Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Jay Ash]

I asked a question at r/ask_lawyers, but I only got on response.
This isn't at all a question of legal advice...
But I am curious...

At protests you'll see folks "backing people back" by standing in front of them invading their personal space and often touching them with their bodies with an ostentatious show of not using their hands. Is that legal? What can the target of that do?

Oftentimes, the target is a person holding a sign, or trying to speak.

Whenever the target takes any step away from the person in front, perhaps to reclaim some personal space, or to make their sign more visible, the person in front moves in. And yet, if the target takes any action including bumping their stomach with the "attacker", then the attacker claims they are a victim of assault.

And so the target, the sign holder, is progressively (no pun intended) pushed out of the venue, their speech stifled.

At times, multiple attackers are present, or even attackers holding large umbrellas.

What can the target of such attacks do legally to counter this tactic?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Dorothy Parker's advice may suggest an answer: wear something spiky.

Oh, ponder, friend, the porcupine;
Refresh your recollection,
And sit a moment, to define
His means of self-protection.

How truly fortified is he!
Where is the beast his double
In forethought of emergency
And readiness for trouble?

[DaivdBehar]

Is it the unauthorized practice of law to give specific and individualized advice not to a party, but to the lawyer of a party.

I would like to know the name of the defense lawyer for the Kavanaugh assassin.

[DaivdBehar]

I oppose violence to solve political problems. All violence has never worked, including the catastrophic American Revolution. However, I would like formal logic to become supreme over all statutes and ratified treaties of the US. The immunity of the Justice is a justification for violence in formal logic. I would like the lawyer to try that defense, and to make formal logic supreme, as it should be. If you oppose violence, bring legal liability, its genius alternative.

[Krayt]

I'm sure plenty of lawyers will sue over that. These are the people who think it's ok for a burglar who stumbles over a toy in your living room in the middle of the night should be able to sue you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jay Ash — I do not think that should be allowed. I cannot propose a remedy, but would be happy to hear suggestions from others. Whatever remedy is applied, it ought to apply alike to anyone who brings arms or body armor to a protest or political gathering. The conduct you describe is intimidation, just as coming prepared for combat is intimidation. Both too much burden the right of assembly.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, to me the common sense solution is to keep the parties separated (like across the street from each other) and let them holler as loud as they like for their favored cause. I would like to believe that people would adopt a 'don't be an a-hole rule' of their own free will and accord, but if a police officer has to separate them, so be it.

The bright line to me here is touching of any kind. That is the line (for me). Say what you want, loudly and boisterously, but don't touch me.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the common sense solution, and it's why, when the local government is hostile to a protest, (Like was the case in Charlottesville, where they'd been forced by a court to issue the parade permit.) they instead force the two sides together. Presto, instant riot, and you can order the protest to disperse.

But this sort of solution requires at least some cooperation from the protesters, it's not like you can keep them sorted if some of them set out to infiltrate the other side.

I think that, first of all, you need serious video surveillance, so that you can document what happened. It's in the interest of the people doing the protest to supply this, this isn't the only tactic anti-protesters use, the fake assault is pretty common, too.

Then you report the simple battery.

Then you run up against the initial problem: If the local authorities are hostile to the protest, they'll refuse to prosecute any charges referred to them.

So, I don't know. Taser shirts?

[Brett Bellmore]

The actual problem, after all, isn't anti-protester tactics. It's the fact that the local government is aligned with the anti-protesters, and working in coordination with them. The police are going to be ordered to get out of the anti-protesters' way, the prosecutors won't prosecute them if they're caught committing a crime.

Then comes Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights;

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

It's perfectly applicable to the tactic described here. But it requires a DOJ interested in enforcing it. That's been the weak spot.

[Yatusabes]

Like was the case in Charlottesville, where they'd been forced by a court to issue the parade permit.

We live near Cville, and we were convinced the Unite the Right folks would be coming for us as a married, ethnic ga couple. When the facts were revealed, it was disappointing to see how Biden, Democrats and the legacy media portrayed the Right as solely responsible. As I watched the video of the schizophrenic guy being surrounded in his car, being pummeled by the Left, it was all predictable. Had the Left stayed on their side of the street, both sides could have exercised their 1A rights. Alas, they could not have that. Charlottesville demonstration was an epic failure of both sides or perhaps a classic example of our broken culture.

