Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Dylann Roof -- Charleston
James Alex Fields -- Charlottesville
Robert Bowers -- Pittsburgh
Patrick Crucius -- El Paso
Payton Grendon -- Buffalo

https://www.newsweek.com/great-replacement-theory-inspired-terror-attacks-recent-years-1706953

What will it take for Republicans to repudiate white supremacy, including specifically the Great Replacement theory?

[DaivdBehar]

Ask the Census. They have post millenials replaced as of 2020, all whites in 2045. Once that happens, it's welcome to Venezuela for the USA. There has not been a prosperous jurisdiction governed by diverses in 700 years.

I get very upset when any citizens are attacked. How about a meeting of fedetal judges, of the enemy press, of tech billionaires? These are the real threat. We are sick of this failed disloyal elite.

[AmosArch]

Cool idea....how about this?

Frank James
Lee Boyd Malvo
Timothy George Simpkins
Phillip Adams
Christopher Dorner

+ all the hundreds of other BLM inspired and random killers within the same timespan of the five people OP thinks constitutes an apocalyptic trend, but nobody cares about since they are so common and politically inconvenient there is next to no reporting let alone information on them.

Maybe if Dem's repudiated yts fault. They could have saved a few lives here too.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL maybe there is a good counter-post to the OP, but you made such a weak attempt.

Frank James, the dude with the mental health issues who? Ohh, he was blaaaaack.
The DC sniper? Was he racia....oh, he was blaaaack.
Timothy George Simpkins was some school shooter I'd not heard of but...yep, seems black.

Dude, did you just search for black mass shooters?

the hundreds of other BLM inspired and random killers?! Is your point that the Great Replacement conspiracy theory is countered by...black people?

[AmosArch]

If he can google and post 5 people in some indeterminate timeline as proof of some significant trend why can't I?

If he could argue that censorship of some formerly obscure theory (thanks to the MSM) that I'm not sure some of that group ever mentioned would reduce their anger and thus capacity for violence then whats so bonkers about the idea that maybe letting up the gas a bit on a nationwide dogma practically all Black Americans are subjected through constantly all their lives 24/7 may reduce the capacity for violence in the second group?

[Sarcastr0]

His point was that they were all the Great Replacement theory adjacent.

Your response is 'look over here, black people!' It's quite a tell you think that's a rebuttal.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Both Johnson and Long were reportedly motivated by their strong dislike of law enforcement, grievances against perceived white dominance, and the recent fatal police shootings of unarmed black men under questionable circumstances, specifically the shooting deaths of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota . ."

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-demented-and-selective-game-of?s=r

All that BLM stuff you spouted incited these people to kill others. Should you be held responsible?

[Sarcastr0]

Read my posts to Amos again, and do better at staying on topic.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If you're going to spread guilt around, then you need to do so fairly.

Doing it just when it's can be spread onto conservatives just cravenly exploits tragedy for political gain.

Which is what you're doing.

[Sarcastr0]

If you're going to spread guilt around, then you need to do so fairly.
That's not how this works, no. You're just turning whattaboutism into a virtue. I'm not saying the left doesn't have issues, I'm saying stop pointing left to avoid dealing with your side's shit.

The Buffalo shooter's Discord logs includes a post about how there wasn't a "problem" with "LGB" people until "pedophiles and groomers" joined and indoctrinated "our children"

Don't point left in service of condoning your side's rhetoric and what it leads to. You want to deal with rhetoric on the left? Bring it up the next time the left spawns a mass shooter and we can talk.

The work you're doing to defend your side's shit is just awful. It looks an awful lot like you'd defend a full-on Rwandan-style purge sparked by right-wing media because the media didn't report a black guy shot a Republican that day as well.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Don't point left in service of condoning your side's rhetoric and what it leads to. You want to deal with rhetoric on the left? Bring it up the next time the left spawns a mass shooter and we can talk."

No. You've got a bunch of random screeds by this guy, and you're selectively picking out the bits you like, while ignoring the other bits.

You're ignoring that he calls himself a "left-wing authoritarian." Also, he heaped praise on an article in the socialist magazine Jacobin for its view that cryptocurrency and Bitcoin are fraudulent scams. He spoke passionately of the centrality and necessity of environmentalism, He ranted against “corporate profits and the ever increasing wealth of the 1% that exploit the people for their own benefit. And of course "And he not only vehemently rejected any admiration for political conservatism but made clear that he viewed it as an enemy to his agenda: “conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”"

The fact you pick and choose, FROM THIS PARTICULAR SCREED to pass blame, while ignoring all the other items...

You're being cravenly selective. And exploiting the victims for political gain.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I explained to my son the other day, by the time people hold such extreme views, the difference between 'right' and 'left' is largely reduced to cosmetics, as right and left converge in the bottom corner of the Nolan chart. Hitler is claimed to be extreme 'right', never mind the "socialist" part of national socialist. Stalin extreme 'left'. But they collaborated in starting WWII.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd actually be willing to get down with the main throughline of mass shooters is that they're mentally ill...if history didn't show us plenty of ideologically motivated mass killings.

We're not there yet, but don't pretend that pushing extremism doesn't matter for this.

[MP]

And don't pretend that ideological extremism is somehow unique to some particular ideology.

[Sarcastr0]

That's no one's argument.

But there are some ideologies that especially lend themselves to extremism. The one that says your people are being replaced because they love freedom too much is pretty good at the extremist bit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Read my posts to Amos again, and do better at staying on topic."

Just answer the freakin' question.

[Sarcastr0]

What question haven't I answered?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The one with the question mark at the end.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's a surprise...Sarcastro avoids the question.

[Randal]

What? It sounds like they were motivated by police violence, not BLM rhetoric.

[not guilty]

So tu quoque is all you´ve got? Why am I unsurprised?

And what do you claim to be a racial motivation, let alone any nexus to Democratic politicians?

[AmosArch]

Question. If someone kills or commits violence because they think something is happening does that automatically mean that thing is not true?

For example heres a clip of feminists attacking a church

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yum5Ga6SA3o

So according to you I've just shown ironclad proof that all of feminism is completely wrong?

[not guilty]

Complete non sequitur. Are you drunk?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why yes, it is a non-sequitur. That's the point.

[AmosArch]

That because someone committed violence GR must be untrue is literally your main point.

[Sarcastr0]

It's less that this disproves it, more that you should explain how the shooter got it wrong that made him kill people.

I read GR as General Relativity at first.

[Leo Marvin]

Speaking of deranged ideological skepticism of General Relativity, what ever happened to Andrew Schlafly? Be funny if he stopped commenting because the right wing commentary here got too unserious even for him.

[AmosArch]

not guilty MSM et al are not asking for a heart to heart or a sober examination of whats true and not. They're declaring heresy and demanding censorship

[not guilty]

False. I never demanded censorship. I challenge Republicans, who pander to white supremacists, to reassess the harm they are fomenting and voluntarily change their behavior before more crazies kill more people.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what I'm doing - I want you to distinguish your worldview from this shooter.

And you're still dodging.

[not guilty]

¨That because someone committed violence GR must be untrue is literally your main point.¨

Not my point at all. When a polemical theory repeatedly inspires mass murder, it is prudent to refrain from fomenting that theory -- whether it is true or untrue. A false theory that breeds violence is just as dangerous as a true theory that does so. By way of a less lethal example, the ¨stop the steal¨ rhetoric from Trump and his minions was untrue, but it nevertheless inspired the violent breach of the Capitol by rioters.

[Nelson]

Feminism isn't a theory that centers around the violent opposition to churches (or religion). Replacement Theory has resistance (violent, if necessary) to white Christians becoming a minority in America as the point of the theory.

You are trying to claim an action that isn't part of feminist ideals/theories (attacking a church) should be a condemnation of feminism, but an action that is specifically part of Replacement Theory (attacking minorities) isn't a condemnation of Replacement Theory.

There is a vast difference between what a theory advocates and what someone who believes in a theory does that is unconnected to that theory. You are trying to conflate the two.

The problem with Replacement Theory isn't that it posits that white Christians will become the minority in America in the near future. The problems with the theory are claims that it's a bad thing, that it is a threat to American culture, that it should be resisted, that violence is acceptable to prevent it, and that it is an existential crisis.

False equivalence, conflation of unrelated things, downplaying the contents of the theory, and denying it is a dangerous theory are all ways of normalizing and sanitizing it.

Stop protecting Replacement Theory and those who advocate for it. Condemn it for the vile and violent theory it is.

Don't surrender your decency.

[JasonT20]

The problem with Replacement Theory isn't that it posits that white Christians will become the minority in America in the near future. The problems with the theory are claims that it's a bad thing, that it is a threat to American culture, that it should be resisted, that violence is acceptable to prevent it, and that it is an existential crisis.

I'd modify this a little and clarify. That demographics are changing and current trends would lead to whites no longer being a majority in the U.S. sometime in the next few decades is fact, not part of Replacement Theory or anything else. An important additional problem with Replacement Theory is that it posits that this is a deliberate plot by left-wing elites (usually Jews, to add antisemitism to it) to encourage this and make it happen. It is this conspiratorial aspect of the idea that makes violence to 'resist' it likely. If it was simply acknowledged as a fact of how the U.S. population is changing, then even worries about supposed negative effects wouldn't provide as much motivation to commit violence because there would be no cabal of evildoers to fight.

I do agree that the fears that it is an existential threat to (white Christian) American culture is the main driver of its problematic nature, though. It justifies all kinds of things that are degrading our political institutions. If it is an existential crisis, then it is essential to vote for people that will "strong" enough to resist the "replacement", even if they are otherwise loathsome and incompetent candidates. If it is an existential crisis, then then it is acceptable to manipulate election laws and rules to make it more likely for the "good guys" to win elections that they would lose otherwise or gain more seats than fair district maps would give them. If it is an existential crisis, then it may be necessary for a legislative majority created by that kind of gerrymandering to declare that the other side's victory was "tainted" by "fraud" and to discard the vote entirely.

That last one isn't even a hypothetical, as we all saw it attempted on Jan. 6, 2021, with violent resistance added into the mix.

[DaivdBehar]

Of course, you commit the Exception Fallacy for tawdry leftisi propaganda misinformation. You hype the dozens killed by white mental patients. You fail to mention the excess 1000's of murders by diverse thugs to feed their bad habits and laziness. These are caused by the bastardy rate induced by the vile feminist lawyer that destroyed the string black family. You fail to mention these mental patients are streeted because the Supreme Court gave control of psychiatry to know nothing rent seeking lawyers.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Glenn Greenwald rebuts your selective outrage..

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-demented-and-selective-game-of?s=r

[Sarcastr0]

All ideologies spawn psychopaths who kill innocents in its name. Yet only some are blamed for their violent adherents: by opportunists cravenly exploiting corpses while they still lie on the ground.

No, Glenn, not all ideologies are equal in their including violence as a natural upshot.

And of course he uses Hodgkinson as an example of a Bernie devote, which elides...quite a bit about the guy.

Glenn is a terminally online pathetic apologist these days, and you should read what he says with a bit more of a critical eye.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Classic Sarcastro-ism. misleading as always, claiming Glenn says all ideologies are equal, and not even readying the rest of the post.

[Sarcastr0]

I posted the sub to that article, which says 'All ideologies spawn psychopaths.' Which does indeed indicate an underlying 'all ideologies spawn violent shooters, why are you angry at white supremacy' stream of crap.

Criminals not liking law enforcement and thinking there is systematic racism in policing is going to turn up amongst criminals a whole lot.
Trying to analogize that to the Great Replacement canard is bullshit. And you appear to be using it to minimize your side's problem with motivating shooters.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"I posted the sub"

You deliberately MISCHARACTERIZED the subtitle, without reading the rest of the article, to make a strawman argument.

Seriously, you're a broken record of logical fallacies.

[Sarcastr0]

I posted it word for word, you chucklehead.

And if you do not see the implication of some kind of 'everybody dos it' to 'All ideologies spawn psychopaths who kill innocents in its name' you're not thinking very hard.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You mischaracterized it, because you read the subtitle, didn't read the rest of the article, and then assumed what you wanted the subtitle to mean....

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I posted the sub to that article, which says 'All ideologies spawn psychopaths.' Which does indeed indicate an underlying 'all ideologies spawn violent shooters, why are you angry at white supremacy' stream of crap.

You really are a pathetic piece of shit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's the key issue.

"To be sure, there have been a large number of murders and other atrocities carried out in U.S. and the West generally in the name of right-wing ideologies, in the name of white supremacy, in the name of white nationalism. The difference, though, is glaring: when murders are carried out in the name of liberal ideology, there is a rational and restrained refusal to blame liberal pundits and politicians who advocate the ideology that animated those killings. Yet when killings are carried out in the name of right-wing ideologies despised by the corporate press and mainstream pundits (or ideologies that they falsely associate with conservatism), they instantly leap to lay blame at the feet of their conservative political opponents who, despite never having advocated or even implied the need for violence, are nonetheless accused of bearing guilt for the violence — often before anything is known about the killers or their motives."

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, lets not care about the Great Replacement being bullshit that seems to encourage people to kill, lets instead yell about the liberal media covering up all the liberal killings!

Fuck you, and fuck Glenn for this whattaboutism in service of deflecting the issue the right has with mainstreaming violent white supremacy.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yeah, lets not care about the BLM movement being bullshit that seems to encourage people to kill police officers, lets instead yell about the picking selective items out of a psycho's screed while ignoring all the liberal parts in it.

[Commenter_XY]

WRT Greenwald, he asks good questions, Sarcastr0. I don't always agree with his viewpoint, but he does ask good questions.

Maybe it is me, but I have noticed a distinctly harder edge to VC postings. I am not picking on just you Sarcastr0, because I see it everywhere at VC. The sea level changed. I remember your posts from 5-7 years ago, and your posts today. They are not the same (in tone). Sarcastr0, your posts 5-7 years ago had funny snark. Seriously, it is part of why I kept coming back to VC. I mean, I rarely agreed with you, but you were humorous, and had a lighter touch. The witty 1-2 liners made me LOL sometimes; they were perfectly placed skewers. I got a different perspective, and it forced me to think (while rolling my eyes and saying to myself....Oy Vey, how would I answer that Sarcastr0 guy). I feel the same way about Bob from Ohio...his simple counterpoint posts (and the subsequent reactions) were also interesting (and humorous). Really, there are a number of posters I engage with all across the spectrum.

I learn things here, Sarcastr0. IANAL, but I find the legal questions utterly fascinating. Really, I do. Judges are our last line of defense to protect our liberty, so what happens in the legal world is very important (hence, I am here).

Personally I think this entire debate is a) premature because we really don't know jack-shit about this guy and b) very corrosive to our national spirit. My counsel is to wait, withhold assessment until we know a lot more about this murderer. To me, Payton Gendron is why we have a death penalty...but that is just me. I mean, find 12 impartial jurors, have the trial, find his ass guilty, then execute his ass and be done with it. Then people can write books about it and psychoanalyze to their heart's content.

Our hearts are hardening. I wish it were not this way. It affects how we talk to each other, how we perceive each other, how we treat each other. Do you sense the same thing?

Sarcastr0, I want to emphasize that I am not singling you out, because I really do think the sea level changed at VC. I am troubled by this sea level change.

How does VC raise the sea level, Sarcastr0? And how do we go about not hardening our hearts?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Maybe it is me, but I have noticed a distinctly harder edge to VC postings. "

I've noticed that all over. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the country is currently on a glide path towards civil war, and tensions are gradually rising towards the breaking point.

[Ed Grinberg]

According to John Derbyshire, U.S. is currently experiencing a cold civil war "between two big blocs of white people who can't stand the sight of each other: Goodwhites and Badwhites." Badwhites (like John Derbyshire) complain about mass Third-World immigration. Goodwhites deplore them for it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't mind 3rd world immigration so long as it's law abiding and highly educated 3rd worlders.

[Nelson]

If education were required, most of us wouldn't have been born in America. Our forebears wouldn't have been allowed in. I know mine wouldn't (Irish from the late 1800s and German from the early 1900s, none who graduated from high school).

Law-abiding, absolutely. But education is irrelevant. Anyone who is willing to come here and work hard should be welcomed.

Education doesn't make a better or worse American. It doesn't make a better or worse immigrant, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, so what? We're not a mostly empty country with a desperate need for unskilled labor anymore. If anything, we're over-supplied with unskilled labor on account of illegal immigration through our Southern border.

Like hell education is irrelevant. People who come here from abroad compete in the job market with people already here. That competition drives wages down, standard supply and demand.

If educated people immigrate here, they compete with the higher paid segment of society, and reduce income inequality. And lower the costs of skilled services to everybody, including the poor.

If under-educated people immigrate here, they compete with the lower paid segment of society, and increase income inequality. They lower the costs of unskilled labor, which benefits those who purchase it, typically the better off already.

So, why would anybody who claims to care about the poor want unskilled immigrants? Which is why your open borders types are all well off people unskilled immigrants don't compete with. They compete with their gardeners, instead.

And, as far as growing the economy, in a per capita rather than gross sense, you want to load up on the most productive people possible.

Now, when I say "educated", I don't mean gender studies or Marxist theory. There are majors that should probably count against an immigrant, not for them. I mean largely limited to STEM.

[Nelson]

So not just educated, but educated the "right way"? You seem to be saying is that the value of a person is in their education (and some educations more than others). Is a degree from Reykjavík University is preferred to the University of the West Indies as well?

There are plenty of low-wage jobs in the US that need filling, which is why there are so many employed illegal immigrants. I, personally, would prefer to see those jobs filled by legal immigrants. I don't like illegal immigration and the fewer jobs that are available, the less draw there is for illegal immigrants to come here.

We shouldn't be making assumptions about which immigrants would make better Americans based on their education level because there is no inherent virtue in education.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/2022/05/16/buffalo-shooting-will-prompt-measures-to-combat-domestic-terrorism-says-pelosi/?comments=true#comment-9495477

[not guilty]

Gendron is not subject to the death penalty in New York. He may be if the feds prosecute.

[Sarcastr0]

It's just...lots of people have been saying this is dangerous rhetoric over and over again. And now people are dying, and plenty seem quite willing to keep on keeping on because they've convinced themselves liberals are worse.

If there were like a black nationalism thing going on the left and it caused a bunch of shootings, you'd better believe I wouldn't be saying the real issue is the media coverup of all the conservative murderers.

[Commenter_XY]

I understand.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"If there were like a black nationalism thing going on"

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2017/return-violent-black-nationalist

During his speech, Farrakhan said, “Retaliation is a prescription from God to calm the breasts of those whose children have been slain.” He hatefully proclaimed, “So if the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!” Farrakhan’s remarks that day likely inspired increased radicalization and mobilization towards violence among other Black Nationalists.

I wonder who is supporting Farrakhan?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh, that's right....

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/could-this-long-lost-photo-have-derailed-obama-2008-campaign/jC8NKhQr6a72VjRYY9o0EM/

Good thing the media was told to keep it hush hush...

[Nelson]

Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are extremists. Insinuating that most (or even many) Democrats or liberals support him is dishonest and untrue.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I remember your posts from 5-7 years ago, and your posts today. They are not the same (in tone).

They're certainly the same in terms of rhetorical tactics. That is to say, blatantly dishonest misrepresentation of the opposition. That's always been his MO.

[Nelson]

"Our hearts are hardening. I wish it were not this way. It affects how we talk to each other, how we perceive each other, how we treat each other. Do you sense the same thing?"

I haven't even been here a year yet, so I can't speak to how it used to be. I know that there are people here like you, Cal Cetin, and Brett Bellmore who I disagree with, but are largely good-faith posters. There are others who are more extreme. At least one keeps threatening that I will get mine, or end up face down in a landfill. I try to keep the good people who I disagree with in the front of my mind, but it's sometimes hard to differentiate between the trolls, the zealots, and the honorable opposition.

I worry about people becoming hard-hearted as well. I worry that people aren't willing to accept nuance and heterodoxy in others. They want to tag people as either "the good guys" or "the bad guys".

I came here hoping for intelligent discussion by people who understand law better than a non-lawyer like me. I've gotten a good amount of that. I came hoping to refine (or change) my beliefs through being challenged by people who disagree with me. I've gotten that as well. Sometimes when I hear long-time posters talking about how the site used to be I wish I had been here then.

