.

Tell me that you're under 30 years old without saying that you're under 30 years old.