[Brett Bellmore]

What happened in Charlottesville is that the local government refused to issue Unite the Right a parade permit. Unite the Right then went to a court, and got a court order forcing Charlottesville to issue it.

So Charlottesville deliberately forced the two sides together to generate a riot that would provide an excuse to cancel the parade permit. What happened was no accident or failure, it was deliberately engineered by a hostile local government.

[Michael P]

The state (well, commonwealth) government was a major part of that process.

[jimc5499]

After the 2016 election I was taking my Great Niece and her friends to a women's college basketball game. I was friends with one of the coaches so we were invited to the pre-game practice and the girls could have Lunch with the Team. As we were going into the Field House, we encountered the "pussy hat" clowns. Apparently they thought that ESPN was covering the game. (they weren't) I figured that we'd walk past and that would be it. A Campus Police Officer stopped us and told us to leave. I told him where I was going and that we had tickets for the game. He didn't care. He told me that I looked like the type of person who wouldn't take crap from the protesters (alone I wouldn't, but, not with four, nine year old girls) that his job was to "protect" the protesters. I could almost understand if it were students protesting, but, it was during "winter break" and classes were not in session. So I couldn't be there legitimately (bought tickets), but, the Police were supporting people who were actually trespassing.
This was the University of Pittsburgh, in Pittsburgh.

[Nisiiko]

Did you report him? Ask for his superior officer?

[Sarcastr0]

No, Charlottesville was not a setup by local authorities Brett.

[wreckinball]

You're right, the authorities just did everything they could to push the two opposing sides together.

Totally an accident

[Sarcastr0]

You say things, and invariably have zero evidence they are true.

[Michael P]

There's plenty of evidence, if you're willing to look further than the denialist nuts you like to dismiss: https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Charlottesville-Critical-Incident-Review-2017.pdf

[David Nieporent]

That report says that they failed to keep the two sides separate on that day. It does not in any way endorse Brett's insane conspiracy theory (I should have a macro for that phrase, because it comes up time and again) that they deliberately forced the two sides together to cause a riot to justify the police going after the neo-Nazis.

[wreckinball]

Dude you ignore reality. The protestors were pushed through counter protestors, then the protest was declared illegal because it was violent, which the police didn't prevent, and the protestors were pushed back out through the counter protestors culminated by the guy trying to ram his car into people.

This happened because the authorities mayor, pols police chief did not approve of the protest. They publicly stated this. It was exactly as stated in the previous post which you inanely keep chirping away at.

And no I'm not looking it up for you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Democrat police in San Jose did something similar at a Trump rally. They intentionally routed Conservatives through violent Democrats to increase the chances of harm.

Democrats are evil vile subhuman pieces of dog waste.

[Nisiiko]

Gassing would be too good for these vermin.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't get your own facts, Sarcastr0. The local government WAS forced by a court order to issue that parade permit, and then they DID manage things to get a pretext for canceling it.

You can argue that their actions just coincidentally gave them what they wanted. Why you'd think anybody would find that plausible I don't know.

[bernard11]

You don't get yours, either.

The report Michael P. links does not support your claims. It says the event was mismanaged, but nothing to support the idea that there was something nefarious going on.

Your statements are nothing but your own paranoid imaginings.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, and the mismanagement just coincidentally gave the local government a perfect excuse to cancel the protest, which desire was already amply documented.

[Yatusabes]

from the linked report provided

In contrast to the July 8 event, the City of Charlottesville protected neither free expression nor public safety on August 12. The City was unable to protect the right of free expression and facilitate the permit holder’s offensive speech. This represents a failure of one of government’s core functions—the protection of fundamental rights. Law enforcement also failed to maintain order and protect citizens from harm, injury, and death. Charlottesville preserved neither of those principles on August 12, which has led to deep distrust of government within this community.

[bernard11]

Ah. It was a conspiracy.

[Life of Brian]

Your statements are nothing but your own paranoid imaginings.

In somewhat more genteel circles, it's known as "circumstantial evidence." A bedrock legal concept that flips in and out of vogue as needed, much like federalism.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't even circumstantial evidence for Brett's conspiracy, though.

[Life of Brian]

And salamanders are sometimes pink. Therefore?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Communists are salamanders?

[Yatusabes]

The bright line to me here is touching of any kind.