But I don't think things are as bad as you fear. The people who want a civil war or succession are the extremes. Loud, extreme, uncompromising, and unwilling to allow others to just live their lives. But most people aren't like that. Most people are in the middle. Most people are willing to compromise and be reasonable.

Don't lose faith. Americans are better than we give ourselves credit for. We have more in common than we admit. We are, collectively, interested in makkng things better. We may allow ourselves to be led astray by demagogues and charlatans from time to time, but we always return to our roots.

Freedom. Liberty. Opposition to cruelty. Defending the weak. Standing up to tyrants. Resisting coersion and force. We may disagree as to who and what qualifies as each and who and what is tyrannical, but the foundation is the same for most of us.

We are better than we fear and worse than we hope, but the majority of us are trying to do our best.

[Cal Cetín]

Gosh, I was searching for my handle (not obsessively, of course, just curious) and found your compliment.

"largely good-faith poster" is the second-nicest thing I've been called here. The nicest thing was that I was the Puck of the VC. I don't know if comparing me to a mischievous fairy was even meant as a compliment, however, so yours is the nicest *intentional* compliment.

Of course, because of concerns like those you've expressed, I sometimes tell myself I'm going to stop posting here, and eventually I'll tear myself away, accompanied by a chorus of lamentation ("I haven't heard from what's-his-face lately").

But the Internet is the easiest place to waste time, so it keeps drawing me back in, like in that movie.

[Nelson]

I'm glad you keep coming back. You are fun to discuss things with. And, as a bonus, you have never wished I was dead.

I do appreciate people like you who are willing to discuss difficult things without resorting to calling someone a sock or accusing them of bad-faith arguments or calling them a Marxist (usually in a discussion unconnected to economic beliefs).

You're a good man, Cal.

[Commenter_XY]

Nelson, I want you to be right, and me be wrong = But I don't think things are as bad as you fear.

[Randal]

Yeah but that's 100% bullshit. Maddow, Bernie, and left-leaning rhetoric in general absolutely got the blame when Hodgkinson went crazy.

The biggest difference was how Maddow and Bernie handled it. They both made very sober, clear denunciations. They never made it about themselves. But here, as with everything, the right immediately turns it into another victimization narrative. I'm literally throwing up.

Have you ever asked yourselves why you're all so easily victimized? You're always the victims, even when it's other people who die. Are you just so weak and paltry that you can never stand up for yourselves? Are you unable to think of the witty comeback until later when you're crying into your pillow? It's amazing how everything that happens in the world is secretly intended as a slight against you.

Or maybe it's in your head.

[Leo Marvin]

Merits aside -- Sarcastro has dealt with those ably -- Glenn Greenwald is and always has been a demagogue who tendentiously spins half-truths in service of his own grandiosity. I'll bet 10-15 years ago you'd have agreed with that and dismissed his opinions accordingly. Why do you suppose it is, now that his narcissism has driven him to your side of the cultural divide, that you suddenly find him persuasive?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Sarcastro has dealt with those ably"

He didn't even read the article. Hard to deal with something if you don't even know what it says.

[Commenter_XY]

Leo, I want to answer you directly (I pay attention to you too). I really meant when I said 'sea level change'. I am emphatically not singling out Sarcastr0 for that. I am not flogging him; to the contrary, his 1-2 line humorous skewers that went to the heart of matters kept me coming back. A large number of them were hilarious. Really, I am not being facetious. And I really did roll my eyes (multiple times) and think those thoughts (Oy, how to answer that one). But Sarcastr0 has changed (in tone), as have many here at VC. Our hearts are being hardened Leo, and we don't listen (or talk) to each other like we used to. There is a harder (coarser?) edge, and I really wish it were not that way.

TBH, I don't think G2 'changed' sides or he is somehow a chameleon, Leo, I really don't. I do think G2 asks good questions and I know from my own career experience and life experience, asking the right question(s) is ~75% of the battle.

I'll relate something very personal, Leo. Sarcastr0 will remember. When my mother-in-law died from covid in a nursing home two years ago, I was very deeply wounded by the fact that I could not pray in an in-person minyan, nor could I have a funeral service, or visitors for shiva. As you might surmise, I felt my free exercise rights were violated. Even today, my inability to observe the formal mourning rituals of my faith during that time is something that will always make me feel like there is 'unfinished business'. Leo, I will tell you: I don't care if Sarcastr0 is on the 'other' team, I know he heard me. I think ultimately that he came out differently (in an intellectual sense) on the free exercise question, but I know that he heard the turmoil and anguish in my heart. And I know he thought about that in formulating his ultimate position on free exercise during the pandemic. Sarcastr0 can confirm whether I am off-base in my belief (but I really don't think that I am).

So when I say to Sarcastr0....your posts are not the same, it is not in the sense of flogging him. To the contrary, it is the sense of: your posts are not the same, let us remember a better time, talk to each other, and make it a friendly contest of ideas. And if you can, bring back those exquisite 1-2 line skewers that make me chortle and laugh. And think. 🙂

Leo, that is really a general point. I read the posts of law professors here because I know that a few will be judges later. They (as judges) will be our last line of defense as guardians of our individual civil liberties. I want to know what they think, and why they think the way they do...as a citizen. Besides, the law questions blogged about here are incredibly fascinating to me (really, they are). I learn a lot here.

You tell me. Are the questions G2 is asking the right questions to ask?

[Leo Marvin]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I was tied up all day, have only a minute now, and will be occupied again tomorrow. With some luck I may get to the GG question over the weekend. Suffice it to say I hold him in the same low regard I did 15 years ago when that was the prevailing view around here.

Anyway, in case I don't get back to this, please accept my belated condolences for the loss of your MiL. I lost my brother to COVID, couldn't be with him when he passed, and had to bury him from 3,000 miles. So I empathize. But while I don't begrudge you your take, and as agonizing as the restrictions were for me as well, I had a different reaction than I surmise you did to the edicts that limited our access. ISTM most of the people charged with those decisions did the best they could with the information available to them to balance the equities and risks. I guess you see it differently, but I'm disinclined to second guess any but the relatively few who I believe acted in bad faith (e.g., Cuomo after the fact, Trump before and after).

[Commenter_XY]

Truthfully Leo, in that first 45 days (mid-March to early May 2020), I understood the emergency declarations. After that, not so much.

[Commenter_XY]

Also very sorry about your brother, Leo.

[Michael P]

Four mentally ill and/or drug-addicted fans of (national) socialist ideologies and eco-fascism, plus one hardcore antisemite, and you think Republicans should be denouncing their ideology? And you think that "Great Replacement" policy is white supremacy? Your name should be "not funny".

What will it take for Democrats to denounce the ideologies behind Micah X. Johnson, Omar Mateen, Gavin Eugene Long, James Hodgkinson, Darrell Brooks Jr, and the insurrectionary Antifa?

[not guilty]

Do you dispute that Republicans have been pandering to white supremacists ever since the civil rights revolution of the mid-1960s?

My party had a sordid history regarding race relations; I am proud that we have thoroughly repudiated that history. Are you proud of how eagerly your party stepped into the breach?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Heh...you think you've "repudiated" that history.

[not guilty]

Let´s see now. Who was it that pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 through Congress?

Who was it that in response developed the Southern Strategy to co-opt George Wallace voters?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Let´s see now. Who was it that pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 through Congress?

You really are an idiot. OK, let's start with the voting in Congress for the 1964 CRA:

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[33]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

So in both houses, 80%+ of Rs voted in favor of the act, while the Ds couldn't make it past 69% support. How about the 1965 VRA?

House:
Democrats 217–54 (80%-20%)
Republicans 111–20 (85%-15%)

Senate:
Democrats 49–17 (74%-26%)
Republicans 30–1 (97%-3%)

Hmmmmmm....

[not guilty]

It was Lyndon Johnson who stood up to the segregationists and broke filibusters on civil rights legislation. He was reported (perhaps apocryphally) to have said that his administration had handed the South to the GOP for a generation. Who knew that that prediction would underestimate the time frame?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's a quiz for you.

What region of the country has the highest effective school segregation rate currently?

[Michael P]

Do you dispute that Democrats have been pandering to anti-Semites, totalitarians, druggies, and the mentally ill for at least as long?

Your party has swapped one brand of race essentialism and bigotry for a "big tent" approach that has a tent pole version of race essentialism and bigotry surrounded by a number of smaller versions that are still accepted -- and sometimes endorsed -- by the whole.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

“Jews will not replace us.”

Does that chant ring any bells, you fucking tool? Maybe the khaki pants and polo T-shirts they wore while carrying their weapons and torches?

You were probably among them.

[Michael P]

That sounds an awful lot like what Ilhan Omar, a number of (Black) DC local politicians, and other Democrats say.

To be sure, I don't believe in Jewish Climate Space Lasers -- but if they existed, they would probably be a net positive for the world.

[jb]

"That sounds an awful lot like what Ilhan Omar, a number of (Black) DC local politicians, and other Democrats say."

Can you give some examples of Omar making similar statements? She gets some flack for anti-Israel commentary that sometimes verge into the antisemitic, but they're actually not at all equivalent. We're talking about replacement theory here, not racism or antisemitism.

[Ed Grinberg]

You'd think that antisemitism would be bad enough...

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

We're talking about replacement theory here, not racism or antisemitism.

Let's all just pause for a moment and appreciate the breathtaking stupidity of that comment.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I don't think so, Mike.

[Michael P]

Claiming that Democrats are trying to implement a "Great Replacement" is racist, until it isn't. Claiming Jews are behind it is anti-Semitic until

[Nelson]

No one is trying to "implement" a Great Replacement. Democrats will benefit from it, but it isn't something they are doing anything to make happen. It's literally a decades-long demographic shift.

[Krayt]

Did anyone ever track down those idiots?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Payton Grendon -- Buffalo"

A self described "Left-wing authoritarian" who vehemently rejected any admiration for political conservatism but made clear that he viewed it as an enemy to his agenda: “conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.” Who is following a theory described in "The Emerging Democratic Majority"

Yet for some reason "Republicans" need to repudiate this "Left-wing authoritarian" who wants "no part of" conservatism?

Grendon SOUNDS like a liberal extremist. If you're passing blame around based on political beliefs. He certainly was never a "conservative" based on his beliefs.

[Krayt]

“conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”

...he angrily typed in on his iPhone, then took a bite of a pristine apple in the middle of winter. Sorry, a pristine organic apple.

[ThePublius]

From Statistica; the money quote is "Race of mass shooters reflects the U.S. population."

"Between 1982 and May 2022, 68 out of the 127 mass shootings in the United States were carried out by white shooters. By comparison, the perpetrator was African American in 21 mass shootings, and Latino in 10. When calculated as percentages, this amounts to 53 percent, 16 percent, and eight percent respectively.

Race of mass shooters reflects the U.S. population

Broadly speaking, the racial distribution of mass shootings mirrors the racial distribution of the U.S. population as a whole. While a superficial comparison of the statistics seems to suggest African American shooters are over-represented and Latino shooters underrepresented, the fact that the shooter’s race is unclear in around 10 percent of cases, along with the different time frames over which these statistics are calculated, means no such conclusions should be drawn. Conversely, looking at the mass shootings in the United States by gender clearly demonstrates that the majority of mass shootings are carried out by men."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

[Sarcastr0]

If you come back to a post about a specific ideology with a post about race...that says a lot about you, and not a lot in response to the post.

[ThePublius]

I don't really understand your comment. The original post attempts to make the case via anecdotes that white men are the real problem in mass shootings. I am merely pointing out that races are represented as mass shooters at the same rate they exist in the population. So it would seem race isn't really indicative, no?

[Sarcastr0]

Why are you equating 'great replacement inspired terror attacks' with white people? That's what the OP is about.

There are plenty of white mass shooters not motivated by that that the post doesn't include.

The OP wasn't about race war; you seem to be posting as though it were.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you come back to a post about a specific ideology with a post about race

Because race has nothing to do with the issue!!!!!

[Longtobefree]

Does that research include gang shootings?
Asking for a statistician - - - - - - - -

[John F. Carr]

Since 9/11 America has been... replaced by Europe in the ideological mass murder category. Breivik in Norway and the terrorists in Paris in 2015 killed more people than the Las Vegas shooter who left no good evidence of a motive.

But still, we have more of these than most of us would like. Remember after 9/11 when Bush (Bush's speechwriters) said Islam was not the enemy? We need that in today's Republican party. Instead we have Trump.

[Krayt]

Pretty much this. The Bush sons, being southern border state pols, made efforts to attract the Latino community for the Republicans.

Trump took a squat on that, and on Muslims.

Thanks!

[Kazinski]

How did Trump improve his share of the Hispanic vote over Romney, then improve it again in 2020?
2000 35
2004 40
2008 31
2012 27
2016 29
2020 32

I'd be willing to bet if Trump or DeSantis is the nominee in 2024 it'll be up to at least 50%, but that's more because of Biden than the GOP, currently Biden's approval rating among whites is 32%, for Hispanics its 26%. (So much for Replacement Theory).

[Nelson]

So the numbers for McCain and Romney are almost exactly the same as Trump's (31 vs. 32, 27 vs. 29) and you want to make it seem like it is a major shift? Bush got more than any of them and Republicans haven't been close since then. I think the 8 points between Bush and Trump are more significant than the 1 point between McCain and Trump or the 2 points between Romney and Trump.

Believing that Trump will grow his support by 56% is probably ... optimistic.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Payton Grendon self-identified as a Center Left Socialist.

Why are you making the demand of Republicans?

[OtisAH]

Ah, yes, the basic Center Left Socialist. When the basic Center Left Socialist isn’t espousing white supremacy and Great Replacement Theory as he drives hundreds of miles from his home to murder elderly black people shopping at the only grocery store in their majority-black district, he’s down in South Texas screaming for wide open borders and unrestricted immigration so he can hand out driver’s licenses and “Dem Only” voting cards to anyone who runs by…

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You act is it being for or against White Replacement is the single defining characteristic of Left or Right.

That’s pretty stupid.

[OtisAH]

An incoherent response from an incoherent poster.

[Life of Brian]

the Great Replacement theory

For the last couple of decades, Team Blue has loudly and proudly embraced this phenomenon under the chant "demographics is destiny."

But over the past several months, it's become undeniable even to the most fervent believers that they're getting utterly shellacked in the polls by the very minorities they've been counting on to achieve a permanent majority.

Now they've snap-pivoted and are trying to cast their own pet phenomenon as a right-wing conspiracy theory they can use to desperately fan the race war flames to try to retake some of that ground.

The good news is that it's becoming increasingly clear that minorities are getting tired of being treated like they're a stupid, compliant voting bloc that can be manipulated into continuing to pull the blue lever by this sort of breathless, cynical nonsense. So I don't expect Ds to get much if any traction from this.

[Ben_]

People who are not like me are bad isn’t a great reaction for you here. All of those murderers thought some variation of people who are not like me are bad as they were pulling the trigger.

"What will it take for [the other] to repudiate [their implied guilt by association]?"

Guilt by association isn’t a thing. You obviously don’t want peace. If you get the outcome you're spoiling for, you’re not going to like it.

[not guilty]

The House of Representatives last night passed legislation that would create domestic terrorism offices within the Justice and Homeland Security departments, as well as the FBI. The vote was 222 to 203. One Republican, Adam Kinsinger, voted in the majority with all Democrats present. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/18/house-vote-legislation-aimed-curbing-domestic-terrorism-wake-buffalo-mass-shooting/

When will the GOP ever learn?

[Ben_]

Seems like they learned very well.

[DonP]

You seem to have missed; "Chicago - Any random weekend with 5 to 12 dead and 30 plus wounded".

https://heyjackass.com/

Or do dead Black people only count for desperate Lefty when it's a white shooter and it suits a narrative for disastrous Mid Terms?

[swood1000]

Could we clarify what is meant by the “great replacement” theory? It seems to be true that, in general, Democrats have taken a more permissive approach toward illegal immigration on the southern border. Some people believe that one of the motives behind this has been the belief that illegal immigrants, or their children, will more likely vote for Democrats. For example, in 2018, Julián Castro tweeted: “The Hispanic vote in Texas will continue to increase. By 2024 Democrats can win Texas, Arizona and Florida. A big blue wall of 78 electoral votes.”

Is this an example of what is being described as a vile and assuredly false conspiracy theory that no respectable person can hold?

[Ben_]

It’s capitalized to pretend it’s a strawman. It’s the same no one is saying… gaslighting we see from leftists on every subject.

[Sarcastr0]

Explaining to you that you believe a bunch of crazy bullshit is not gaslighting.

Especially when part of that bullshit is this white genocide rot.

[Ben_]

Pretending that Dems haven’t been celebrating racial demographic changes is gaslighting.

It’s not working out for Dems though, because Latinos/Hispanics aren’t thrilled with crazy leftist woke ideology or anti-Americanism or hairshirt environmentalism. And none of the traditional Dem racial voters are hoping to be violent crime victims. Very few of them love paying $60-100 for a tank of gas either.

So the Dems’ whole permanent majority plan got disrupted. Too many voters still want government that works for them instead of against them.

[Randal]

So you think if Hispanics start voting Republican, the Democrats will reverse course on immigration?

Of course they won't. Because diluting white votes isn't remotely the point.

Tucker's Great Replacement conspiracy theory is a brilliant piece of rhetoric. It massages all of the right-wing's pleasure centers:

* race-baiting
* Dems-are-an-evil-cabal
* victimization

[swood1000]

Because diluting white votes isn't remotely the point.

I didn't ask if the motive was to dilute white votes. I asked if at least part of the motive was to increase the number of people who vote Democrat. That seems to be reflected at least in the Julián Castro tweet above, right?

[Randal]

I was replying to Bent, not you. But to answer your question... the motive for what, exactly? Democrats have had basically the same immigration policy for generations, and Republicans have been misrepresenting it for just as long. It's not "open borders."

Part of the problem with The Great Replacement conspiracy is that it's built on top of those misrepresentations. So is there a specific, actual policy that you think might be motivated by a desire to increase the Hispanic vote?

Let's take parole vs. Remain in Mexico. First of all, parole has been the policy of all presidents until Trump, so it's barely fair to call it a Democratic policy at all, but whatever. All those people would be detained if Congress provided the money to do so, but no. Dems would also like to have the resources to process them faster. But yes, Remain in Mexico is a terrible policy for all kinds of reasons. Creating more Hispanic voters in Texas is definitely not part of it.

Let's look at just one way that's stupid. Illegal immigrants, including parolees, can't vote of course. So I guess the theory is that they'll have kids here who can vote... 20 years from now? But kids vote Democratic even more reliably than Hispanics... both groups went 59% for Biden. So really the Great Replacement theory is... generational turnover? Have more kids and in 20 years that will help Democrats?

If that were how the Democrats operated, they'd be pro-life and anti-contraception too!

So what was Castro's tweet about? He's just looking at the Hispanic population growth relative to white people, which is largely determined by birth rates. The birth rate for Hispanics is 2.4, for whites it's 1.8. That means the Hispanic population is growing while the white population shrinks.

[swood1000]

Democrats have had basically the same immigration policy for generations

Well, you must agree that the policy of the Democrats during the Clinton administration stands in stark contrast to Biden’s policy today.

So is there a specific, actual policy that you think might be motivated by a desire to increase the Hispanic vote?

Concerning the handling of illegal immigration over the southern border, the difference between the permissiveness of the Biden administration and that of the Trump administration is in part motivated by a desire to increase, not the Hispanic vote, but the Democrat vote. People with lower levels of education and skills could be expected to vote for Democrats, whether they be Hispanic or otherwise. Those entering illegally are assumed to be predominately from this economic group. The term “great replacement” accuses those who oppose illegal immigration of having their eye on the Hispanic/White axis whereas the axis that Democrats have in mind is the Democrat/Republican one.

Remain in Mexico is a terrible policy for all kinds of reasons

If all illegal immigrants were treated the same way as Mexican illegal immigrants then we wouldn’t have a problem. The problem is that very poor people have reason to believe that they can gain entrance to the U.S. if they pretend to be political refugees. The “remain in Mexico” policy lets those contemplating the trip north know that they will not be granted entrance. Those who are truly political refugees should apply to Mexico for asylum, which has said it will grant it. For them, the difference between Mexico and the U.S. is entirely economic. Furthermore, those who are denied entrance don’t have to remain in Mexico. They can return to their former homes and come back when their cases are adjudicated (or apply to Mexico for asylum).

So really the Great Replacement theory is... generational turnover? Have more kids and in 20 years that will help Democrats?

The primary hope is that there will be another grand bargain under which those who entered illegally will be granted citizenship. It has happened before. But even if that doesn't happen again, ten million illegal immigrants will generate how many voters in twenty-five years?

So what was Castro's tweet about? He's just looking at the Hispanic population growth relative to white people.

Castro said, “The Hispanic vote in Texas will continue to increase. By 2024 Democrats can win Texas, Arizona and Florida. A big blue wall of 78 electoral votes.” Clearly, the “increase” that he was talking about consists of the offspring of both American citizens and of illegal immigrants from past years, and he viewed that increase as producing more Democrats than Republicans. Obviously, Democrats are motivated to favor those policies that produce victories for them at the polls, don't you agree?

[Randal]

Yes, Democrats are motivated to pursue policies that help them at the polls. Hoping for amnesty or for Democratic babies 25 years in the future is definitely not the way they're going about it, obviously, because that would be ridiculously stupid.

The Democrats lost 8 percentage points from Hispanics in the last election. Why? Because they liked Republican policies and disliked Democratic policies more than they had before. Democrats are thousands of times better off pursuing policies that Hispanics like than they would be by pursuing policies that create relatively small numbers of additional Democrats in the distant future.

If you were to say, look at the Democrats! Their immigration policies are pandering to Hispanics! I'd believe you. That's what's happening, not sitting around waiting for anchor babies to grow up. They're hoping to appeal to Hispanics now!

[swood1000]

Hoping for amnesty or for Democratic babies 25 years in the future…would be ridiculously stupid.

Well, Castro is certainly looking forward to future increases in population as benefitting the Democrats. What are you saying, that looking forward five years is reasonable but 25 years is not? It is reasonable for a political party to consider a constituency's current voting strength but its expected future voting strength?

The Democrats lost 8 percentage points from Hispanics in the last election. Why? Because they liked Republican policies and disliked Democratic policies more than they had before.

The fact that Democrats miscalculated, and supported policies that many Hispanics turned out not to support, does not affect their motive before they discovered the effect that their policies were having. Furthermore, they are promoting the entrance of low-education and low-skilled immigrants, who no doubt poll differently from middle-class Hispanic citizens (many of whom oppose unlimited illegal immigration, since it drives down wages). Also, arguments that unlimited illegal immigration cannot be counted on to inure to the benefit of Democrats is not to the point. The point is what Democrats think.

Democrats are thousands of times better off pursuing policies that Hispanics like than they would be by pursuing policies that create relatively small numbers of additional Democrats in the distant future.

Castro was anticipating that the increase in population among Hispanics by 2024 alone could flip Texas, Arizona and Florida. The number of illegal immigrants as of 2014 was estimated by Pew to be 11.1 million. A million were said to be added just last year. Another source, claiming to use a methodology similar to that used by the Pew, estimated that in 2014 there were 287,000 births to illegal immigrants. I’m sure there are those who will offer different estimates but if the overall illegal immigrant population increases by one million per year there is abundant reason for people to believe that the voting effect of their offspring cannot be accurately described as “relatively small numbers,” and many will believe that, regardless whether you agree with them.

not sitting around waiting for anchor babies to grow up. They're hoping to appeal to Hispanics now!

People can have more than one motivation, and if, as you say, Hispanics have a higher birth rate than other Americans, then those Democrats who think they are more likely to vote Democrat are incentivized to increase their number by any means available.

[Randal]

The illegal immigrant population was over 13 million when Bush left office. It fell 3 million under Obama... he deported more than any other president, but that's not really the reason. It fell because the Great Recession made the US less economically appealing relative to Mexico.

So yes, there are a lot of illegal immigrants in the country, but the number of them isn't affected very much by immigration policy. If they want to come they'll come, and if they want to leave they'll leave. That's why I say that Democrats could only expect relatively small increases in Democratic votes -- 20 years from now -- by fiddling with immigration policy. Immigration policy simply doesn't affect that number very much.

This has always been the Democrats' complaint with Republicans' immigration policies. Democrats don't want illegal immigrants in the country either, but we're smart enough to know that a wall isn't going to keep them out, Remain in Mexico isn't going to keep them out, deporting them isn't going to keep them out, denying them access to police, hospitals, and schools isn't going to keep them out (and will make life worse for everyone else too), and calling them names isn't going to keep them out. All those Republican policies are just showboating. It's immigration theater, to keep you scared and thinking that Republicans have your back, even though they're not doing anything to actually solve any problems. Just wasting money and making the US look bad.

The best way to reduce the illegal immigration population, as the Great Recession showed, would be to help Mexico get itself together, economically and in terms of public safety. Then the immigrants will have no reason to be here. But of course, the last thing Republicans ever want to do is help other countries out, even when it's in our interest. America First!

On the other side of the coin, if Democrats actually did want to increase the illegal immigrant population, the way to do it would be to make the US more appealing to illegal immigrants, and the way to do that is by making the economy stronger. Immigration policies aren't what matter.

So again, it would be incredibly, ridiculously stupid for Democrats to be optimizing their policy choices around futzing with immigration policy in a vain attempt to increase the illegal immigrant population by tiny amounts way way down the road. It's just a total waste of time compared to all the ways they have to try to appeal to existing voters, which is what matters in elections. Democrats aren't that stupid.

It's actually very funny -- but typical of conspiracy theories -- for the theory to simultaneously imagine an opponent of such cunning that they can pull of a secret effort involving thousands of people with no one knowing, no paper trail, no leaks... but who are also so stupid that the goal of the conspiracy doesn't even benefit them much. Believe me, if Democrats were capable of pulling something like that off, it wouldn't be to accomplish something so totally lame as to secretly use immigration policy to try to add a handful of votes to the Democrats' column in 20 years.

[swood1000]

So yes, there are a lot of illegal immigrants in the country, but the number of them isn't affected very much by immigration policy. …That's why I say that Democrats could only expect relatively small increases in Democratic votes -- 20 years from now -- by fiddling with immigration policy. Immigration policy simply doesn't affect that number very much.

Are you saying that Biden’s election and his immigration policy have had an insignificant effect on illegal immigration?

• We know that the number of people coming to the southern border jumped significantly after Biden was elected. This had some cause that seems to be related to the immigration policy that he promised.

• We know that Biden restricted ICE agents to arresting three categories of illegal immigrants - recent border crossers, national security threats and aggravated felons.

• We know that Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas boasted of having “fundamentally changed” immigration enforcement. “For the first time ever, our policy explicitly states that a noncitizen’s unlawful presence in the United States will not, by itself, be a basis for the initiation of an enforcement action.”

• We know that immigration arrests in the interior of the United States fell in fiscal 2021 to the lowest level in more than a decade — roughly half the annual totals recorded during the Trump administration, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data obtained by The Washington Post.

• We know that Biden tried to use the reconciliation bill to turn illegal immigrants into voters. According to the New York Times, “The Senate parliamentarian dealt a major setback on Sunday to Democrats’ plan to use their $3.5 trillion social policy bill to create a path to citizenship for an estimated 8 million undocumented immigrants.”

I agree with you that the Democrats are not content to wait 18 years. It’s their goal to get them voting today, one way or another. To make it easy for them to try to vote before being granted citizenship the Democrats modified their For the People Act to ensure any illegal immigrant who gets caught trying to vote couldn’t be “prosecuted under any state or federal law, adversely affected in any civil adjudication concerning immigration status or naturalization, or subject to an allegation in any legal proceeding that the individual is not a citizen of the U.S.”

As stated in a memo co-authored by former Hillary Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, illegal immigrants brought here at a young age are “a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.” To deny that Democrats intend to turn illegal immigrants into votes – either immediately or after waiting 18 years – is not an argument that can be made with a straight face. At a minimum, and into the indefinite future, they can expect 287,000 per year to come of voting age.

[Randal]

That's exactly what I'm saying. If you look at the number of illegal immigrants in the country, it's extremely stable. It's been between 10 and 13 million for over 20 years. The variations that do occur are mainly due to economic conditions, not immigration policies. Most of the people coming in are coming in legally and overstaying visas, not coming in illegally over the southern border. And there are more new Asian immigrants than Mexican immigrants coming illegally. Mexicans now make up less than half the illegal immigrant population.

So yeah, all those things you mentioned aren't what matter. The exception being a path to citizenship. That would of course start turning those 11 or 12 million people into voters. But the Democrats have been talking about a path to citizenship forever, and it's never been about getting the votes of those new citizens. (It has, of course, been about getting the votes of people sympathetic to that cause.) Anyway, nobody seriously thinks a path to citizenship is in the cards. The fact that the Democrats talk about it anyway is proof that they're targeting existing voters, not converted illegal immigrants. Like when Republicans talk about ending birthright citizenship.

[swood1000]

Anyway, nobody seriously thinks a path to citizenship is in the cards.

Well, a path to citizenship has been done once (unlike ending birthright citizenship), giving hope to many proponents.

The fact that the Democrats talk about it anyway is proof that they're targeting existing voters, not converted illegal immigrants.

Sorry, but I don’t think this follows.

My only point is that Democrats have been counting for some time on increasing political power through a changing demography. For example there is this WaPo article from 2002 which says:

But Henry Cisneros, a former U.S. secretary of housing and development who supports Kirk, said the potential Democratic ticket represents "the future of Texas" and a "precursor of what much of American politics will be in the future" as demographic changes reduce the strength of the white vote in many populous states.

Now, when people like Tucker Carlson say that the Democrats are hoping to benefit from demographic change it is called a vile conspiracy theory. It matches the very definition of gaslighting.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, just ask Tucker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement#United_States

[swood1000]

Which of the following shows the person to be a vile racist and conspiracy theorist:

• A belief that changing demographics may be more advantageous to one political party than to another, in that from an economic standpoint those of certain demographics can be expected to support certain social policies more than others.

• A sense of disappointment if the predicted losing party is one’s own, or glee on the other side.

• To the extent that immigration is a significant factor in this, a desire to impede the immigration of those expected to support the economic policies of the opposite party, and accelerate the immigration of those expected to support the policies of one’s own party. For example, some expect that immigrants without skills or education are more likely to favor higher taxes and greater government aid to the poor. Supporters of these policies might therefore believe that immigration policy should prefer those immigrants.

[Sarcastr0]

You skipped over the part where the Elites are pushing policies specifically to create this demographic shift.

Because there is no evidence that's going on. And it's a 40 year plan. Democrats are not able to instantiate a 40 year plan, much less keep it secret.

[Ben_]

^ The capital letters that make it a strawman.

Sarcastr0 wants to tell you that very, very specific allegations aren’t true. Despite all the general, similar stuff type see so many Dems quoted as saying.

[Randal]

What you've described is probably more true of the right's motivations for "impeeding" immigration than it is for the left... especially now that Tucker's been fear-mongering about it. I mean at some level of indirection through policy preferences, you get to something obviously true like... the Democrat's appeal is fundamentally about good government -- their central message to voters is that they know how to make government work well -- and that includes immigration. Immigrants might be expected to appreciate that message, having immigrated after all. So by making government work well for immigrants, the Democrats are hoping for their votes...? I mean, sure.

But none of that is a very good description of The Great Replacement theory (Tucker's version) which for some reason (ok we know the reason) is explicitly racial. He's not saying that poor people are going to come in and replace rich(er) people as in your telling. He's not saying that immigrants are going to appreciate the Democrats' efforts and reward them with votes as in my telling. He's saying that brown people are going to come in and replace white people.

[Nelson]

"Democrats have taken a more permissive approach toward illegal immigration on the southern border"

More illegal immigrants were deported during Barack Obama's presidency than any other in history. In the first 4 years of his presidency he deported 50% more illegal immigrants than Donald Trump.

I know conservatives likes to act like Democrats are the party of open borders, but data doesn't support that assertion. Trump didn't even deport as many people in his one term than Bush or Clinton did.

Of the four presidents in the last 30 years (Biden doesn't have a full term yet to compare), Trump is last in deportations. He talked a big game but, as usual, what he said and what he did were very, very different things.

Replacement Theory isn't about illegal immigration, since illegal immigrants can't vote. It is about legal immigrants and minority citizens. It is a theorybthat says they are a danger to the US. An existential threat. That they will destroy America. And that they need to be stopped by any means necessary, including violence.

Trying to sanitize it like you and Soldiermedic keep doing is either raw partisan apologism (if you are ignorant of what the theory entails) or pro-white-nationalist extremism (if you know what it is and approve).

The reason it is "being described as a vile and assuredly false conspiracy theory that no respectable person can hold" is because it is.

Pretending that demographic changes in America constitute "Replacement Theory" is like pretending that the Buffalo terrorist was just taking target practice. It isn't remotely the same thing.

[swood1000]

I know conservatives likes to act like Democrats are the party of open borders, but data doesn't support that assertion.

So your position is that if Trump had been re-elected it would have made no difference with respect to illegal immigration on the southern border?

Replacement Theory isn't about illegal immigration, since illegal immigrants can't vote.

The estimated number of children to illegal immigrants in 2014 was 287,000. These people can vote when they reach 18. It was in part these people, and those from other years, that Castro was referring to when he said, “The Hispanic vote in Texas will continue to increase. By 2024 Democrats can win Texas, Arizona and Florida. A big blue wall of 78 electoral votes.” It’s about winning elections for Democrats. Are you saying that this phenomenon has been nowhere in the thinking process of Democrats?

[Harvey Mosley]

Hmm. I seem to remember constant admonitions that expecting Muslims to repudiate Muslim extremists was really super duper extra anti Muslim badness. Is this now not really super duper extra anti Muslim badness? Or is this just different because Reeeeeee!!!1!!!1!!!!!?

[Harvey Mosley]

For what it's worth I don't believe that any "race" or ethnic group is superior to any other. I think some individuals in every group are stupid, evil, or both. No one should be judged by their background, "race", orientation, religion, ethnic group, etc. People should be judged by their actions.

These people:
Dylann Roof -- Charleston
James Alex Fields -- Charlottesville
Robert Bowers -- Pittsburgh
Patrick Crucius -- El Paso
Payton Grendon -- Buffalo

and these people
Frank James
Lee Boyd Malvo
Timothy George Simpkins
Phillip Adams
Christopher Dorner

are evil.

And I would add the cops who were shooting up innocent victims while going after Dorner are as bad as anyone on these lists.

[not guilty]

We haven´t had a major political party ginning up the grievances of the latter category.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Democrats are not a major political party?

[Harvey Mosley]

This was in response to Lathrop's hypothetical just below. Can we get an edit feature please?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Mosely — You didn't even want a response. You wanted a subject change.

[Kazinski]

What's it got to do with Republicans?

None of those men had any affiliation or affection for the GOP. And none of the beliefs they spouted are part of Republican ideology.

Now I will say there is something that may help in squelching the fringe white supremacists movement, that is quit making everything about race. The more race and perceived racial differences are emphasized the the more contentious racial relations will be.

And don't blame the state of racial relations on Trump, according to Gallup's long running racial relations poll, perceptions of relationships between Blacks and Whites took a sharp downturn around 2013.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/Race-Relations.aspx

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you honestly show up to every discussion having freshly pulled your head out of the sand, or is the ignorance you display just a façade?

[Kazinski]

Heh. Stumped you, didn't I?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your ability to form egregiously wrong conclusions is already established. You don't need to keep proving it still exists.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Here is one for 2A enthusiasts, a hypothetical. If you agree not to respond by fighting the hypothetical, there may be something to discover in the responses. Here it is:

In the future, replacement theory goes over the edge, into full-on organized terrorism. Lone nutcases attacking to resist replacement—attacking with an expectation of being killed, or at least caught—get replaced themselves.

Instead, true-believing militia type terrorists become the norm. They organize mass murders, attack multiple targets simultaneously, work in teams, and expect to escape and do it again. By surprise, by initiative, by audacity, and by superior fire power used during brief hit-and-run mass killings, they expect not to be killed in the attempt, but to escape unharmed. They do that for overt political reasons, which they publicize. They kill to oppose the tyranny of replacement.

I do not think that is likely. I do not think it is impossible. I want to know this: if it happened, what would be the right response by the federal government?

Does the federal government treat domestic militias as it would treat foreign terrorists in like cases? I assume foreign terrorists attacking in teams to shoot up schools, murder customers and staff in supermarkets, and end the lives of parishioners, would be shot down wherever and whenever they were found. If they did not surrender immediately upon being identified, they would be killed on the spot. That would extend to everyone judged by government to be actively associating with foreign attackers, sheltering them, or contributing materially to their support. In that, a vast majority of Americans would concur, and condemn any less harsh response as inadequate, if not disloyal. If it were foreign attackers.

But what do 2A enthusiasts say in a like case involving domestic militia members? If they are likewise doing well-organized mass terror killings of innocents, but in the name of resisting, "replacement," should the government kill them without mercy? Should they all surrender or die, wherever found, and without regard to whether an actual attack is in progress? Should their supporters and enablers be treated likewise? Surrender or die for all movement members, until the terroristic Replacement Theory movement is wiped out?

Let's hear what you think—but please, no boring objections to the hypothetical. The premise is as stated above, with a government no more tyrannical than you think it is now. One point I am particularly interested in: how much violent terrorism do 2A enthusiasts think present levels of government tyranny can justify?

[DaivdBehar]

All law abiding citizens should take gun safety in high school. All should conceal carry. If a video shows one failed to fire on a violent attacker, a $100 fine. It should be a legal duty to kill all violent people on the spot.

[AmosArch]

I'll save you some time masturbating to your reverse Turner Diaries fantasy. Leftists (until they see this response and try to hide their bloodlust) will be for merciless slaughter of opposing political terrorits and will twist their moral justification in the opposite direction from the generosity they'd show a terrorist of the correct politics.

OTOH The more 'correct' answer obviously is that politics is irrelevant for both the crime and the question and same punishment should be be given for a political crime as the equivalent non political crime. But you knew that and just wanted to fap to a race war.

[dwb68]

LMAO not even Justice Breyer would ask such a long winded pointless hypothetical. What is the actual question? Can you boil down to maybe three sentences?

[Michael P]

No, he cannot. As always, the more he writes, the less it's worth reading.

[Ridgeway]

I suspect most 2A enthusiasts would respond that your hypo has precisely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Summarily executing terrorists does implicate the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments. You may recall that there was quite a substantial amount of debate on this back in the early 2000s.

[Michael P]

Yes, but who was the first President to (openly) order the assassination of an American citizen over terrorism, with no judicial process? It was not a Republican! It took a Democrat to take that bold stance for gun control! (/s)

[not me]

Well, it does depend on your definition of assassination.
But the first President to (openly) order the killing of an American citizen over [violent opposition to the legal authority of the government] was a Federalist.

[Michael D]

You want a government response? Why? Are you operating under the false premise the government is actually securing liberty? From the perspective of groups like BLM, the government is the greatest danger to liberty.

So suppose your hypothetical takes place. Do you think the BLM and people who have been deprived of their rights since 1619 (according to their own words) are going to look to that same government to suddenly protect them? Or will they take self-defensive measures and protect themselves individually and in groups?

If you believe that some sort of government confiscation of firearms is the correct response, I doubt that does anything more than to create even more armed resistance.

If you believe bans on certain weapons is a solution, you ignore the secondary market in firearms, the black market in firearms and the rapidly developing ability for individuals to manufacture weapons at a level of quality equal to retail weapons. In some cases probably better.

And not to worry, demand will only increase as the government cracks down even more. By that, I mean demand for black market firearms.

If there is anything about the drug war which is lost on you it ought to be an understanding of just how ineffective prohibition is and that for every person charged with drug crimes, there are many more ready to take their place to meet the demand. The federal government’s war on drugs has done an excellent job creating a black market, driving the consumption of increasingly more potent drugs and indirectly causing countless deaths via conflict created by the black market it creates. What makes anyone believe the same would not occur if the government sought to prohibit firearms?