Pro-aborts commit battery all the time on Pro-Lifers like me when we protest at abortion centers, praying our Rosaries on the city sidewalk. Invariably they resort to threatening, hurling insults in our faces, spitting, pushing, grabbing our rosaries or destroying our signs, including throwing balloons at us filled with red dye. Witness their terrorist activities recently at churches, pro-life organizations and disrupting Catholic Mass on Sundays.

They have always believed violence was justifiable.

[Sarcastr0]

Just another ethnic married gay who goes to pro-Life protests, and has become convinced by personal experience that the left is the real danger.

[Brett Bellmore]

After several years of the left rioting, causing billions in property damage and dozens of deaths, and in the context of a pro-choice terrorist organization firebombing pro-choice organizations, sure.

[DWB]

Was there a presidential assassination that wasn't done by a Democrat/the left?

Bombed Capitol by someone not of the left???

A church attacked/bombed by someone of a Democrat/of the left?

Your ideology tends to lead to bloodshed

[bernard11]

A church attacked/bombed by someone of a Democrat/of the left?

WTF? Gregory Bowers? Dylann Roof?

[DWB]

2 is all you got? My point ... proven.

How many churches were attacked just during the BLM white trash riots?????

[Sarcastr0]

Your goalposts…..moving.

[DWB]

Yeah, because 2 counter examples are supposed to match or even trump the pools of leftist bloodshed just in this country alone?

American political violence is OVERWHELMINGLY from Democrats.

[Sarcastr0]

Was there a presidential assassination that wasn't done by a Democrat/the left?

This only requires one counterexample. You were provided with two.
No new goalposts.

If you want a new thesis, you do the work to support it with more than anecdotes, capital letters and bold type.

[bernard11]

I got plenty.

But if I listed 1000 it wouldn't change your mind.

[DWB]

Uh huh

[DWB]

I mean -- I am sure it's totally equal to the lives of 3 presidents, MLK, dozens of church bombings, lynchings and friggin' civl war!

[Aunt Teefah]

The only presidential assassination that was done by "the left" was McKinley, who was killed by an anarchist (unless you actually believe Oswald was really a communist lmao).

[DWB]

Oliver Stone, is that you????

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

unless you actually believe Oswald was really a communist lmao

Because nothing says, "I'm not a communist" like defecting to the Soviet Union and attempting to renounce your U.S. citizenship, distributing pro-Castro/communism propaganda, telling people that you're a communist, etc.

[Aunt Teefah]

Yes, real communists that defected to the Soviet Union we’re definitely just let back into the US without any issue (and given a bunch of money by the US). In 1962.

[Commenter_XY]

Listen, I could care less about the politics of the person; the bright line is you don't touch them, period. Say what you want, but keep your hands (and objects in aforementioned hands or otherwise attached to your body) to yourself. At some level, you need some absolutes and that seems to me a good point to have a legal absolute for everyone.

[bernard11]

You are full of shit.

And you are not part of a married ethnic gay couple.

[shawn_dude]

I suppose it's possible he's a married gay male Catholic who goes to anti-choice rallies with other highly religious and likely orthodox Christians, but the chances are pretty darned slim. The church will generally tolerate celibate, single, gay men but married gay men are right up there with abortion in their sin hierarchy chart. And it's not like the sorts of Christians that go to women's health centers to harass the patients are the more tolerant and forgiving type. But, you know, I suppose it's possible.

[DWB]

The Catholic Church tolerated very UN-celibate gay men raping little alter boys for DECADES!!!!!!

GTFOOHWTBS

[MatthewSlyfield]

"Whatever remedy is applied, it ought to apply alike to anyone who brings arms or body armor to a protest or political gathering."

The problem here is how you define arms/armor.

A sign on any kind of long handle can be used as a weapon. A sign on a solid enough backing can be used as a shield. A walking stick or cane can become a weapon in the event of violence.

I don't see how you come up with any kind of rules that are enforceable before violence breaks out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Moreover, I'm 63, I don't heal as fast as I used to, I injure easier, I hate to think of how long I'd take to recover if I got a broken rib. So, if I attend a rally, I'm not allowed to take precautions?