[Stephen Lathrop]

What makes anyone believe the same would not occur if the government sought to prohibit firearms?

The fact that the analogy is broken. You are talking about contraband, and a continuing market for it. That means easily concealable, light weight, extremely expensive commodities, sold by repeat transactions through reliable distributors. A 220-pound shipment of cocaine sells for about 40-times what a smuggler can get for the same weight in ARs, which are larger, harder to ship, and harder to conceal. Once the customer gets his AR, he may want another sometime. He will not want a continuous supply. The guy who sells ARs has to prospect for new customers all the time. Each new contact is a source not only of law enforcement risk, but deadly personal risk as well. The guy who sells the ARs retail can mark them up, but not near so much as the guy who sells cocaine. His customers beat a path to his door, and they keep buying.

Smuggling guns is an extremely risky, not-very-profitable business, unless you can set yourself up as a supplier for a whole war. Smuggling drugs is far less risky, much more profitable, and scales flexibly almost everywhere. Forget the bullshit drug sales analogy.

Plus which, I am not talking about prohibiting firearms.

[Michael D]

So gun smuggling is not lucrative enough unless you are in a gun control state complaining about straw purchases from other states?

And I believe the analogy is quite apt. You flippant dismissal as a “bullshit drug analogy” ignores efforts by the UN which tie the two together: https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/07/1068451

No, you are not talking about gun control but you asked the question in such a way as to present an argument in favor of gun control to prevent the outcome you describe in your scenario.

You also conveniently ignore the concepts of self defense, group defense and a concern among many in minority communities for the government and law enforcement specifically.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What is, "group defense?"

[Brett Bellmore]

"Does the federal government treat domestic militias as it would treat foreign terrorists in like cases?"

I don't see how they legally could, in as much as domestic militias consist of citizens, and foreign terrorists consist of non-citizens, and so they stand in a different relationship to our government, and legally so.

A further point is that the treatment of foreign terrorists you're referring to is how they're treated outside US territory, often in war zones. Again, legally relevant.

If the US government started treating its own citizens, in the US, in the manner it treats foreign nationals outside the US, wouldn't that actually suggest that there was a problem that maybe justified an armed response by the citizenry?

Does that answer your question adequately, without fighting the rather over the top hypothetical?

"One point I am particularly interested in: how much violent terrorism do 2A enthusiasts think present levels of government tyranny can justify?"

Essentially none, outside of very isolated circumstances, as we still appear to have a functioning democracy.

The militia movement in the US started catching on in the late 80's and early 90's in the context of our government starting to commit what can only be characterized as atrocities. Ruby Ridge and Waco were not isolated incidents, they were the culmination of a trend. The feds were doing things like burning people alive in their homes, and each time they got away with it, it got worse.

But the militia movement only responded by preparation, not terrorism. The OK bombing was committed, not by a militia, but by a couple of guys who tried joining one and were thrown out.

The militia movement, far from being a perpetrator of atrocity, was a reaction to it.

[Michael P]

The Constitution mostly applies to foreign nationals who are within the borders of the United States, though. That's why the camp at Guantanamo Bay was such a big deal: The government could at least pretend it was a largely Constitution-free zone.

But pointing out that Lathrop is as hilariously wrong as usual would be "fighting the hypothetical".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, what makes me, "wrong," about an admittedly long-shot speculation about the future? Do you claim perfect foresight?

Also, are you dodging out on our book review project? You told me I did not know anything about history. I suggested we each read a book about history, suggested by the other, and comment about it here—with an eye to helping bystanders judge for themselves. Because you had generously suggested a book for me, I replied with a suggestion for you. But you have not answered. Did that book scare you?

[John F. Carr]

By current law or custom, police can shoot if you so much as twitch a finger while armed, as long as you're the right kind of person. If your group is considered fringe they can take you out paramilitary style like the Branch Davidians. These hypothetical anti-replacement groups would be vulnerable to FBI infiltration and a lot of them would go down in a hail of gunfire when they do not surrender immediately. I don't see in your hypothetical anything fundamentally different, only the same old stuff on a much larger scale and requiring a much larger response.

Your hypothetical assumes widespread support for harsh measures. That is essential to sustaining this level of government violence. Excessive force is tolerated when done to bad people and not when done to good people. Remember we went from Ruby Ridge (woman shot dead while holding a baby) to Waco (dozens of children died) to Oklahoma City in three years.

[Stephen Lathrop]

John F. Carr, a gang of tactical-gear anti-replacement white militiamen—repeatedly shooting up supermarkets in black neighborhoods—would those be bad people or good people—as judged by your standard of public acceptance of harsh measures to stop them?

[John F. Carr]

The militiamen shooting up supermarkets will be considered legitimate targets as long as they are in a group by themselves. What if they live with their families? Vicki Weaver and the children of Waco made for bad press. What if the terrorist gathering is claimed to be a wedding, and because it's local news America doesn't forget all about it a day later?

[Stephen Lathrop]

That is a bit closer to responsive. Why not go on. Tell me whether America will feel sympathy for acknowledged domestic terrorists—who have been killing men, women, and children at supermarkets in black neighborhoods—because the terrorists were killed at an alleged wedding. If the answer is that some Americans would feel sympathy even without the wedding, I can believe that. Is it your view that means domestic terrorists ought not be treated alike with foreign ones? If you do think that, what do you suppose black people would think about it?

[Longtobefree]

I would expect the same response as when this actually happened multiple times over the summer of 2020.

[Krayt]

This has a technical name: disasterbation

[Bubba Jones]

2A isn't a right to commit terrorism.

So in that regard, is it "fighting the hypothetical" to respond "WTF does that have to do with the second amendment?"

[Gasman]

The oath of office for the president, senators, representatives, and all members of the armed forces begins with this sentence:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

So yeah, once one is identified as a domestic, or foreign, participant of an armed group attempting to overthrow the rule of law through attacks on civilian targets, they get the full Marine treatment.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Gasman, notice how many commenters slip this way, or slide that way, to avoid giving it your forthright interpretation?

[Harvey Mosley]

Any foreign invaders doing what you describe should be treated like enemy soldiers or unlawful combatants depending whichever of the two they are. Anyone who is not a foreign invader deserves due process. Or do you think that all gang members should be shot down wherever they are found? Or the people responsible for CHOP or CHAD or whatever they called it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

In the hypothetical I posed above, please confine yourself to answering on behalf of recommended government response. I am not interested in romantic conjectures about private suppression of the Replacement Theory.

[Don Nico]

I have noticed that the left-wing characterization of and response to "Replacement Theory" is about as unhinged as the right wing characterization of and response to "Critical Race Theory."
Both seem to be catnip to tribalist wingnuts.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, how does a, "left-wing" response to Replacement Theory differ from a bog-standard response to Replacement Theory?

[Don Nico]

I have no idea SL.
I never even hear of "Replacement Theory " before reading about it here. And here is is just a leftist conspiracy theory.

[Nelson]

Look up David Lane from the 90s or The Turner Diaries drom the 70s. Or turn on Tucker Carlson pretty much any night in the last few years.

Replacement Theory is a well-established white nationalist rallying cry (remember "You will not replace us" and "Jews will not replace us" from the white nationalists in Charlottesville ?). It is neither obscure nor benign.

[not guilty]

The Department of Justice has requested transcripts of the testimony of witnesses interviewed by the House January 6 investigating committee. The chairman of the committee has refused this request. https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/jan-6-panel-rejects-justice-departments-transcript-request-capitol-riot-insurrection-committee-interview-subpoenas-issued-attack-on-democracy-largest-criminal-investigation-in-us-history

That refusal is inexplicable. The House committee is not at cross-purposes with any DOJ criminal investigation. Why is the committee unwilling to cooperate?

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — Like Josh Blackman, I speculate.

For months I have speculated that the glacial pace of the House investigation—and especially its pusillanimous treatment of defiant witnesses—indicated a misplaced sense of opportunity. The leaders seemed all along to want a political show trial, where members get to preen in front of the cameras, during election season. They worry that if they turn over evidence to the Justice Department now, members could rightly be chastised for TV performances said to compromise cases.

[AmosArch]

Yeah those teams of far left Dems with years of political experience are too soft on those evil Trumpists. They should take pointers from random internet commentators. Orangemanbad69 and not guilty are on the case uncovering the Republican devilry seasoned professional Washington DC operatives can't.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose they don't want a premature reveal of the fact that there's nothing there.

[not guilty]

DOJ in all likelihood would not reveal anything while the House committee is still sitting. And in any event, there´s plenty there based on the House´s and John Eastman´s submissions to the district court in California. Judge Carter laid out a road map to indict under 18 U.S.C. sections 371 and 1512(c)(2). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

[Armchair Lawyer]

Because the House committee isn't doing a criminal investigation. It's doing a political operation.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That refusal is inexplicable.

Only if you're too dumb to recognize the difference between an actual investigation and political Kabuki theater.

[AmosArch]

What percentage of cryptocurrency is actually used as a currency and not a speculative instrument?

Why does nobody big or small seem to care or have any long term game plan to move cryptocurrency from being used almost exclusively as a gambling token to...you know an being used as a currency? I mean they must value the stability of their investments right since plenty are hodling long term? Do they believe the crypto as a casino era will last forever?

How many people have actually gotten rich off crypto (directly)? I know plenty of thirdhand stories but for the most part they seem to be very obscure figures who never cash out to any major degree and just plough the bulk of their wealth back into crypto.

What is the value add of jpeg crypto/NFTs? What can they do that regular crypto can't? People do realize that a notation on a virtual ledger indicating some other notation is 'unique' does not inherently give you ownership of anything right? I mean I can see use cases like NFTs serving as some weird alternate certification that someone owns some physical property but whats the deal with 'owning' 'rare' jpeg NFTs in and of themselves?

[Brett Bellmore]

Bitcoin is kind of doomed in that regard, as the transaction costs are too high.

I don't think digital currencies have any near term prospects; Governments have woken to the threat to their monopoly on creating currency, the digital currencies would have had to have been established prior to that awakening. It's hard to roll one out once the foe is active.

But, what do I know? If I'd invested in dogecoin when my 12 year old urged me, I'd be retired now.

[Krayt]

Yeah, $100 to buy tens of thousands of bitcoins, or dogecoins, when it was a small fraction of a penny, what a colossal waste of money, even as a lark!

I also declined to buy cool small 3-letter .com names back in the day. $70 per year!

[ducksalad]

I've got a family member (so now it's only a 2nd hand story for you) who did in fact do well in Bitcoin and then converted a large fraction of it into real estate. Low seven digits, which may or may not qualify as rich these days.

Of course the reason he did the conversion was fear it would all collapse, which kind of reinforces your point.

[David Bremer]

Our friend/realtor does a lot of work in the area. About a year ago, when we were moving and talking about prices, he told us that he had multiple clients who were in their low 20s, invested in crypto early on, and, as a result, built huge portfolios. They were cashing out their positions and seven-figure expensive homes using crypto gains.

So story fits with the second-hand stories I'v heard as well.

[David Bremer]

I'm glad someone else is seeing cryptocurrencies for what they are: gambling tokens, with the added benefit of facilitating criminality and black-market transactions. Oh, with the benefit of using up enormous amounts of electricity and CPUs.

When we were all locked at home, there were no sports (and sports gambling), and people were getting shoveled government money, it was easy to throw some money down and take a spin. Same thing happened with meme stocks. Now that we're returning somewhat to normal (despite rising Covid levels), we have other thing to gamble on and Bitcoin and others are falling by the wayside.

[AmosArch]

If only it actually was good for black market transactions and criminality then it would have more of a use. As it is currently. Kinda hard with a giant public ledger recording your every move floating around for anyone to see and governments proving they can do whatever they want with crypto if they really want to.

[Bubba Jones]

Cryptocurrency isn't anonymous, and it's not a hedge against inflation of the US Dollar.

The only remaining use is speculation.

[not guilty]

Three Wisconsin voters (including two who were Biden electors) have filed a civil lawsuit in state court seeking damages and other relief against twelve defendants, including ten Wisconsinites who falsely represented that they were ¨the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Wisconsin.¨ https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f88891b1bd57b085dc121d1/t/6282c1ef38cd5812db5d2abf/1652736562020/fraudulent+electors+complaint+may+2022

I am not familiar with Wisconsin law, but as much as I would like to see the bogus electors get their comeuppance, I have doubts as to whether these plaintiffs can establish standing to sue. Where is the injury in fact to these plaintiffs, as distinct from injury to the public in general?

[ducksalad]

If they've prepped properly they created a paper trail of visits to psychiatrists and counselors. Medical expenses. Mental anguish, emotional distress, perhaps no longer able to work or perform sexually.

[John F. Carr]

The relief requested (complaint pages 53-54) is

1. A declaration that the defendants were bad.

2. A declarations that the defendants committed a public nuisance. (Under Wisconsin law a judge has discretion to allow a private person to sue to abate a public nuisance.)

3. An injunction against trying this crap again.

4. Money (for item 1).

5. More money (for item 2).

6. Even more money (punitive damages).

7. Fines and damages under election law, including to the electors "damages caused by ... usurpation of the office to which they are entitled."

8. Whatever else they want to ask for later.

9. Attorney's fees.

10. Whatever else they want to ask for later.

11. An order that defendants send a copy of the judgment to various interested parties, such as the Archivist of the United States.

In my opinion they don't deserve anything because they were not harmed (the right votes were counted), and the state is the better plaintiff in actions on behalf of the state.

[not guilty]

The actions of the bogus electors pretty clearly violate federal criminal statutes -- 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy to commit an offense or defraud the United States) and 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(3) (making of false writing or document). I don´t know what state statutes may be implicated. The appropriate remedy here is criminal prosecution.

[Bob from Ohio]

" The appropriate remedy here is criminal prosecution."

I just can't believe you were a defense lawyer with your lust for revenge.

[not guilty]

I have represented clients who were as vile as Donald Trump, although they operated on a much smaller scale. On these comment threads I don´t have a client to represent, and I am free to vent my outrage at Trump and his ilk.

[Moderation4ever]

Would the two plaintiffs who were Biden electors have standing as the defendants were attempting to take away their vote?

The fake Wisconsin electors are in greater jeopardy as they did not preface their actions to stand in as electors by saying if the Wisconsin vote is overturned. A number of other fake electors did cover their backsides with regard to this point.

Overall it is good to see push back from the working folk of the 2020 election. Many people, my wife and myself, included worked to make the election fair and accurate and I resent attempts to make poll workers and election officials scapegoats in service to the vanity of an ex-President.

[not guilty]

It was an unsuccessful attempt. No harm, no foul.

[Doug Huffman]

A concern for Trump’s age has been found and the 2024 ticket complete; Trump DeSantis 2024.

#LGB FJB TDS 2024.

Not your mother’s Trump Derangement Syndrome anymore. TDS 2024

[not guilty]

Trump and DeSantis are both from Florida. Under the Twelfth Amendment, Florida´s electors could not vote for both.

[apedad]

Had to look that up....

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. . . ."

[Ridgeway]

This issue came up on VC back in 2020 (which is how I became aware of it).

The upshot, IIRC, was that the FL electors would have to choose whether to vote for the candidate for President or Vice President.
Likely they would choose President, so it would be possible for Trump to win, but have a Democratic VP. However, if the lack of FL electors causes no candidate for VP to have a majority, the VP election would go to the Senate.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is a serious obstacle to what would otherwise look to be an attractive ticket. Keep an eye out for Trump changing his state of residence, if he does that in the next year or so it would be an indication this is a serious prospect.

[Bob from Ohio]

Under the Twelfth Amendment, Texas electors could not vote for both Bush and Cheney either. Magically, Cheney was from Wyoming.

[Nelson]

Cheney's always been from Wyoming. He was their US Representative, for God's sake.

[Moderation4ever]

If Trump run in 2024 he will not pick DeSantis. He will pick a flunky. He does not want to upstaged by anyone. Even Pence proved to be too strong a personality. Look for someone in the mold of Spiro Agnew.

BTW - if Trump run in 2024 look for the NRP to eliminate primaries in any state it can.

[Bob from Ohio]

Kristi Noem is the betting favorite I think.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's quite common for parties with incumbent Presidents who want to run again to skip holding Presidential primaries. Holding them, particularly where the President is unopposed, is a waste of resources.

You're right that Trump would prefer a total flunky. That doesn't mean he will be able to pull it off, by 2024 he'll be older than dirt, and facing significant concerns that he needs a VP who can hit the ground running if something medical happens. Further, if DeSantis decides to run, the VP slot would be the easiest way to buy him off, and it would be obvious to both of them that running against each other would just give the party establishment a chance to nominate another Bush.

[Moderation4ever]

The former President is not an incumbent. He does have power in state level Republican parties and I don't think he wants any competition.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's the next best thing to an incumbent.

But, really, while you might see some states switching from primaries to caucuses, and maybe closing primaries, I don't see much chance of not having primaries; Trump is popular with everyone in the GOP except the people who'd be making that call.

[not guilty]

Several Texas lawyers are seeking a bar disciplinary investigation of Ted Cruz. https://the65project.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Ethics-Complaint-Against-Senator-Ted-Cruz.pdf

Cruz is a loathsome human being, but I am unpersuaded by the allegations of the complaint. The crux of the matter seems to be that during December 2020 Cruz agreed to represent Donald Trump and a group of Pennsylvania Republicans before the Supreme Court in two lawsuits that SCOTUS declined to hear. The suits were palpably without merit, but Cruz never made an appearance in either matter, so he did not make any representation(s) to any tribunal regarding the merits. The remaining allegations of the complaint relate more to Cruz´s actions as a senator than his actions as an attorney.

[David Nieporent]

Moreover, whatever else one thinks of Cruz, he's a very good lawyer. He knew those cases were going absolutely nowhere. So his agreement with Trump was about keeping Trump happy, not about actually planning to file anything with the Court (or any court).

[Commenter_XY]

David...Is that quality - knowing the case is going nowhere - a quality that you use to distinguish between a very good lawyer and a mediocre lawyer?

There is a lot to 'unpack' in your statement: "He knew those cases were going absolutely nowhere". I totally agree. But is that level of understanding (knowing the case is going nowhere) the criterion between a very good lawyer and a mediocre lawyer?

My follow-up...If yes, how does a layman like me sort out the wheat from the chaff when they need a very good (not mediocre) lawyer? How do you 'screen' for that?

[ThePublius]

"David...Is that quality - knowing the case is going nowhere - a quality that you use to distinguish between a very good lawyer and a mediocre lawyer?"

That is a syllogistic response. David didn't sat Cruz was a good lawyer because he know the cases were going nowhere, he said that Cruz was a good lawyer, and as such, knew the cases were going nowhere.

[Commenter_XY]

How does a layman like me 'screen' for this quality when I need legal help? Because the 'very good' lawyer is what I would need.

[Ridgeway]

Ask other lawyers for a recommendation.

[Commenter_XY]

I have on occasion Ridgeway (meaning, asked for recommendation), and have never heard a lawyer say (or even indicate) that so and so is a 'mediocre' lawyer, but this other one is 'very good'. I get what you're saying, and it makes total sense. But the reality I have encountered doesn't line up.

[Kazinski]

If you can get Ted Cruz and can afford him you should take him.

He has argued 9 cases in front of the Supreme Court so he's got a lot of experience there. And it's not a forum where it's easy to hide incompetence or mediocrity.

[David Nieporent]

David...Is that quality - knowing the case is going nowhere - a quality that you use to distinguish between a very good lawyer and a mediocre lawyer?

Not in this particular case; it distinguishes between a baseline lawyer and a non compos mentis one.

I wasn't saying that he needed to be very good to make that determination; I was merely saying that because he is, he would make that determination.

[Commenter_XY]

Understood.

[apedad]

16 Months Since the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/16-months-jan-6-attack-capitol

Some stats about arrests, charges, pleas, sentencing, etc.

[John F. Carr]

See also the companion page with a detailed list of cases, https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

Publishing that detailed list of defendants is a good use of taxpayer dollars, in my opinion, whether you think the attack was heroism or treason.