Part of the problem in the last few years, though, was that Covid gave people cover to pull this sort of crap masked, to avoid being identified. We're going to need renewed enforcement of anti-Klan laws that crack down on the use of masks to shield the identity of people engaged in criminal conspiracies, a standard tactic of Antifa and other black bloc organizations.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The problem here is how you define arms/armor.

No, the problem here is not understanding the difference between the ability to commit assault and the actual commission of assault. Applying Lathrop's "reasoning" (and I'm being very generous in my use of that word here) consistently would mean that any hypothetical remedies should apply to anyone who is physically capable of assaulting someone via any means...especially given that the history of incidents of violence occurring at protests clearly indicates that a protestor is FAR more likely to be assaulted by someone who is not armed with a firearm or wearing body armor than by someone who is so equipped. Irrational fears (irrational because the available facts do not support them) are not a valid basis for public policy.

[Jay Ash]

Ironically, the incident I had in mind when I posed the question was the Netflix employee protest against Dave Chappelle. In that incident, the counter-protester was a comedian holding up a sign on a stick that said something like "Jokes are funny" or some other message of support for Chappelle.

His sign was grabbed by a Netflix employee and the sign torn off the stick, and literally in that incident the Netflix employee that tore the sign off the stick started shouting "He's got a weapon!"

You can find that by googling "I Got ASSAULTED at the Netflix Protest!" and then it's just about 10 minutes into the video.

[not guilty]

John Eastman has now been ordered to turn over additional emails to the House January 6 investigating committee. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000181-4144-d2d5-abb1-f9c47cc00000 U. S. District Judge David Carter had previously held that from January 4-7, 2021, President Trump and Eastman likely committed obstruction of an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), and conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, when they attempted to disrupt the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021. This week's ruling observed that Eastman and Trump’s plan to disrupt the Joint Session was fully formed and actionable as early as December 7, 2020. The plan to stop the count was not only established by early December, it was the ultimate goal that the legal team was working to protect from that point forward.

Judge Carter opined at page 21:

In [an] email, dated December 22, 2020, an attorney goes beyond strategizing litigation outcomes. This email considers whether to bring a case that would decide the interpretation of the Electoral Count Act and potentially risk a court finding that the Act binds Vice President Pence. Because the attorney concluded that a negative court ruling would “tank the January 6 strategy,” he encouraged the legal team to avoid the courts. This email cemented the direction of the January 6 plan. The Trump legal team chose not to seek recourse in court—instead, they forged ahead with a political campaign to disrupt the electoral count. Lawyers are free not to bring cases; they are not free to evade judicial review to overturn a
democratic election. Accordingly, this portion of the email is subject to the crime-fraud exception and must be disclosed. ]Footnotes omitted.]

I can envision Trump, if he is prosecuted, blaming Eastman for the unlawful scheme in its entirety, with Trump merely relying on Eastman's legal advice. I suggest that Eastman's best hope would be to seek a cooperation agreement with prosecutors, in hope of receiving a shorter prison sentence rather than a longer one.

[Brett Bellmore]

Interesting. How does the judge define "disrupt"?

[Yatusabes]

it depends on the date and time asked because we live in a dictatorship of relativism

https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/police-precinct-minneapolis/

Burning Down the 3rd Police Precinct Changed Everything

It was an unprecedented and beautiful moment in the annals of rebellion in this country. By seizing the cops’ home base, rioters showed millions of people that they could defeat the police. For many, it finally broke through the veil of omnipotence, timelessness, and domination that kept abolition from seeming possible. Police were returned to the realm of history.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you just compare The Nation to a Federal court?

[Yatusabes]

A court is comprised of people. Judges are people who have opinions as varied and as flawed as everyone else.

Dictatorship of relativism reigns today but particularly in Federal Courts

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know what nutpicking is?

[Michael P]

How many establishment leftist outlets do you think are full of nuts?

[Sarcastr0]

That linked Nation article sure is,

[bernard11]

A new one for the mute button.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I meant, how does this particular judge define "disrupt", in this particular instance?

Because it seems to me that depending on how he's doing it, he either runs up against the speech and debate clause, or he runs up against the utter lack of evidence that Trump actually directed anybody to invade the Capitol.

[not guilty]

How does the Speech and Debate clause relate to communications between Trump and Eastman??