[apedad]

If you sort by the Entry Last Updated column, there sure are a lot of still pending cases (or the database hasn't been updated).

[dwb68]

Generally I am in agreement with David Lat, the SCOTUS leaker is a left leaning law clerk, who will out themselves in a resignation letter after the term ends. I don't think that the leaker believes that there will be any consequences, or if there are, they are worth it because the true believers are essentially Marxists looking to destroy institutions.

Where I disagree: While the leaker will claim that the Justice that they work for didn't know, it will permanently stain the Justice for showing such poor hiring decisions. I think its Sotomayor, and she will have to resign.

[David Nieporent]

Spoiler alert: you are delusional. She would not 'have to resign.' And she would not, of course, resign.

[dwb68]

Plausible deniability is only a thing people believe in movies. People simply wont believe she didn't know or implicitly encourage it. The pressure to resign will come both from within the court and without.

[ducksalad]

You realize every SC justice probably has dozens or more e-mails, tweets, op-eds, etc, every day, urging that they resign, be impeached, or worse. Anyone sensitive to that kind of thing wouldn't be there.

[David Nieporent]

Unless 67 senators believe it, said pressure would be irrelevant.

[Michael P]

Courts traditionally emphasize avoiding "the appearance of impropriety" more than the other branches. But what's tradition good for, anyhow?

[Sarcastr0]

Have any of your predictions ever come true?

[Commenter_XY]

dwb68...Lat wrote an article about Yale law school students (with the email written by Judge Silberman as a part of the article) recently that gives me pause. I wonder if what we see now at Yale is truly commonplace in our nation's law schools. I had not ever heard of David Lat (I did see my first reference to him right here at VC...I learn things here) before, but I'll check out more of his articles. He is asking the right questions (to me) and asking the right questions is important to me.

Short of a SCOTUS Justice being shown to have leaked a document (like on video - not testimony), resignation is not in the cards for any of them. I would not ask Justice Sotomayor to resign if one her clerks was the leaker. As a general proposition, do you punish the parent for the sins of the child? No, you do not.

[dwb68]

This is his piece I referred to: https://davidlat.substack.com/p/what-the-scotus-leaker-might-say?s=r

Its doesn't matter what you would ask; its not even about proof. Perception in politics is often the reality.

[Commenter_XY]

That is true in business as well: Rightly or wrongly, perception is reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL. Why would she have to resign in your scenario? She could announce tomorrow that she was the leaker, and she wouldn't have to resign. She's got the job for life, barring impeachment.

[not guilty]

Actually, each justice has the job during good behavior. If a justice were shown to be the leaker, I can envision some grandstanding in Congress about impeachment. (But not while Democrats control the Senate.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, and "good behavior" just refers to the prospect of impeachment. But while impeaching only takes a majority in the House, conviction requires a supermajority in the Senate, and even if the Democrats lose the Senate, they're not going to end up so reduced that anybody they're not also enraged at can be convicted.

[dwb68]

You are right she could be lump for the rest of her life. I don't see it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Lump"?

Look, if she was the leaker, and came out and said so, the very preconditions for that being true, in terms of her ethical and political beliefs, would tend to preclude her resigning over it. Could YOU resign over having done what you think was the right thing to do?

Whereas, if it was one of her clerks, unless she directed them to do it, how is that rationally on her? Again, no reason to resign.

[Sarcastr0]

She's lump, she's lump, she's lump...

[Estragon]

Carini had a lumpy head

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, they opened up the Sussman trial...in Washington DC. A number of interesting facts about the Judge and Juror pool were apparent.

1. The Judge's wife is apparently the lead lawyer for Lisa Page.
2. The Judge apparently also was associates with Sussman in the 1990s
3. The Juror pool was...unusually Democratic...with up to 1/3 of the Jurors having donated to the Clinton Campaign or worked for the Clinton Campaign in some capacity (like operating phone banks).

Hmm... Me thinks the trial should be moved to a more neutral area.

[not guilty]

Are you overlooking that pesky Sixth Amendment right to a trial by a jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Did you miss the "impartial jury" part?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know what impartial means?
Your guilt by association and position that Democratic donors cannot be fair seems to indicate you do not.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Just saying...when you donate sizable sums to a particular candidate. And then a lawyer associated with that particular candidate comes up in a criminal trial related to that candidate....

Seems you may have already made known that you favor one side.

[not guilty]

The Special Counsel had an opportunity to seek recusal if he deemed it warranted. I surmise that he made a tactical choice not to do so.

[David Nieporent]

Where did you get "sizable sums" from?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Likely from a 'sizable bum.'

[Bob from Ohio]

"Your guilt by association "

Oh, now you worry about guilt by association.

First post using guilt by association to tar every GOPer as ultra-racist, no problem with that. In fact, you supported the comment.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think every GOPer is ultra-racist.
For instance, I think you're awful for lots of reasons, but I haven't seen you be racist.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don't think every GOPer is ultra-racist."

Then why didn't you admonish "not guilty" like you did Armchair?

[Sarcastr0]

Couple of reasons.

First, because he didn't call the GOP uber-racist, just asked for them to do more work in repudiating White Replacement. Which seems a small ask they and you are unwilling to do.

Second, because what I have fun doing here is putting the silly things conservatives say to the test, and watching y'all either splutter of more often double down into some amazing and hilarious places.

I sometimes call out folks on the left when I'm moved to, but it's not the fun that I come here for.

You've known I'm openly partisan in where I train my critical eye for years now; did you forget?

[Brett Bellmore]

"just asked for them to do more work in repudiating White Replacement. Which seems a small ask they and you are unwilling to do."

Why should we? While there are versions of this theory that are clearly nuts, there are versions that are just a matter of not blindly ignoring what's going on. Most Western governments combine largely anti-natal policies for citizens, with an effort to address the birth shortfall by importing third worlders. You see it all over the place.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it'd be important to explain what parts are nuts and what parts are legit.

Also, too, what are the policies to lower the birth rate you see? Seems pretty well established that affluence goes along with lowered birth rate, for lots of pretty normal non-conspiratorial reasons.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the Jewish plot part is nuts, for one. And I think it's much easier to prove deliberate intent on the immigration encouragement end of things, than the birth discouragement end.

"Also, too, what are the policies to lower the birth rate you see?"

1) Legality of elective abortion. This made a huge difference.
2) Subsidized birth control.
3) Wage suppressing policies that make single income families less feasible. Including the immigration encouragement, that bids down wages! (So that increased immigration actually exacerbates the problem.)
4) Child tax credits that have been allowed to depreciate through inflation to the point where they cover only a tiny fraction of the cost of raising a child.
5) Possibly the biggest element here was instituting old age pensions, which had the effect of rendering the next generation a commons. Individual costs and socialized benefits always result in under-production.

Now, I don't think all these policies were adopted consciously in order to reduce native reproduction. Mostly without caring about the impact they'd have in that regard, actually.

But that the immigration laxness was intended to replace the Americans who weren't being born? It's hardly even deniable.

[Sarcastr0]

1) and 2) are upshots in women having more participation in the workplace and policymaking. Associated with more advanced societies.

3) is...dubious. Immigration makes single families less economically viable?! There's a lot of assumptions in there I don't think you can support.

4) Republicans don't like entitlements. See also WIC, &c, &c. Certainly not part of any concerted effort by anyone, just collateral damage to the small government effort.

5) Is absolutely something advanced societies do. It's actually a baseline responsibility of all societies, but less advanced ones can't regularize it.

So yeah, I agree this is nothing like a concerted effort. It's mostly inevitable, really. Except for the one that's Republican's fault and special to America.
===========
the immigration laxness was intended to replace the Americans who weren't being born? It's hardly even deniable.
Intended? Yeah, that's deniable. You've provided zero proof for that.

I see you've not put the cart before the horse in your Great Replacement Theory. Now it's a reaction to falling birth rates, not some long-timeline voting plan.

But you're still wrong.
You cannot blame the chamber of commerce for wanting cheap labor due to birth rates falling - that demand isn't driven by a lack of supply, it's driven by how cheap illegals work compared to those working above the table.

[David Nieporent]

No Western governments combine largely anti-natal policies for citizens with an effort to address the birth shortfall by importing third worlders.

[Brett Bellmore]

"5) Is absolutely something advanced societies do. It's actually a baseline responsibility of all societies, but less advanced ones can't regularize it."

And, surprise: All your 'advanced societies' are way below replacement birth levels. Why, it's almost as though all 'advanced societies' are doing something that discourages human reproduction!

[Sarcastr0]

...What are you arguing against here, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm arguing that Western nations have gotten into a trap, they've become addicted to policies that discourage reproduction. So their citizens don't replace themselves.

So those governments, openly or covertly, attempt to replace the missing children by large scale immigration from the only parts of the world that still have enough kids, the 3rd world. THAT part of the "replacement" actually is intentional.

But bringing those immigrants in suppresses wages, and thus birth rates, feeding back into the original problem.

And, even if you think that bringing in huge numbers of 3rd worlders is a good idea, rather than being culturally fatal, it's not sustainable, because the 3rd world isn't going to STAY poor and fecund. There is no way around finding a means to get the people already living in the West to reproduce, so we might as well stop applying (Toxic!) bandages, and be about the business of fixing the actual problem.

The US was late to this problem, as recently as 20 years ago we were still at replacement. There's still hope WE can turn things around. The rest of the West? They're so deep into the birth dearth they're probably doomed: A hundred years from now there might be countries that are called "France", and "England", and "Italy", but they'll just be names on a map, those cultures will be gone. They're dying even today.

****

What I'm saying here is that there IS a "replacement" going on, and there's no sense in telling people to stop believing their lying eyes. Sure, cranks will invent plots and elaborate stupid details, but the replacement itself is very, very real, and a very real problem. Attacking people who notice it is a way of putting off doing something about it.

[Nelson]

"1) Legality of elective abortion. This made a huge difference."

But in the opposite direction from Replacement Theory. Abortion is utilized by minorities more than whites, so it would counteract the demographic shift, not exacerbate it.

"2) Subsidized birth control."

Birth control is control if reproduction, not elimination of it. If you want to have 3 kids, having them randomly or early isn't a net difference from having them later. It's the same number of kids.

"3) Wage suppressing policies that make single income families less feasible. Including the immigration encouragement, that bids down wages! (So that increased immigration actually exacerbates the problem.)"

The US still imports thousands of workers each year. No matter whether they are immigrants or on an H1B visa, the competition is the same. Stockholders and high-level executives getting a constantly-increasing share of profits is a larger factor in wage stagnation than immigration.

"4) Child tax credits that have been allowed to depreciate through inflation to the point where they cover only a tiny fraction of the cost of raising a child."

Why should the government provide welfare subsidies to parents at all? If you have chuldren they should be your financial burden, not the vast majority of Americans without dependent children.

"5) Possibly the biggest element here was instituting old age pensions, which had the effect of rendering the next generation a commons. Individual costs and socialized benefits always result in under-production."

But the biggest part you seem to be intentionally ignoring is tha Replacement Theory is a specific thing, and that thing is absolutely not demographic analysis. It is a theory that views minorities and immigrants as a threat to America. It identifies the loss of a white Christian majority as an existential threat to American culture. And it hints at (when not outright advocating for) the resistance to that threat, with violence if necessary.

You aren't one of the immoral partisan sociopaths who post here. Please stop acting like Replacement Theory is a benign or analytical thing. You are better than that.

[Bob from Ohio]

" because he didn't call the GOP uber-racist"

"What will it take for Republicans to repudiate white supremacy" certainly is calling Republicans ultra racists.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's asking them to repudiate white supremacy.

E.g. asking you to repudiate political violence doesn't mean I think you're politically violent.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's saying they have been supporting "white supremacy" up to now.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a quick-moving thread, Bob, maybe I just explained how 'What will it take for Republicans to repudiate white supremacy, including specifically the Great Replacement theory?' is not saying all Republicans are white supremacists.

I see not guilty talk about pandering, which is true if you count all the condoning, deflecting, denying, winking at, and allowing as pandering.

But who is saying supporting, Bob? Seems to me you brought that in yourself.

[not guilty]

Venue in the district where the crime is alleged to have committed is the prerogative of the accused. But I suspect you knew that and merely wanted to kvetch.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And yet... Prosecutors can seek a change of venue when the jury is prejudiced. And have in the past.

For example...

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-keith-davis-venue-change-request-20220311-wgqeyslgbzhcvn4gor4mbc7rxi-story.html

[not guilty]

The Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution, Article 21, states:

That in all criminal prosecutions, every man hath a right to be informed of the accusation against him; to have a copy of the Indictment, or charge, in due time (if required) to prepare for his defence; to be allowed counsel; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have process for his witnesses; to examine the witnesses for and against him on oath; and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty.

No provision there for trial in the county or political subdivision where the offense occurred, unlike in the federal Sixth Amendment. In federal court, seeking a change of venue is the exclusive prerogative of the accused.

[David Nieporent]

Did you miss the "impartial jury" part?

Even if this jury weren't impartial, that's a right of the defendant, not a right of the prosecutor.

[Sarcastr0]

Always a good sign when the idiots are already claiming the election was stolen...I mean the trial was rigged.

[OtisAH]

If you think that’s bad wait’ll you learn about Durham’s “case.”

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There isn't a single thing about the Federal Class in D.C. that is worth saving.

Nothing. They are so sickeningly corrupt.

[Ed Grinberg]

Which is why they'll go to any length to stay in power.
(fake "Russian conspiracy," real election interference, etc.)

[Moderation4ever]

I think a more interesting question is why is this case going to trial. How often do cases of lying to FBI go to trial? Usually we see them pleaded out or given up for testimony. I think Sussman knows the prosecutors don't have a winnable case.

[David Nieporent]

That doesn't seem unusually Democratic.

And working phones is not exactly like being best buds with the campaign manager or anything; the closest the average phone worker gets to a presidential candidate is seeing him/her on television.

And, no, the defendant has the constitutional right to have the trial held there.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

So I recently recieved a settlement offer from a class action files on my behalf, in an incident where a company stored credit cards, there was a hack, Yada Yada Yada,...

Me being me, refusing to just click the box "yes I want free $75" read through the thing, and I found it ... strange. For one, no one suffered any actual monetary loss. In every case, the bank's automatic scan detector got triggered, the bank called me up to confirm, the transactions were reversed, and everyone is happy.

So instead, the offer is, you can claim $75 regardless of whether or not you got hacked, or $25 for every hour spent "attempting to resolve, or working with a bank, to handle a fraudulent charge", up to 8 hours, with the stipulation that you must attest that both a fraudulent charge DID occur and it took the stated time to manage it.

I just find this interesting ... it doesn't take 8 hours to call the bank and reverse the charge. This is clearly an attempt to distingush people who actually got fraudulent charges and who didn't, which the understanding that in both cases, no one suffered any actual financial harm.

So, for presumably standing reasons (I think) you cant just have, you were hacked, this caused you some distress (it did) here is $200, its, here is $200, provided you attest it took 8 hours to manage this problem, which we both know is bullshit!

Which just makes me wonder, if a company does a bad thing, but ultimately, nothing comes of it, how is standing doctrine usually implicated for a class action? And furthermore, if you personally do not think you were harmed sufficiently to get $75, could I hypothetically refuse it, such that it goes back to the company (I'm not going to, obviously, but its a thought)

[Brett Bellmore]

I do wonder what happens to class action checks that don't get cashed. So many of them are for trivial amounts, that must be quite common.

[ducksalad]

Yup. If it's under $10 and requires any hassle at all, I'd guess the company is mostly paying the lawyers.

[David Nieporent]

That would depend on the terms of the settlement. The residual funds, if any, could be donated to a charity, or they could revert to the defendant, or they could be redistributed on a pro rata basis to class members who did put in a claim.

[Jerry B.]

"I just find this interesting ... it doesn't take 8 hours to call the bank and reverse the charge."

But it takes a while for...

"Honey, did you charge a (thing) at (store) on (date) for (amount)?" "I'm not sure. I'll check my charge account when I get home". "Oh, could that be the charge for the (thing) we got last (date)?" "I thought it was about that much."

Etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, I killed about 4 hours yesterday dealing with something like that, even had to visit the bank in person to clear things up. A real pain, and the pain isn't over yet.

[Longtobefree]

Either way, the lawyers get a bundle, right?

[Bubba Jones]

>it doesn't take 8 hours to call the bank and reverse the charge

I had a card stolen. It definitely took several hours to review my credit card statements in detail, search through my receipts to confirm or deny suspicious charges, and then ask the bank to reverse them.

Then I discovered I had accidentally disputed a couple of legitimate charges, had to go back and undispute those. etc.

Was it 8 hours? Not really. Was it $200 worth of time? Most certainly.

[not guilty]

A federal district judge has issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of part of Alabama´s law restricting transgender minors from utilizing puberty blockers and hormone therapies. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22014830-alabama-ruling The court based its ruling on parents´ fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children subject to accepted medical standards and on the guaranty of equal protection against discrimination based on gender non-conformity.

This stands in marked contrast to the Supreme Court of Texas lifting an injunction prohibiting state officials from investigating parents of transgender minors for child abuse (except as to the instant plaintiffs in that suit).

[Commenter_XY]

However, all other provisions of the Act remain in effect, specifically: (1) the provision that bans sex-altering surgeries on minors; (2) the provision prohibiting school officials from keeping certain gender-identity information of children secret from their parents; and (3) the provision that prohibits school officials from encouraging or compelling children to keep certain gender-identity information secret from their parents.

This (above) is also part of the decision.

My children are grown now, but I work with a lot of parents who have younger children. They are dealing with issues and social questions today that we did not have to just 20-25 years ago. This 'gender altering of minor children' question is one of them.

I don't normally engage with you, but I have been watching this issue for a while and wondering to myself where the line gets drawn for parental authority over their minor child. Is that the actual legal issue here? How would you articulate the legal issue in three sentences so a layman like me would 'get it'?

(I am not yanking your chain...seriously)

[not guilty]

Footnote 5 of the opinion indicates that the Plaintiffs sought an injunction only as to Section 4(a)(1)-(3) of the Act. The Plaintiffs got all the relief they had asked for.

There were three sets of Plaintiffs: the Parent Plaintiffs, the Minor Plaintiffs and the Healthcare Provider Plaintiffs. The Court upheld the right of parents to generally make decisions concerning the treatment to be given to their children, subject to a physician´s independent examination and medical judgment.

The Court ruled in favor of the Minor Plaintiffs´ equal protection claim, in that the Act prohibits transgender minors -- and only transgender minors -- from taking transitioning medications due to their gender nonconformity. That is a sex-based classification, in that it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

I hope that is helpful.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh.....Ok, yes that helps a lot. Your answer helps me understand what the 'rights clash' really is. Thanks for that.

It is a knotty question to me (meaning, multiple intersecting and conflicting legal questions and rights). As you can probably tell, my natural orientation is to look at this through the lens of parental authority over their minor children. But this case is looking at the rights of the minor child through the lens of equal protection.

Legally, is a minor child even qualified to make decisions like this? I mean, minor children don't vote. They can't buy cigarettes or liquor. They can't sign contracts. However, in some states minor children may marry (with parental permission). Does a minor child even have the competence to make a decision of this importance (to take hormones and physically alter their bodies)? The law says no (minors are not competent to make that decision) in many areas...so why is the answer 'yes, they can' here? That is where I struggle, not guilty.

Thx again for the answer. It will make me think.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If states can ban compassionate conversion therapy, why can't states ban puberty blockers and hormone therapies?

[Krychek_2]

Because conversion therapy is medical quackery; there's not a shred of evidence it actually works.

Puberty blockers and hormone therapies do work, however. They just accomplish a result you don't like.

[Longtobefree]

With the minor detail that their use for gender change is "off label" and not FDA approved. So we have a judge ruling in favor of off label use on children of powerful drugs with known, serious, side effects.

[Krychek_2]

And I think this is the first time I've ever heard you complaining about under-regulation.

Not having researched it, my suspicion is that they are approved for blocking puberty and altering the body's hormone makeup, which is what they do. *Why* someone wants to block puberty or alter the body's hormone makeup is not a concern of the FDA's.