It is not necessary to find that "Trump actually directed anybody to invade the Capitol." There is ample evidence that Trump and Eastman attempted to corruptly importune Mike Pence to unilaterally reject valid slates of electors, with no legal authority therefor, based on the falsehood that Trump in fact won several states which he in fact did not win, in order to obtain a benefit to which Trump was not entitled (a second term in office). This happened on January 4. Judge Carter opined that the plot "was fully formed and actionable as early as December 7, 2020."

[wreckinball]

So he wanted Pence to do something and he didn't do it. He told folks to go peacefully to deliver that message. Ha keep stretching.

We live in ridiculous times

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Trump clearly was trying to influence an official proceeding. That's not the same as "disrupting" one.

The only disruption was the Capitol being invaded, and, again, nobody has produced evidence that Trump directed that.

[not guilty]

Uh, corruptly attempting to obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding is criminalized by 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). The Trump/Eastman scheme was clearly an attempt to influence the electoral count. The linchpin of the plot was the submission to the National Archive of false statements claiming to be valid state electors. That is a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(3). Eastman, among others, was complicit in those bogus submissions.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and if he'd bribed somebody, or threatened their family, you might have a point.

[not guilty]

Bribery is not necessary. We've had this conversation before.

As Justice Scalia has opined, interpreting 18 U.S. 1503:

[T]he term "corruptly" in criminal laws has a longstanding and well-accepted meaning. It denotes "[a]n act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others .... It includes bribery but is more comprehensive; because an act may be corruptly done though the advantage to be derived from it be not offered by another." United States v. Ogle, 613 F.2d 233, 238 (CAlO), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 825 (1980).

United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 616 (1995) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) [emphasis added]. As the District Court instructed the jury in Aguilar, "An act is done corruptly if it's done voluntarily and intentionally to bring about either an unlawful result or a lawful result by some unlawful method, with a hope or expectation of either financial gain or other benefit to oneself or a benefit of another person." Id., at 616-17.

[Brett Bellmore]

"An act is done corruptly if it's done voluntarily and intentionally to bring about either an unlawful result or a lawful result by some unlawful method, "

Yes, that's my understanding, too. Either the thing requested, or the way it's requested, must be unlawful.

Trump didn't bribe or threaten Pence. And he had legal advice that Pence could lawfully do as requested.

Bad legal advice, sure, but acting on bad legal advice can result in you breaking a law, but it can't be corrupt, as that goes to your state of mind. You can't corruptly do something your lawyer has told you is legal.

Anyway, my question above went to "disrupt", and I don't believe anybody has produced evidence that Trump was responsible for any disruption of the proceedings.

[bernard11]

You can't corruptly do something your lawyer has told you is legal.

Of course you can, if the lawyer is in on the plan, as Eastman surely was.

Plus, I assume that, at some point, the advice is so bad that you should know it.

[not guilty]

The thing requested was for Mike Pence to unilaterally reject valid slates of state electors. That is an unlawful result under 3 U.S.C. 15. The way it was requested involved a conspiracy to submit false slates of bogus electors contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(3). That conspiracy (which Trump and Eastman were part of) violates 18 U.S.C. 371. The ask and the means were unlawful, and the objective was to obtain for Trump a benefit to which he was not entitled -- a second term in office. That is corrupt.

There is a legitimate means of seeking an extension or modification of the law. It is to go before an authorized tribunal, candidly identify the limits of existing law, and make a good faith argument for modification or extension. Per Judge Carter's opinion this week, Eastman consciously avoided doing that because it would “tank the January 6 strategy.”

IOKIYAR is not a maxim of statutory construction.

[not guilty]

"Disrupt" is not defined in the opinion. The judge is using common parlance.

The antecedent opinion of March 28, 2022, which considered emails of January 4-7, 2021 and describes the scheme in greater detail, is available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21561085-eastman-ruling

[Drewski]

What you're describing in your last paragraph is a mistake of law defense, but a private attorney's legal advice cannot be used to support such a defense.

[not guilty]

That won't stop Trump from attempting it.

[John F. Carr]

What if the law requires intent like "willfully", "corruptly", or "knowingly"?

One of my former employers had a lawyer write a get out of jail free letter explaining that the company's conduct did not fall within the reach of a certain regulation. Management was convinced that an arguably good faith belief in legality could or would keep the company out of trouble. A year or two later a new management team decided not to rely on the lawyer's letter and spent the time and money to comply with the regulation. (I don't know which mental state was required to sustain a criminal conviction or a "civil" sanction by the agency that issued the regulation.)

[David Nieporent]

Advice of counsel can sometimes be a defense, to a charge of willfully violating a law. But worth noting that to assert the defense, a/c privilege must be entirely waived with respect to that issue. Can't use it as a sword and shield, and all that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"if he is prosecuted"

Keep hope alive!

Just remember as you watch the hearings tonight that you should seek medical attention if your erection lasts more than 2 hours.

[Life of Brian]

not guilty
June.9.2022 at 3:27 am

Man, how did you let some rando punk you and beat you to your obligatory middle-of-the-night first post of politically charged swill by one whole minute? You're slipping, my friend.

[Kazinski]

A rather interesting constitutional legal development in Steve Bannon's trial for contempt of Congress. He's subpoenaed 9 members of Congress, 6 on the committee and Pelosi, House, and Clyburn.

Constitutionally members of Congress can't be compelled to testify under the speech and debate clause, so the court will quash the subpoenas.

The question is can Bannon get a fair trial if he can't present the witnesses he says he needs for his defense. And I think there is good justification for needing those witnesses.

[not guilty]

What Bannon is likely seeking to inquire into is not a defense. That issue can be fully ventilated when a motion to quash the subpoenas is filed.

[not guilty]

A Gallup poll released this past Monday suggests that abortion rights has recently become a more important voting issue. https://news.gallup.com/poll/393263/abortion-poised-bigger-voting-issue-past.aspx The poll finds that Americans are opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade and that their attitudes have shifted toward greater support for legalized abortion.

Perhaps the pro-coat hanger coalition should have heeded the old proverb about being careful what to wish for.

[Ed Grinberg]

I wish to live in a county of laws. I like our constitutional Republic. I wish courts would stick to the law instead of legislating from the bench. There is not constitutional right to abortion. If you can get your state legislature to legalize it -- great. You're also free to move to a state where it's legal. But "finding" a fake right in the Constitution is engaging in a deliberate lie. The Supreme Court is about to undo this outright, outrageous lie (and the Left is going nuts over it).

[M L]

Show me one left winger who cares.

[Moderation4ever]

I have long believed that overturning Roe would be a giant social experiment. I don't think people like abortions but expect the option to be there. I think the polling reflects this fact.

[Brett Bellmore]

Public opinion polling has persistently shown that elective abortion legality is only popular, (And just moderately so!) in the first trimester, and after that you have very solid majorities in favor of outlawing any abortion that isn't for cause.

That's not the regime Roe set up, though.

[Moderation4ever]

Support for legal first trimester abortion is at over 60%. In a country as divided as we are that is more than moderate. A politician with 52% will claim a mandate.

Yes, after the first trimester people would outlaw abortions that as you noted are "not for cause". The thing is that most later stage abortions are "for cause". Again, suggesting that people do support legal abortions.

So, you comment essentially support what the poll found.

[Life of Brian]

Support for legal first trimester abortion is at over 60%.

If you're trying to set this up as showing public sentiment is generally against Dobbs/overturning Roe, you may want to consider addressing the glaring omission of "within __ miles" from the polling questions.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"overturning Roe would be a giant social experiment." Deciding Roe wasn't?

"I don't think people like abortions but expect the option to be there. I think the polling reflects this fact."

Overturning Roe returns that power to the States. I have no doubt that NY, CA, some others will preserve that option; they're already doing so.

[Bob from Ohio]

"poll finds"

Issue pols are garbage, no exceptions.

Even if true, if you think abortion is going to offset $5+ gasoline and 8%+ inflation, I'd like to get some of what you are smoking.

[Kazinski]

Now do a poll about gas prices.

I don't doubt abortion is a greater issue than it's been in the past, but the top three issues are the economy, inflation, and gas prices.

And there is a 20% enthusiasm gap between Republican voters and Democratic voters.

That's from the June 5, ABC-Ipsos poll.

[Kazinski]

A much more interesting poll was released by the SPLC on approval of assassination of a politician harming the country or our democracy.

The highest approval for political assassination was among Younger Democratic Men, at 44% approval.

Just as jaw dropping, or maybe more, is the next highest cohort is the 40% approval among Younger Republican Women.