[Longtobefree]

Not complaining; just adding a few facts to discomfit half the commentariat.

[ducksalad]

So suppose some improved version of conversion therapy "worked" some reasonable fraction of the time. Then you're saying it should be legal, or even a constitutionally protected choice?

[Krychek_2]

My view is that anyone who is dissatisfied with his or her sexual orientation is welcome to change. The issue is not that people don't have the right to strive for whatever sexual orientation they think will make them happier (or at least less unhappy).

The problem with conversion therapy is that all the evidence points to it not working, and there's a significant body of evidence that it's downright fraudulent; its practitioners don't even think it works.

If someone came up with some form of conversion therapy that actually did work, then I would say that it should be legal.

[David Nieporent]

As far as I know, no state has banned conversion therapy for adults. It's only for kids that some have.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, let's wait until neural plasticity declines, and THEN try to change something about the brain. And then dismiss the whole idea when it's less than 100% effective.

Sexual orientation exists on a continuum, even if it's not remotely a uniform distribution, and the idea that nobody is going to be on the margin such that their orientation could be changed isn't science, it's ideology.

[Randal]

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. If it's a continuum, then there's no margin.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I don't believe for one second that any of the homo-sciences are free from activism and politics.

Look at what they do to anyone studying family structure. It's completely forbidden to produce any outcome that isn't pro-current-homo-narrative.

[ducksalad]

Still seems a bit paternalistic to me, at least as applied to adults. After all, we allow homeopathic medicines to be sold in Walgreen's. I can see banning fradulent claims about success rates, or maybe even a required posting or acknowledgment that the treatment is not recognized by whatever state agency. But not a ban.

Related: I think a large fraction of legitimate marital counseling could be framed as conversion therapy from asexual to something else.

[Bubba Jones]

Those are arguments for/against a particular medical practice.

The fact is that States regulate the practice of medicine. So ultimately it's up to each State to ... regulate a given medical practice.

[not guilty]

States have broad authority to regulate the conduct of licensed professionals. Judge Burke did not base his injunction on any claims of the Healthcare Plaintiffs. The fundamental right to direct the upbringing of minor children is an incident of parenthood, including the right to seek medical care.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Now out of the other side of your mouth deny the rights of parents when it comes to children's gender identity.

[not guilty]

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (plurality opinion). When no substantial harm threatens a child´s welfare, the state lacks a sufficiently compelling justification for the infringement on the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit.

It is conceivable that under some circumstances parents´ failure to provide appropriate care for a transgender child could threaten substantial harm, but that would be the unusual case.

[Krayt]

Much like Republicans dragged out Benghazi for years, long enough to make it to the 2016 election with Hillary.

[Krychek_2]

On the Supreme Court orders list, I periodically see motions to instruct the clerk to accept late filings, which are always denied. Just curious, if anyone knows: Has such a motion ever been granted, and if so, on what grounds?

[apedad]

SEC filing sheds light on why Trump might be downplaying possible return to Twitter

Even after Elon Musk said he planned to reverse Donald Trump’s ban on Twitter if his buyout of the social media company goes through, the former president didn’t show a lot of enthusiasm for returning to the platform that helped get him elected. Now an SEC filing sheds new light on the hesitation.

A filing from Digital World Acquisition Corp. reveals that Trump is obligated to make any social medial post to Truth Social first—and then wait at least six hours before posting it on another social site.

https://fortune.com/2022/05/16/trump-twitter-truth-social-return-elon-musk-sec-filing/

Huh….

Seems like Trump painted himself into a corner.

That’s not like him. . . .

[apedad]

And here's how he got out of the corner.

Donald Trump Is Back On Twitter

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-twitter-ban-truth-social-posts_n_6282ca6ae4b0c2dce65394fc

He just re-posts Truth Social items on Twitter so it’s not “him” that’s posting on Twitter (since he’s still banned), it’s Truth Social.

[apedad]

HA! - and now Twitter kicked Truth Social off too.

Donald Trump 'Truth' Twitter Account Suspended as Liz Harrington Quits Site

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-truth-twitter-account-suspended-liz-harrington-quits-site-1707642

[Michael P]

He's still living rent-free in your head, huh?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump is still leading a dwindling (although it still includes a majority of Republicans) legion of poorly educated, roundly bigoted, worthless, gullible clingers.

Leading them to continuing defeat in the culture war. The better ideas, and better people, continue to prevail in America.

[David Nieporent]

Twitter has been quite clear for years that one cannot get around a ban with a sock puppet account. He tried that when he was first banned, and it was quickly quashed.

[OtisAH]

How likely do you believe it is that that six hour rule becomes the first rule Big Baby doesn’t wipe his ass with?

[apedad]

Well then he'd be shitting on his fellow Digital World Acquisition Corp shareholders who invested in Truth Social.

[OtisAH]

He doesn’t care on what or whom he shits on, dude. Never has, never will.

[Sarcastr0]

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is getting it right.

Got that TOS connundrum of the week rhythm, with a more modern throughline. But this is not a slowly gathering threat or mystery, it's a character arc.

Lots of Trek deep cut lore, but explored more than just referenced. And also not afraid to just rewrite the little stuff to bring it up to date.

Yes, it is still trading largely off of nostalgia, but nostalgia writ large, not just 'hey this exists.' I'm really enjoying it.

[OtisAH]

I dunno, I hear Star Trek has gone woke…

[Sarcastr0]

I yearn for the nonpolitical days of 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.'

[Commenter_XY]

My personal fav was Captain Kirk battling the Lizard. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Ahh yes. As an 11-year-old that was one of my favorites, unironically.

They appear to be making the Gorn out to be a kinda evil race in SNW, which I am sad about, after the message of Arena.

[Sarcastr0]

We used to set our VCR to tape Star Trek reruns that aired at midnight and my dad and I watched them together, so I have a pretty personal attachment to TOS. Well beyond that show's actual qualities.

Between SNW with the TOS vibes and Orville with the TNG vibes, this is really a great age for my personal Trek nostalgias.

[SRG]

"My personal fav was Captain Kirk battling the Lizard"
Which, amusingly for a classical TOS episode, was not original. It was based on the Fredric Brown short story "Arena". Apparently the writer of the episode had read "Arena" and forgotten that he had.

[Sarcastr0]

Fav TOS: The Doomsday Machine. Great character work.
Fav TNG: A Matter of Honor. Riker charms the Klingons with his horniness.

[Moderation4ever]

Star Trek was woke long before woke was a word. How many TV shows in 1966 had as diverse cast. How many shows carried anti-war storylines.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/star-trek-starship-enterprise-democrat-woke-david-marcus

Also note the author's name. Small world!

[Bob from Ohio]

Hogan's Heroes

[Sarcastr0]

I haven't seen it, but I thought it was more anti-Nazi than anti war.

[Bob from Ohio]

Being anti-Nazi is anti-war.

Of course TOS was only anti-war on occasion. Omega Glory is not anti-war.

[Sarcastr0]

? The allies did some war too, I hear.

The Omega Glory was not pro-war either.

Closest to pro-war was A Private Little War, which was about the insolubility of proxy wars to both the great and little powers involved. It acknowledged neither side can unilaterally disarm in the name of peace if they actually want peace.

[David Nieporent]

Being anti-Nazi is anti-war.

In 1930s-1940s Germany, sure. In 1930s-1940s U.S., or France, or the UK, no.

[Ridgeway]

If HH was not explicitly antiwar (like MASH), it definitely was not pro-war jingoism either.

It was also at the forefront of having a "diverse" cast, with Ivan Dixon having a co-equal part with the other co-stars. Interestingly, Ivan Dixon also had a nice career as a TV director at a time when that was pretty rare.

[Bob from Ohio]

HH was more subtle about it, MASH after Henry and Trapper left was about as subtle as a mule kicking.

The 4 main Germans were all played by Jews, 3 of which were refuges too. LeBeau by a French Jew who was in a concentration camp.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob from Ohio, what is anti-war?

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women."

[John F. Carr]

As a new teenager I was the right age to have watched late MASH, old enough to understand the plot and young enough not to react strongly to its preachiness.

[Ridgeway]

And MASH was hardly an exception in the preachiness dept. People forget how preachy about social issues a lot of popular shows were in the '70s and early '80s. Think of Quincy, Good Times, Diff'rent Strokes, Maude, and lots of others.

[Absaroka]

"I haven't seen it, but I thought it was more anti-Nazi than anti war."

You'd need a much more powerful microscope than mine to find any political valence at all in Hogan's Heroes. It was pro/anti nazi/war like Bewitched was satanic, Get Smart was pro/anti communism, or The Flying Nun was about religion. They were mindless sitcoms.

[John F. Carr]

"Woke" had been around for a while in the 1960s. It was mainly used in "black" English (AAVE), with a more serious meaning than it now has.

[Bubba Jones]

I've watched 2 or 3 episodes. I love it.

I think Picard is well done, but I don't really want to watch him being old and feeble.

Discovery was unwatchable for me. The plot was nonsense and I couldn't make it past episode 3.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm hate-watching Discovery - it's not just bad Trek, it's just bad. But oftentimes hilariously so, in an overwrought fashion.

I can't even do that for Picard. Didn't even finish Season 1.
It's badly dialogued action-schlock with some anvillicious themes. And Patty Stew ain't playing Picard, whomever he's playing. And the fan service feels pandering more than loving.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled a sheriff's office can get kickbacks from Securus for allowing Securus to overcharge prisoners for phone calls. The local federal court certified a question "Did the Massachusetts legislature ... authorize the Bristol County Sheriff's Office to raise revenues for the Office of the Sheriff through inmate calling service contracts?" The SJC said "yes."

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2022/05/17/h13110.pdf

This decision applies to Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, and Suffolk counties, because it construes a law that transfers the sheriffs of those counties to the state government. The other counties' governments had already been abolished.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Seems like Biden's minitrue is on pause, and the wapo publishes a bizarre conspiracy theory suggesting the Biden's DHS is somehow in thrall to far-right twitter users.

The article, by Taylor Lorenz, doesn't mention any legitimate criticism of the effort at all, nor does it mention that many left-wing groups had issues with the Disinformation Board.

The article seems largely sourced from Jankowitz herself.

[rsteinmetz]

I just saw this article on npr.org about the accuracy of the census . It has a number of comments about how Trump evilly interfered with the census but ironically most of the states undercounted are conservative - Arkansas (5.04%), Florida (3.48%), Illinois (1.97%), Mississippi (4.11%), Tennessee (4.78%) and Texas (1.92%). And most of the states overcounted are liberal - Delaware (5.45%), Hawaii (6.79%), Massachusetts (2.24%), Minnesota (3.84%), New York (3.44%), Ohio (1.49%), Rhode Island (5.05%) and Utah (2.59%).

I guess Trump was very good at messing with the census.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, just possibly the Census bureaucracy are like most federal bureaucracies, working for the Democrats even when a Republican is in office. The Democratic party's capture of the bureaucracy is pretty thorough.

But, really, how can the census be off by as much as 5%? It's just counting people, how hard is that?

[Life of Brian]

As I read the article, these error rates were from comparing the actual counts to follow-on statistical sampling. The part that gets me is the claim that several states OVERcounted by 3-6%. Undercounting means you're simply not catching up with everyone and is to be expected to some degree, but overcounting -- particularly to that degree -- is a completely different animal. Either the sampling methodology is junk, or there's some massive fraud at play.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess you can over-count if people are moving during the counting period, like several people appear twice in my HS's graduating class photo. (Taken with one of those old style mechanical panorama cameras.)

But I wouldn't be shocked if the sampling methodology is junk. One of the reasons for prohibiting the Census from using it is that it's fairly easy to rig in obscure ways that are hard to prove.

[Gasman]

College towns were desperate to count their temporary population. And though on April 1 2020, most college kids were back home, I know that my three were counted twice: as submitted for my household census at that time, given that they were indeed home and that was their permanent domicile, and by their colleges/college towns which had already canvased the students and ensured that they registered as local residents.

[M L]

So they undertake this monumental, constitutional census procedure. Then right afterward a quick "follow-up survey" shows they got it way wrong?

How incompetent.

[Sarcastr0]

It was actually really well-done science. The census folks are stats geeks par excellence.

A statistical check of your exhaustive survey is quite useful if you want accurate numbers. Unless you have a police state that tracks everyone, there will always be errors.

And even those errors can tell you stuff!

[Don Nico]

"really well-done science."
It is hardly science of any sort. It's poll taking just as conducted by Caesar Augustus

[Cal Cetín]

I don't think we should be deferring to psycho killers about what public policies are debatable.

Otherwise - and we actually heard similar arguments - sharp criticism of American Middle East policy would be construed as abetting the 9-11 attacks.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is how left wing public policy advocacy works. You can ride the coffin of any shooting victim the whole way to Congress of the state legislature and be completely justified. In fact, you can even trash someone who won't vote for your gun control measures as hating the individual who died.

Flip the script though and use someone who was a victim of illegal immigrant violence or a rape, and oh wait that is not representative of what actually happens and you are a bigot for trying to use that as an example of why we need to enforce immigration laws.

Left = duplicitous liars.

[Randal]

What "public policy" are you itching to debate? White supremacy?

The left has been pretty absolutist about the legitimacy of white supremacy as a policy platform since well before Topps. But it's a good opportunity to remind everyone how shockingly unwilling right-wing pols and commentators are to denounce white supremacy.

[Ben_]

News media tells us that California is in the midst of "the driest period in 1200 years". Unprecedented water restrictions are being considered for Los Angeles and nearby areas.

A week ago, the Coastal Commission unanimously voted against a desalination plant to create drinking water for the region.

The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that environmentalists can never solve problems. They will never approve anything to make life easier.

Even Gavin Newsom says: "What more evidence do you need that you need to have more tools in the tool kit than what we've experienced? Seven out of the last 10 years have been severe drought."

Unless the weather gets better, quality of life in the LA area looks like it will spiral downward. Previous generations had the ability to build things and solve problems. Are there any signs that ability can ever return?

[John F. Carr]

LA's unprecedented water restrictions are the same as my town's every summer.

LA is limiting outdoor watering to two days per week. We have that restriction now and every summer. (Technically, it was voted into effect a few days ago retroactive to May 1.)

An article about LA restrictions states "The city also strongly recommends using pool covers to decrease evaporation of pool water and washing vehicles at commercial car wash businesses." Here we are not allowed to wash vehicles at all (except for "safety" or at a school fundraiser) during the summer. We could use a commercial car wash if we had one. If water restrictions go up one more level we will have limits on water use to top up pools, or prohibitions.

LA has a water allocation. I think the city is determined to use as much water as it has been allocated lest people think they have the ability to reduce consumption.

[Ben_]

My town has onerous restrictions that interfere with our quality of life too isn’t really an argument.

There’s a way to make things better and environmentalists said no.

[John F. Carr]

I forgot to say I live in Massachusetts with plentiful rainfall. My town's restrictions are too strict and LA's are not strict enough.

[Ben_]

Why not more resources instead of more policing everyone’s use of scarce resources?

[Michael Ejercito]

Why not make water a free market commodity pike tomatoes, milk, and natural gas?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm all in favor of that. Only, maybe a REAL free market commodity, unlike those ones you named.

[Sarcastr0]

tomatoes,
milk,
natural gas,
water

Only one of these is required to live.

Free markets are great at efficient distribution, but not fair or plenary distribution. Unregulated water distribution would kill a lot of poor people.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's why I want water to be free market: Because it's too important for human survival to be subject to the whims of politicians.

[Ben_]

I guess I should be clear:

Desalination creates more useful water. More is more. Making due with less and less and less and less over long periods of time as life gets a little worse for everyone every year isn’t really a substitute.

It’s the difference between a prosperous future and a long, slow decline toward desperation and failure. Environmentalists consistently choose the latter.

[swood1000]

The position of the opponents was that desalination is the most expensive solution, and that other solutions such as increased wastewater recycling and storm water capture would be much more cost-effective. They also believe that California could substantially reduce its urban water use by 30 to 48% with existing and cutting-edge technologies. Hard to know just from this article who is right. Certainly, conservation should be used first.

[Ben_]

The weather might get better too. Or people might move away. Or North American supervolcano could happen and we all die. So let’s not build a thing that solves a problem and makes life better.

The Coastal Commission isn’t paying for the desalination plant. It’s not their budget. It’s not their finances. They decided someone else can’t pay for drinking water because [environmentalist notions].

If it’s too expensive, then the Orange County Water District — the guys actually responsible for the budgeting for water — can say no to the contract, independent of the Coastal Commission.

[Bubba Jones]

I live in Houston and we are allowed to water twice a week....
lol

[Longtobefree]

The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that environmentalists don't care about the environment, just about government control over individuals.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Environmentalists are been saying the quiet part out loud now for several years. At first it was no, no, no we don't desire central control. Now it is only central control of everything is going to save us.

These people want power and are hoodwinking people to think it is about clean air or water.

[Longtobefree]

Yep. And I fail to find any loud protests from the greens about Biden spewing tons of evil greenhouse gasses with the stupid and unnecessary baby flights.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Precisely. It isn't about the environment or that we are all going to drown when the ice caps melt. It is about control.

If it was about the environment, and it was a true crisis, the federal government would be doing everything it could to encourage breast feeding. There would be public education campaigns, tax cuts, incentives, spending, the whole nine yards. It would look like what liberals did when the vaccines were rolled out and we told everyone they wanted to kill grandma by not getting it.

That isn't happening though because spending unnecessary carbon emissions to import baby formula fits into the leftist agenda.

[rsteinmetz]

There was a piece I saw a while ago that said that the water allocation agreed to in the Colorado Rivers Compact in 1922 was based on one of the wettest periods in history and the scientists involved knew eventually it would cause problems. California has historically used water "left over" from other states allocations, with now predictable results.

[Cal Cetín]

OK, going to something less controversial - given that homicide laws are generally a state responsibility, would it be constitutional for a state to arbitrarily protect some living human beings but not others?

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

/Roe v. Wade

[John F. Carr]

And what would the remedy be?

In my state assault on a pregnant woman or person over 60 is a special crime and knowledge of protected status is not an element of the crime. If the laws were invalidated the general assault law would remain in effect.

[Cal Cetín]

In "prochoice" states, I'm not fully sure what the remedy would be, but that doesn't invalidate the constitutional argument.

There were certain states with a double standard on lynching - not prosecuting lynchers because they were white and the victim was black - in effect treating lynching victims as outlaws not entitled to legal protection or vindication. A clear violation of the 14th Amendment, but the federal courts weren't able to *force* the states to prosecute, and didn't try.

There were attempts to get Congress to pass a law against lynching, but these were filibustered to death. And what could Congress do? Make lynching a federal not a state crime?

The best remedy would be to prosecute the state officials who failed to prosecute the lynchers. I think that in the Mississpi Burning case the Supremes found a conspiracy involving government agents to commit the lynching, and allowed conviction on that ground.

Maybe that would be a precedent for dealing with abortion.

[Randal]

One route could be for a black murderer of a white man to claim discriminatory prosecution, if similarly situated white murderers were typically not prosecuted. That would force a choice on the state to either prosecute murderers fairly or not at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

"would it be constitutional for a state to arbitrarily protect some living human beings but not others?"

This is literally the exact thing the Equal Protection clause exists to prohibit.

[Nelson]

The first step would be to establish a fetus as a living human being. Anti-abortionists are keen to get laws passed to make it so, without any supporting consensus or evidentiary proof. That is a problem, from my point of view. It's like passing a law requiring people to act as if the earth is flat.

[Bob from Ohio]

"@GasBuddy
Buckle up, drivers. This Memorial Day weekend is shaping up to be the most expensive holiday weekend at the pump... ever."

Its just transitory.

[Commenter_XY]

Oy....just saw 4.49 this morning. Two weeks ago, it was 4.19. In early April, I snagged 3.97 but I guess those days are gone.

I hate to even contemplate what Labor Day gasoline prices will look like.

[John F. Carr]

During the price spikes of the mid-2010s I paid $5 per gallon in California, in the mountains. I will not panic until I pay more than that.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're waiting for next week to panic?

[Kazinski]

Time to panic then, I just filled up with regular at the Costco in Reno for 5.40. Its been at least a month since I paid less than 5.00, and I've had to pay over 6.00 a few times in Northern California.

[Jimmy the Dane]

An independent gas station owner told me he just switched up his delivery to earlier in the day because by the afternoon the price was at least a few cents per gallon higher. The wholesale company that delivers for him started with "dynamic" pricing a few months ago. They figure out your bill at the exact moment of the sale.

Made me think about in Argentina about 20 years ago when they were going through hyperinflation and people tried to go shopping first thing in the morning because by the afternoon your money was actually worth at least a few percentage less.

I've been saying it for awhile, but guess it has finally come to pass. We live in the United States of Banana Republic.

[Estragon]

What do the denizens think of Colorado Republican Governor Candidate Greg Lopez’ proposal to move the state away from directly electing its governor to an electoral college type system? Votes would be allocated based on turnout percentage.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/lopez-gop-candidate-colorado-governor-eliminate-one-person-vote-electoral-college/73-2caf357d-aa42-4cef-abae-ac5795bb46c6

[ducksalad]

Regardless of the merits, the SC would consider it unconstitutional. They've interpreted the 14th amendment to prohibit state senates that mimic the US senate. You could probably find a commenter here willing to say they should've extended that to the US senate itself, as well as the Electoral College.

Leaving that aside, it's still a bad idea. If you're going to mess around with your constitution anyway, the cleaner way to protect local interests is to devolve power to counties/cities.

[Estragon]

I guess that’s part of my question. I’m not certain but it’s plausible there are 5 votes to overrule Reynolds.

[ducksalad]

Who would bring the case? Lopez has little chance of being elected and no chance of getting this plan passed. It would likely be harder to get such a system passed in the first place, than to get it past the supremes.

Maybe some state has some vestigial remnant of a non-apportioned system on an obscure regulatory board, it could get challenged, and that would give them the opportunity.

[Estragon]

I agree this is unlikely to come to pass in Colorado. But it doesn’t take much imagination to see this happening in another, redder, state and the case arising from that situation being used to overturn Reynolds.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Maybe some state has some vestigial remnant of a non-apportioned system on an obscure regulatory board"

I believe the Disney special district that DeSantis is trying to dissolve uses "one acre, one vote" apportionment.

[John F. Carr]

I think there is an occasional U.S. Appeals Court judge who would rule the constitution unconstitutional, but not yet two thirds of a panel.

Colorado already has strong home rule provisions in the state constitutions. In my state the legislature can take away whatever power it has granted.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am proud that Greg Lopez is not a Democrat. The Republicans can have every bigoted hypocrite, especially the ones who assaulted pregnant wives.

[Estragon]

Cmon rev, that’s not fair. He says the wife was arrested for assault too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She defended herself. Misogynists can't stand a noncompliant woman. I assume the marriage ended.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I would not be opposed to seeing rational GOP candidates winning the Governorship here, but I don't think we're intended, nor do I think it's appropriate to extend an electoral system to voting for Governor.

If we're supposed to be a collection of States, and the primary division of responsibilities of government exist at the Federal or State level, then it is reasonable to conclude residents of the same State will have enough of an overlap in viewpoints to make that work.

If one wants to argue that a rancher on the eastern plains of my State has vastly different policy desires than someone living along the I-25 corridor, then make the argument and let's see how those policy desires actually differ.

As for weighting the result based on turnout percentage: hard pass.

[M L]

George W. Bush:

“...The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean, of Ukraine.”

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1527092111195226114

DOH!

[M L]

This is just perfect.

[Estragon]

It’s almost beyond belief. I had to watch it several times to make sure I was hearing correctly.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope -- and sense -- former Pres. Bush may have developed some regrets and better insights along that line. He seems to have the character that could support such awareness. He was overmatched (and chose spectacularly wrong advisors) but does not seem devoid of character.

[Jimmy the Dane]

If AK thinks that you are not completely devoid of character then you are almost certainly doing something wrong.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not mind how vividly you want to draw the lines of distinction, Jimmy the Dane. Of course, that's easy for me to say, from the right side of history and the winning side of the settled-but-not-quite-over American culture war.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Oh yeah that is right. You always post about how we will be "replaced" with "better" people, right?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Elderly Republicans die off, taking their stale and ugly thinking to the grave. Better, younger Americans -- who are less rural, less religious, less bigoted, less backward, and more diverse -- take the place of the departed conservatives in our electorate in the natural course, on 18th birthdays.

Simple, beautiful, predictable, natural, and soon enough decisive.

Clingers and lesser ideas hardest hit.

[M L]

Maybe President Bush is catching up to President Trump who is far ahead of him in this area.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Has anyone else noticed the trends in "reporting' on supposed "book bans" specifically at schools and libraries since Florida made the decision to not use some math books which were essentially just CRT propaganda disguised as legit educational texts?

I find it funny that now they are focusing on this topic, when the press have been fans of removing books for the last 10 years. Even the classics couldn't be saved because of one inconvenient state or the author did something that the modern left things is bad today. But, now, it is supposedly a huge issue we ought to be paying attention to and really care about.

This is why every thinks the modern Left is a joke. They are nothing but duplicitous liars.

[Sarcastr0]

Apophenia.

[Ben_]

It’s almost like the news media are "the enemy of the people".

[David Nieporent]

Has anyone else noticed the trends in "reporting' on supposed "book bans" specifically at schools and libraries since Florida made the decision to not use some math books which were essentially just CRT propaganda disguised as legit educational texts?

There were no math books that had any "CRT propaganda," let alone being "essentially just CRT propaganda." We've seen the books that Florida rejected; you can't just rely on repeating what Tucker Carlson told you to say.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Good old fashioned hand waving. Are you going to try to throw your pocket sand as a diversion next?

[Sarcastr0]

His comment seemed quite direct, Jimmy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Handwaving can be direct, the problem is that it's argument by assertion, not evidence.

Here's at least a little evidence.

First, the rejected texts were rejected for a variety of reasons, of which CRT was only one. Second, the publishers have been modifying their books to meet Florida standards, so at this point most of the rejected books have been made acceptable.

The rejected books cited for 'CRT' seem to have used the normal technique for inserting race into a math text: Story problems. Just provide data from some race oriented source to be the basis of the math problem, such as an implicit bias survey!

Then there's the Social and Emotional Learning content. As DeSantis said, the purpose of math instruction is for the students to learn math. Just math, not empathy, not race relations. Just how to think about numbers. Florida wants math texts to teach math, and only math.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Florida wants math texts to teach math, and only math.

I don't think that is it at all. I think Florida Republicans break out in hives if anyone mentions the consequences of Jim Crow. Suggesting even indirectly that someone could use math to think systematically about those consequences just makes it worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mostly they just break out in hives when teachers get on the topic of sex.

Anyway, most of the rejections had nothing to do with race. They were mostly due to the fact that Florida has rejected Common Core, and the textbook publishers were sending textbooks written to comply with it.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Russia might not produce high quality soldiers, but they do make some great trolls.

https://www.newsweek.com/karine-jean-pierre-russian-tv-host-white-house-press-secretary-racism-homophobic-1708089

"She admits not being chosen for [her] professional abilities but because she is a dark-skinned immigrant, etc. and this was secured by her predecessors," he said.

"This girl will make it for a month or two, then she'll be replaced, to your satisfaction. They'll replace her with a white, heterosexual male," TV host Evgeny Popov said.

[dwb68]

what is:
5/8, 5/6, "FI RI", diamond symbol, i_hat, square root negative one

and why do I need to contact the media about these?

How many people read this blog and have not uncovered the Easter egg?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I thank Republican voters for nominating Doug Mastriano for governor of Pennsylvania and for ridding Congress of Madison Cawthorn.

[not guilty]

The Michigan Court of Claims has enjoined enforcement of Michigan´s 1931 statute prohibiting abortion, based on its interpretation of the state constitution. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22017073-michigan-court-of-claims-abortion-ruling The court based its decision not on the right of privacy (which was foreclosed by applicable Michigan precedent), but on the Due Process right to bodily integrity.

The State Attorney General has said she will not appeal the decision.

[John F. Carr]

Looks like she lost intentionally and this was a collusive lawsuit. Republicans have a slim majority in the legislature, enough to pass a law but not enough to propose a constitutional amendment. 400,000 (or so) signatures could get an amendment on the ballot. Do the voters collectively have strong opinions either way?

[Michael Ejercito]

So no vaccination mandates to patronize a bar or restaurant, or to attend a concert.

[not guilty]

Is anyone proposing the forcible administration of vaccines? I would agree that that would impinge upon the substantive due process right of bodily integrity.

[Estragon]

What’s “Dark MAGA”?

[Ben_]

I think it’s when Ultra MAGA oxidizes.

Presumably you're supposed to be very afraid of people who aren’t anti-American or who don’t reflexively side against America when there are two sides and America in on one of them. Those scary MAGA guys want America to be better off and more prosperous instead of managing our decline.

[Estragon]

“It’s time for the rise of the new right, it’s time for Dark MAGA to truly take command. We have an enemy to defeat, but we will never be able to defeat them until we defeat the cowardly and weak members of our own party. Their days are numbered. We are coming.”

Can you point me to the part about prosperity? This sounds like purges. Or maybe the “enemy to defeat” is… inflation? High gas prices?

[Ben_]

I can paste random words into comments too. Random words don’t have anything to do with anything: they’re random.

I have no clue what you think you’re talking about.

[Estragon]

This is from Madison cawthorne today. I wouldn’t call it a “concession speech” exactly— however he does seem to acknowledge he lost… so maybe progress?

[Ben_]

Is that a friend of yours? Why are you so smitten with what you claim he may have said? Why should anyone else care one way or another?

Are you trembling with fear because people who are not like you are roaming America?

[Sarcastr0]

It's not exactly fear of the other to be concerned when former members of Congress say fascistic shit.

[Ben_]

I looked it up. He lost in the primary. So the attempts to divide and otherize people, in addition to being wrong, also make no sense in this context. The other you're all so worked up about rejected this guy.

Guilt by association based on a cherry-picked quotation doesn’t work when the people you want to tar based on the association vote against the guy.

People less interested in dividing might even take the primary result as a positive sign.

[Estragon]

I’m just wondering what dark MAGA means. You said it had something to do with prosperity, so I assumed you knew??

[Estragon]

And believe me huckleberry— I ain’t scared of you

[Ben_]

So bigoted attitudes towards people who are not like you not because of fear then.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd assumed it was a reference to an impending Marvel movie, probably something in their X-Men series.

[F.D. Wolf]

Polls show voters favor the recall of leftist lunatic, spawn of terrorists, pro-crime Los Angeles County District Attorney Chesa Boudin by a margin of 2-1.

After he is recalled, there will be ferocious bidding war among law schools to make Boudin a full professor. He should have his pick of the litter. My guess is he'll end up at Columbia. Maybe he'll even be mayor of New York City one day.

[David Nieporent]

Chesa Boudin is the DA of San Francisco, which is hundreds of miles from Los Angeles County.

[F.D. Wolf]

My bad. All those crazy left-wing DAs look alike to me. The LA County DA Gascon will probably have to wait a few months to be recalled, but will likely have a promising future in academia as well.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You sound disaffected and sad, F.D. Wolf.

Getting routed by your betters in the culture war got you down?

[Jimmy the Dane]

And it is a good thing that all these backward Republicans are going to be "replaced" soon, right AK?

[apedad]

Actually, we'll leave that up to the sane Republicans (e.g. Cawthorn).

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, why would anybody be worried about K-12 teachers grooming students? FYI, it went up to 137 the same day this was published.

[Sarcastr0]

If you really cared about that, you'd want more funding to vet teachers, not this culture war bullshit.

Grooming is not happening as an open part of the classroom agenda, stop weaponizing accusations of pedophilia, you're just making things easier for pedophiles.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, normalizing K-5 teachers talking to students about sex is what makes it easier for pedophiles, Sarcastr0.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Brett, you need to take your meds.

When I was in school, sex-ed happened in 5th grade. You have no idea what you're talking about, and are again falling victim to the endless cycle of rage-news promoted by Fox and other right-wing idiots.

Do better.

[Jimmy the Dane]

It's cool. Sarcastro thinks kiddie diddlers are nothing but minor attracted persons who require society to bend over backward to cater to their mental disease.

[David Nieporent]

This is stupid and pathetic. Even setting aside the difference between arrested and convicted, and the fact that you have no idea what "sex crimes" even refers to, or what this has to do with grooming, there are around 3.1 million teachers in the U.S.

No, no sane person is worried about grooming based on your fake statistic.

[not guilty]

How peculiar, coming from Brett -- an adherent of the Roman Catholic Church Man Boy Love Association.

[Jerry B.]

"Liberals aren’t pushing the idea of a threat via replacement"

True. They're not pushing it as a bug, but as a feature.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Liberals are crowing about how replacement is a Good Thing (tm).

And have been for years.

[Michael P]

The inability to make an actual argument has been a characteristic of yours since forever.

[Brett Bellmore]

We struggle with the idea that we're obligated to pretend people live up to them.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there's a case for it, they and the cetaceans appear to have fairly complex brains and social lives. They're certainly a lot brighter than most animals.

[Longtobefree]

I will be interested to see how the court confirms that the elephant does not identify as an elephant.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It has been pretty good. So has Billy the Kid.

[Sarcastr0]

In real life, I'm not like I am on the Internet. I have plenty of Republican friends, and function quite well on a quite nonpartisan basis. Because most of life is not politics. If I have to be objective about a situation involving someone I've never met, I don't really think hard about their politics, and I don't think most people do.

But the people who think party affiliation means bias...I wonder about them. Like, where are you getting your information about random people being generally putting politics ahead of integrity other than from analyzing yourself?

[Michael P]

If you want to talk about his effects on politics, do that. When you obsess over second-order social media antics releasing to him, that's unhealthy.

[Bob from Ohio]

Strong some of my best friends are black vibes.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In real life, I'm not like I am on the Internet.

So in real life you're at least occasionally capable of some measure of honesty?

[Sarcastr0]

So...in this parallel between partisanship and race, you're arguing everyone of any race must be racist against all other races?

Or did you not think this through very hard?

[Bob from Ohio]

Just responding to "I have plenty of Republican friends"

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. So blind pattern recognition then.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, the usual reaction to a claim that someone has black friends is, itself, blind pattern recognition. It attempts to parlay something not being conclusive proof one isn't a racist, into a kind of proof that one is.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I keep pointing out to Sarcastro when he pulls that "whataboutism!" idiocy, elections aren't evaluations of a single person, they're comparisons of two or more people.

I personally don't much like Trump, but from a policy standpoint I disliked him less, and I don't vote for people on the basis of personally liking them, I vote for people to get policy. Which is good because there are damned few people in politics who are personally admirable. Rand Paul, for instance, and I'd have voted for him in the 2016 primaries if he hadn't dropped out before my state's primary.

I suppose in the unlikely event that the Democratic party actually nominated a sane, non-despicable person whose policies weren't horrific, I'd consider voting for them. Fat chance of that happening.

[Ridgeway]

Down that road lies madness. Human Exceptionalism is fundamental to Western law. Once you start arguing for the personhood of certain non-human animals, next come trees and plants, and finally inanimate things like rivers.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/03/740604142/should-rivers-have-same-legal-rights-as-humans-a-growing-number-of-voices-say-ye

I will say, though, that it takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to argue against the personhood of a fetus, but in favor of the personhood of a tree or a river.

[Bubba Jones]

That's an argument for animal welfare laws. Not for courts to declare them persons.

[DaivdBehar]

Queenie, aren't you black? You will be replaced. No waiting for you. You are being ethnically cleansed by gangbangers already.

[DaivdBehar]

Under Trump's obstruction of all immigration, blacks busted records of prosperity.

[DaivdBehar]

Queenie, what is your preferred pronoun, Hon?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right so Democrats think White Replacement is a good thing, have been talking about White Replacement being a good thing, have been celebrating when they see evidence of White Replacement,

BUT

Haven’t done a single thing to encourage or promote White Replacement?

[Life of Brian]

Since this was a reply to ng and not you, it's not at all clear which of your 30+ posts you're squawking about. Try the non-lazy route next time.

[Cal Cetín]

Even the declarations against interest?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I said the ticket was attractive. Politically so; It would have the two most popular figures in Republican politics running together, rather than dividing the primary vote, and opening a window for some Bush scion to grab the nomination.

I mean, did you think I meant in terms of grooming and facial structure, or something like that?

[Bubba Jones]

You're arguing with him about what he meant?

You must be more bored than I am.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There sure were a lot of conspiracy extremists commenting on the Rittenhouse trial about how the judge was biased, etc.

[Cal Cetín]

Who are "these people"? I don't recall getting invited to the Stephen Douglas club.

https://iusetiustitium.com/little-giant-constitutionalism/

The Stephen Douglas position - not caring whether abortion is voted up or voted down - is the predominant position in "Originalism, Inc." They sincerely believe that abortion is a local issue to be determined by legislative voting. The fact that I disagree with them doesn't prove *their* insincerity. It simply shows I disagree with them.

[Cal Cetín]

And I have a complaint to make against the Republicans, for consistently promising to appoint prolife justices and ending up appointing Stephen Douglas justices instead.

[Sarcastr0]

Ginsberg wanting EPC not SDP is not some grand declaration Roe is wrong.
And of course the right's issues with Roe are independent of the underlying reasoning. This is just them throwing crap at the wall. And I guess it stuck to you.

But in the end the right doesn't care. The left doesn't care. Moderates don't care. The Court doesn't care.

Lots and lots of cases have shaky or nebulous reasoning that's been clarified or strengthened by future precedents. Roe is a great example of that. Heck, SDP does this well. I see it a lot in early 4A cases (c.f. Miranda).

Fixing the human endeavor that is Constitutional interpretation to become a flawless edifice of logic is both fruitless and useless.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, there's a large empirical component to this: Elephants and cetaceans simply ARE smarter and more social than almost any species except humans. The difference between humans and animals is mostly a matter of degree, and while there's a huge gulf between humans and most animal species, it's not that impressively big between us and a few of them.

[Cal Cetín]

"This is just them throwing crap at the wall. And I guess it stuck to you."

Who is this ominous "them," what crap did they throw at me, and how did it stick?

[Cal Cetín]

"Those people" don't really matter.

[Don Nico]

What is your BS about zygotes?
That category exists for a legally irrelevant short time.
Hence, your love of the word is just an admission of an intent to mislead or disinform,

[Cal Cetín]

Are you admitting they allowed constitutional rights to "quickened" fetuses?

Quickening was considered proof of life. We now know that life exists before quickening.

Did the 14th Amendment codify the pseudoscience of "quickening"? If originalism requires that, then so much the worse for originalism.

[Don Nico]

Again the intentionally incorrect use of zygotes.

[Cal Cetín]

I don't know what was subjectively in their minds. I just know that the era of the 14th Amendment coincided with stricter limits on abortion (not just post-"quickening").

If originalism means I have to read all their minds, so much the worse for originalism.

If you're interested in some historical perspective...and of course you are, you strike me as an open-minded guy...

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/04/abortion-is-unconstitutional

[Cal Cetín]

I see you dodged my question about quickening, by the way.

You'd rather not focus on that unfortunate concession on your part?

[Cal Cetín]

Be sure to take all the time you need to answer...

[Sarcastr0]

Them is the Jews, obviously.

[Sarcastr0]

No, to walk you through this, them is the people making arguments to end the right to privacy, at least as pertains to abortion. For those already on board, adding a bit of formalism to the mix is just the cherry on top.

To everyone else, it's just crap no one cares about. Even the quite formalist Scalia didn't rail against every old case he thought was wrong.

[Cal Cetín]

It's hard to reply to your assertion without knowing what you meant.

Who threw crap at me, leading me to defend a constitutional right to life?

[Cal Cetín]

Heh, heh, you're talking about making up doctrines in the context of a discussion of Roe v. Wade.

Physician, heel, thyself!

[Ridgeway]

Because a zygote is a human being in its very early stage of development.

An elephant is a non-human animal.

In any event, I do not believe that a zygote or a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Constitution. But if an 8.5 month-old fetus is not a person, then an elephant, chimp, snail, crab, oak tree or stream most certainly is not.

[Cal Cetín]

Are we actually on the verge of partial agreement?

You left open the possibility that the 14th amendment may protect fetuses prior to "quickening."

And you focus on abortions against zygotes, leaving out discussion of later stages of development.

Could it be that you would protect unborn life after a certain developmental stage?

[Ridgeway]

Once you get rid of the bright line between humans and non-humans and start comparing "intrinsic values" of living creatures, all bets are off. You can easily end up with mandatory sterilization, euthanasia and one-child policies -- Progressive Eugenics 2.0.

[Cal Cetín]

"Pierce and M[e]yer" involve the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.

I don't recall them discussing the right to kill their children.

[Sarcastr0]

....Do you think Ginsberg said Roe relied on made up doctrine? Is that the declaration against interest you think she made?

[Cal Cetín]

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/19/thursday-open-thread-83/?comments=true#comment-9501815

[Sarcastr0]

But what about https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/19/thursday-open-thread-83/?comments=true#comment-9501928

I wasn't posting to your OP. Though if it adds context to this post, I'm all ears.

[Cal Cetín]

Prolife "conservatives" don't want to protect zygotes? Excellent mind-reading.

[Cal Cetín]

"They"

In other words, not me.

[Cal Cetín]

If it's at all reassuring, the history of the Republican Party and "Originalism, Inc." shows that they're quite willing to sell out prolifers again and again.

So if they say it out loud, maybe they're being honest.

[Cal Cetín]

"decisions to have such families in the first place"

So...a right to put newborns up for adoption?

[Don Nico]

"Zygotes weren’t considered ‘children’"
Try to learn some elementary biology. But spouting nonsense.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure I see your slippery slope.

I for one, welcome our whale-human hybrid overlords.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm more in favor of equalizing up, than down, personally.

[Cal Cetín]

You reserved judgment on pre-"quickening" fetuses and whether they're protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

I asked you a question about that, but you'd prefer to dodge the question.

Usually, I don't like the "you dodged the question" kabuki extending over entire subthreads, but since you keep accusing me of the same offense I'm going to point out when you do it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So I’m your mind there is no empirical evidence for Democrat policy that promotes White Replacement?

And your second was weird. Democrats obviously want 3rd world minorities “browning America” because Democrats believe they will vote for the same system that they fled from, a big corrupt a leftist government filled with wealthy Democrat types.

[Cal Cetín]

So you think I was referring to *two* declarations against interest?

Of course there's way more than one such concession on the "prochoice" side, but my link shows which of them I was referring to.

[Sarcastr0]

I thought you were just talking about Ginsberg, in response to QA's post 'Yeah well we all know the reasoning in Roe v Wade is terrible.'

Sorry, I didn't really engage with your OP. It's not very interesting until a state decides to go full fetal personhood.

Was the declaration against interest just that if a state goes there, they're opening a huge can of worms? Because that's not really a shocker.

[Sarcastr0]

And not even Alito is going there, so...Cal continues to be opaque.

[Cal Cetín]

I have no idea what you're talking about, I don't even know Alito, I've never even been to his house.

[Cal Cetín]

You seemed to realize I would protect zygotes, why did you think it wouldn't be obvious to others?

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Queenie. Preferred pronoun, Hon?

[Life of Brian]

Oh, no wonder. Your big gripe boils down to overwrought rewording of two issues I explicitly covered. For 20+ years the left openly reveled in setting policy to promote the free influx of illegals, and were expressly counting on their "obedient" voting once here to reliably keep them in power.

Maybe you should practice not reflexively responding to every single post -- to say the signal/noise ratio would improve dramatically would be to oversell it, but at least it would be something.

[Cal Cetín]

Even you realized that I would protect the unborn at the zygote stage, and if this obvious fact was apparent to *you,* then it ought to be obvious to anyone more intelligent than yourself, i. e., pretty much the entire world.

[Cal Cetín]

I see that I already said that "I don't know what was subjectively in their minds," so you're simply prolonging the Kabuki.

I answered your question, why won't you answer mine about whether the constitution protects post - "quickening" fetuses.

[Cal Cetín]

You asked me a question to which I don't know the answer, but you'd like me to simply make one up?

Does the 14th Amendment protect post-"quickening" fetuses? "I don't know would be an acceptable answer even if it loses you valuable Internet Points."

[Cal Cetín]

"this is the first time you've asked this"

Cal Cetín
May.19.2022 at 1:00 pm

Are you admitting they allowed constitutional rights to "quickened" fetuses?

[Cal Cetín]

"“Who can know” is no answer."

I said *I* don't know.

If "I don't know" isn't an answer, then logically speaking, any witness in court who says he doesn't know can be locked up for contempt until he comes up with an answer.

[Cal Cetín]

I'm fairly sure the people involved in the 13th Amendment didn't think they were dealing with abortion at all.

You're really flogging this dead horse, aren't you? You'd think you'd have more humility after getting something so disastrously, embarrassingly wrong:

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/19/thursday-open-thread-83/?comments=true#comment-9502234

[Ridgeway]

You call is "speciesism" I call it "human exceptionalism." Whatever you call it, it has been a fundamental axiom of Christianity and Western civilization in general for several thousand years. As non-Euclidean geometricians will tell you, once you start getting rid of axioms, things get weird fast.

[Ridgeway]

You don't need hypothetical slippery slopes, because we have plenty of horrific real-world examples of what happens when people decide that certain human lives are less valuable than others.

[Ridgeway]

I am perfectly open to the notion that we, as human beings, have a duty to protect certain "magnificent" or "intelligent" animals more than others. That does not make them "persons" with independent rights, however. The fact that they do not have personhood or rights is actually what gives us duties with regard to them.

[DaivdBehar]

Ok honey. Blacks are hurt most by the illegales. I mean physically not just economically. Nothing is more violently racist than an illegales. Ethnic cleansing is coming to the hood if Ilya has his way. I pray they do not hurt my Queenie.

[Sarcastr0]

I think I currently end up where you are policy-wise, but I don't see any reason why human exceptionalism is axiomatic.
I think it is well within our moral system to allow in another species (or technology!) that is at a level of cognizance that makes it morally different from where we think animals are now.

Maybe too much Star Trek, but also fundamentally our empathy is not limited to humans, and our morality has at least some tie to that.

[Ridgeway]

Things like childhood are temporary situations, where in the ordinary course of events the person in question will achieve competency. Just like you don't lose your personhood if you happen to lose consciousness, even for an extended period.

But an elephant will always be an elephant.

[ducksalad]

Snark aside, the current SC line up might theoretically be willing reconsider it but it won't come up. The state senators elected under pre-Reynolds got more than halfway to calling an Article V convention. Their replacements OTOH have no incentive to challenge the system under which they've been successfully elected.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Now map those districts and how they voted local, state and federal over the years.

They didn't stop being Democrat until the 90s.

The "Southern Strategy" racist party flip is just the stupid meme that somehow just won't die.

It's one of the Left's religious tenets. Facts not required for belief.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Further, it's stupid on it's face that all the Democrat racists would flee to the Republican party that voted in higher percentage FOR civil rights then the Democrats.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is what the Democrats have been doing on our Southern Border any policy evidence of support for White Replacement?

They state all the time that Democrats believe minorities will vote for them and that's why they are deeply invested in the "Browning of America" aka "White Replacement".

Look at what Democrats do when a minority doesn't vote for them! They call them race traitors and not "real blacks" or "white adjacent".

[rsteinmetz]

In the article or the comments above?

[Don Nico]

"conspiracy once again"
I have noticed that the usual leftist critique of most right wing theories here include the magic words "conspiracy theory." It is as cheap a propaganda ploy as Red-baiting.

[Ridgeway]

OK -- axiomatic given our current understanding of life on Earth and its known surroundings.

When and if the super aliens come a-calling we can revisit the issue, if we have time before they drain us of our precious bodily fluids.

[David Nieporent]

Those people were dumb, but they were at least basing those claims on the things he said, not on the mere fact that he's affiliated with one of the two major political parties in the U.S.

[Ridgeway]

Correct -- that is what I was getting at with my "duties" talk above.

[David Nieporent]

Trump supporters complaining about going to any length to stay in power. Every accusation is indeed a confession.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Worse, because his rulings (like banning referring to people as victims) were consistent with his rulings in past cases.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why is that better? People were claiming that he was in the tank because he wouldn't allow the state to refer to the people attacking Rittenhouse as victims, which is what he did in all self-defense cases.

[Life of Brian]

1. A conscious, determined policy agenda for political gain

You're suggesting the poor darlings just accidentally happened to make every possible call in the direction of keeping the borders open Ilya Somin style? Flipped a coin each time and it just happened to continually come up heads? That takes some... naivety.

2. Assumes not just that ethnicity determines voting but that it’s actually immutable (that’s the racist part)

So assuming your target population will vote 100% D is racist, but assuming it will vote >50% and <100% D is peachy keen? Seems like you're really desperate to tease out a distinction here.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

>What are the Democrats doing at the border? At least what proves they are engineering migration for electoral reasons (as opposed to policy and moral reasons)?

What sort of silly parse is this? Democrats think White Replacement is good. They are flooding the country with millions of non-whites and have created sanctuaries for them for decades.

You think it's totally unrelated and just a coincidence that they just happen love White Replacement, cheer it and just happen to be engaging in the activity that produces White Replacement?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Funny that no one on the Left had those feelings from about 2015-2020.....

[Cal Cetín]

I see you put the question in at least two different ways:

"Do you honestly believe the writers and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment understood they were in doing so providing constitutional rights to unquickened fetuses/zygotes?"

Then you "rephrased" it to say:

"did the ratifiers have any intention/understanding that they were making zygotes their political equals?"

The correct answer to the first question is "I don't know," and the correct answer to the second question is "get lost, you ridiculous troll, and take your fetal-voting straw man with you."

[Sarcastr0]

...We don't understand much about life on earth.

[Leo Marvin]

Sorry, but honesty isn't indiscriminately insulting people you disagree with.

[Brett Bellmore]

"How did popularly elected Senators ever happen under your logic?"

Lazy legislators offloading work, basically. Same way we got unelected bureaucrats writing most of the rules we have to live by.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Where we you for all of those years when the Left made a cottage industry out of cancelling anyone right of center and calling people "nazis" endlessly?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Worse than the claims against the judge were less substantiated than the party affiliation claims. IOW, your guys' claims are dumber.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is a pretty pathetic response.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As science-focused as you claim to be, you're going to sit there and pretend that Brett's wild, source-less and evidence-free theories don't fit that bill?

[ThePublius]

A zygote is the very first stage of embryonic development, so a zygote, while a single cell, is technically an embryo. It doesn't become a fetus until about 9 weeks. That pre-dates quickening by about 6 weeks. So zygote/fetus is not really correct.

(Note that none of these stage transitions are precisely defined except for the zygote.)

My thinking on abortion is that the woman is in the unique position in our world of being the host of another person, at least a constitutionally protected person, from some point in development. We just haven't gotten to the point where people agree that it's not "my body, my choice," as it's not just your body; and we haven't agreed on when that pre-born entity becomes a person. Certainly, if we can prosecute someone for murder who's killed a woman's unborn child, that victim must be a legal person. Otherwise, it would be a property crime or assault against the mother (only). Also, if we can hold the father legally responsible for the child's support, indeed, under penalty of prison, it's not just the mother's body, it's his, too! And similarly, if he doesn't want the child he should be able to 'elect' an abortion, and if the mother refuses, he's no longer responsible for support, nor entitled to custody, visitation, etc. The mother shouldn't be able to abort once the entity becomes a legal person, except in cases of grave danger to the mother, and probably a bunch of other reasons like rape, maybe incest, severe birth defect; not gender, maybe not Down syndrome. Blah, blah, blah. Not simple.

[Life of Brian]

Um, yeah. They're doing it all for the little guy, Queenie. No power angle at all. Your little fantasy falls somewhere in the encyclopedia between "fig leaf" and "post-hoc rationalization."

And once again, I specifically addressed the non-immutability of the minority vote in my initial post -- feel free to reread as many times as it takes to sink in. Then carry on with your feces flinging.

[Randal]

Someone above was asking why VC (and everywhere) has gotten more toxic. Life of Brian is the reason, or at least the example.

For my whole life, the Democrats have been the party of the little guy, social opportunity, multiculturalism, humanism, globalism, etc. Its immigration policy -- which is very far from "open borders," I would describe it more as "dignity-based" -- follows from those principles and has been pretty much unchanged in my lifetime.

So to suddenly be like oh, the Democrats (over a third of the country and mostly white) have really been on this anti-white crusade for the last 60 years or more, all in the name of winning elections, and their stated principles are just cover... I mean it's totally pathetic, insulting, ridiculous, racist, and stupid. And the only reason you believe it is because you've been indoctrinated by right-wing media to see Democrats as not just Americans with different ideas from yours but as actually evil.

You're absolutely right that if Republicans all think that Democrats are evil, we're on our way to civil war. Try laying off Fox for a few months, get some Democratic friends, talk to them, and see if it seems like their immigration ideas are based on diluting white votes vs. something else.

[Life of Brian]

So to suddenly be like oh, the Democrats (over a third of the country and mostly white) have really been on this anti-white crusade for the last 60 years or more

Howdy -- welcome to the thread.

I specifically set the time window as the last couple of decades in my very first post. Stuff of course changes over time, like the prior generation's good intentions getting swallowed by the current one's power mongering.

You wouldn't need to so dramatically misrepresent my argument if you had a cogent one yourself. And sure enough, the rest of your post is basically playground-grade ad hom. Apparently Queenie needed to tag out.

Cheers!

[Randal]

How does limiting it to 20 years help you? It's the same Democrats-are-evil schtick. You think "they turned evil 20 years ago" is somehow more plausible than "they've always been evil?"

[Life of Brian]

You've thrown enough signals by now that you're not here for a dialogue that I really should stop feeding the beast. But hey -- one more.

Yes.

[Randal]

You're right about that! I'm not here for a dialogue with you. I'm here to show you up, for the benefit of other readers whose minds might not be yet as thoroughly poisoned as yours.

But thank you for admitting that your worldview requires you to believe that Democrats suddenly turned evil 20 years ago. That's at least honest. Pathetic, insulting, ridiculous, racist, and stupid... and honest.

[Randal]

It's also what makes Tucker Carlson brilliant. Don't make your opponents' bad faith the logical conclusion, make it the logical premise.

[Life of Brian]

You're right about that! I'm not here for a dialogue with you.

And thank you for YOUR honesty. You're now officially in the troll bucket -- after one final observation for the class about your rock-bottom disingenuousness:

But thank you for admitting that your worldview requires you to believe that Democrats suddenly turned evil 20 years ago.

And thank you for confirming that the only way you can purport to refute my simple, non-controversial set of premises in my original post is to distort what I said and stuff into my mouth words I did not say. Multi-generational change of an institution of course does not go from A to B all of a sudden like flipping a light switch, nor does it include 100% of the individuals in the institution.

But I know you know all that -- like I said, you've not nothing without your sad little caricaturizations.

[Randal]

Ok you're right. I retract the word "suddenly." I added it for rhetorical effect and for that I apologize.

Everything else stands.

[Randal]

I'm quoting myself!

"Don't make your opponents' bad faith the logical conclusion, make it the logical premise."

I just have to point out that this is also how David Bernstein's logic works in his Harvard amicus brief. The premise is that Harvard is acting in bad faith and doesn't really look for diversity in candidates. He goes on to show that... Harvard is acting in bad faith and doesn't really look for diversity in candidates.

[Don Nico]

Jason,
I said zero about Brett. Try to read what is written, and don't respond to ghosts in your imagination

[Don Nico]

Your typical response.
Shift the issue to something that was not said and respond to that. As soon as the first cell division has taken place it is not a zygote.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The natural understanding of your remark, is that Queen's response is inappropriate as applied to Brett's comment. Most people don't take exception to an accurate characterization.

Are you suggesting that you're critiquing Queen's response, while at the same time acknowledging it to be accurate in this case?

[Cal Cetín]

Ah, you're claiming I know the answer to your question - and that my answer is the same as your answer - but that I'm concealing my true opinion because of my wickedness.

This comment section has become a common sewer into which the digital detritus drains.

[Estragon]

“All J6 protesters were let into the building but capitol police and were just tourists snapping pictures” is ironically an excellent example of trolling. But of course you already knew that. Hey jimmy, are you Dark MAGA or regular? Or extra crispy?

[Nelson]

And? Are they killing people to make it happen? Because there are a bunch of people who are killing to stop it.

And by your own admission, it isn't Democrats who want to stop it.

[Nelson]

Yes, and all they have to do is wait. They don't have to do anything to make it happen.

But people who don't like the idea of a white Christian minority in America have to do something to stop it. A number of them have decided to kill. And a bunch more of them have decided to provide cover for the murderers.

If you are making excuses for a theory that identifies minoriries and immigrants as a threat to America, you are doing a bad thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

State legislators weren't selected to pick Senators on account of some special wisdom. It was just on the basis that their selections would be informed by institutional interests, so the Senators picked would defend the interests of state governments in the national legislature.

Just as the House members would defend the interests of the people.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure, and somebody with Downs will always have Downs. Though, of course, a damaged human will be less functional than an intact animal, in some respects.

I suppose for legal purposes personhood has to be binary, but in the real world it's a continuous variable.

[John F. Carr]

By accepting a certified translation of the elephant's testimony into English, same as any foreign language evidence.

[M L]

Leftists went berserk for months on end about how Trump and Republicans had all these plots to goose the census for red states. They got a perfectly normal and appropriate question removed that they didn't like.

Now shockingly the 99% liberal bureaucracy ended up with results that goosed blue states and ripped off red states. Big surprise. And the same loons' response to pointing this out? "Gosh, what a cynical conspiracy theory..."

[M L]

Actually a mix of "what a cynical conspiracy theory" and "we did it, we won!"

[Sarcastr0]

People saw what Trump did - like actual actions. Like accelerating the timeline with no good reason.

Pointing to overcounts buy the Census that the Census itself found as proof of a liberal plot, with no evidence of any actual actions taken? Yeah, we call that a conspiracy theory.

And, of course, your seem certain that people who voted in a way you don't like can't possibly be professionals. No, they're definitely spending their time risking their jobs to help the Dems.

Which...what kind of unprofessional crap do you get up to for partisan gain? Jesus, dude.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like actually trying to get the job done in time for the results to be available for redistricting? Kinda laughable to complain about Trump pushing the Census to be faster, when the Census ended up behind schedule.

[Sarcastr0]

The census had a timeline, and the President came in and countermanded it.

Somehow I don't think Trump was paying careful attention to the cost-benefits here. He was being big and dumb and breaking things, as he does.

Maybe it was required to meet external requirements, but don't pretend Trump knew anything about that or that he wanted to get the job done.
Or that what he did was costless.

For someone who says they don't like Trump, you sure do defend his every single little petty action.

[Don Nico]

"yeah, we call that a conspiracy theory."
Indeed, proof by name calling. Pathetic

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, Sarcastro. As a building contractor, what the heck would Trump know about making sure that projects with deadlines get finished on time?

[Randal]

DN, I still don't get your point. Are you defending Brett's theory? Why is it up to Sarcastr0 to disprove Brett's theory when Brett offered no proof of it himself? How could Sarcastr0 possibly go about that, given that Brett offered no evidence to rebut?

Think of "sounds like a conspiracy theory" as a way of saying "I think that's a made-up story based on the lack of evidence and clear partisan motives." Seems like a legitimate (and accurate) observation.

[Don Nico]

Publius:
The use of zygote by QA is just an example of language as a weapon in the class warfare.
Of course, it has zero to do with when that being is considered a legal person under the US Constitution

[David Nieporent]

You goofball, LA just passed a law based on fertilization!

Actually, they didn't; someone introduced that bill but it didn't go anywhere. But Oklahoma did.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure it does: Those districts flipped when the racist Democrat voters died off, and their non-racist children choose instead to vote Republican.

[Randal]

"The judge dismissed all the black jurors."

"Yeah but he always does that, so it's fine."
-- Tiny Pianist