[shawn_dude]

Meh, with gerrymandering in place, they really don't have much of a risk. The party will handle primary challengers and easily sideline independent and Democratic challengers.

[Randal]

Was it Blackman who predicted that Roberts would resign at the end of the term?

Whoever it was, it's feeling tantalizingly... well not likely, but possible. He has no real allies, his project for a humbler court is in shambles, the leak investigation is causing more problems than it's solving, his own wing is making public statements against him, he can barely keep his justices safe, and the term feels like it's going to drag on forever.

I could imagine him coming to the conclusion that the Roberts Court cannot be salvaged. He may come to view stepping down as the best way to start healing a broken court... especially if he feels like he can spin it to the left as an atonement for Garland, with assurances from Biden for cooperation on that front and a relatively moderate pick... maybe even Garland himself (although he's probably too damaged at this point... unless Biden sees it as bonus way to hire a new AG with no fuss).

I know it's wishful thinking, but the court seems to be crumbling day by day. A Roberts resignation would at least offer some hope of a reset next term.

[Sarcastr0]

The Court is not crumbling. Terminally online law-types are just getting more overdramatic lately.

[Randal]

Are you referring to Nina?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't read her. I do read you and Blackman.

[AmosArch]

I'm not sure what his gameplan is other than he's actually a leftist but for some reason wants to convince everybody he's transitioning to it.

Some of the other suggestions seem silly to me. He wants to placate Leftists to prevent courtpacking and complete control by giving them whatever they want now as if they packed the court?

He wants to limit the idea of the Court being too activist but he's okay when Sotomayor and Co is activist?

If there was no way to prevent Roe from being overturned why not side with the majority and write the opinion to limit the so called 'damage'? Is the poor widdle grown ass Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States afraid of some Tiktokkers who will inevitably not understand how the Court works making videos calling him mean names while twerking their ass on camera?

[Sarcastr0]

The right's been calling Roberts a secret leftist since 2012.

Purity tests aren't enough - they need to manufacture a secret agenda to make things truly black and white.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think Roberts is actually a leftist. I mean, if he were, why would he need to hide it? It's not as though it could plausibly result in his being impeached. He might even start getting invited to the better parties.

I think he's just obsessed with the Court's reputation, to the point where it looms larger in his mind than whether the Court deserves it's reputation. And since the left's view of the Court's legitimacy is entirely result oriented, while the right will excuse rulings they don't like if they're soundly argued, this inclines him to try to give the left wins they don't actually deserve on a sound legal basis.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"while the right will excuse rulings they don't like if they're soundly argued, this inclines him to try to give the left wins they don't actually deserve on a sound legal basis"

lol

[Brett Bellmore]

"If there was no way to prevent Roe from being overturned why not side with the majority and write the opinion to limit the so called 'damage'? "

I don't believe he CAN join the majority if they won't have him.

Maybe that's the delay: Roberts keeps "joining" the majority and writing an opinion the others refuse to sign, rinse and repeat.

[wreckinball]

It was stated when the leak first came out that Roberts was on board upholding the MS law but not overturning Roe.

Apparently the other 5 or at least Alito wanted to overturn Roe. They did not believe you could uphold MS and Roe. That the MS law violated Roe.

[not guilty]

Overruling Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey was not a question presented in Mississippi's petition for certiorari. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/145658/20200615170733513_FINAL%20Petition.pdf The petition expressly stated at page 5, "To be clear, the questions presented in this petition do nor require the Court to overturn Roe or Casey." The granting of the writ of certiorari was limited to the question, "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional." The Court is arguably without jurisdiction to reach an issue on which certiorari was not granted.

If Roberts could persuade one member of Alito's putative majority to uphold the fifteen week cutoff but without reaching the continuing validity of Roe and Casey, that would become the precedential opinion under the rule of Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.)

The Court could uphold the Mississippi statute without overruling Roe and Casey by opining that the state's interest becomes preeminent at quickening, rather than fetal viability. Since the vast majority of abortions occur earlier than at fifteen weeks, that would work less of a societal upheaval than abandoning Roe and Casey entirely.

[David Nieporent]

If there was no way to prevent Roe from being overturned why not side with the majority and write the opinion to limit the so called 'damage'?

Assuming Alito's opinion ultimately issues in roughly the leaked form, I think it'll be pretty obvious that Roberts wanted to do what you propose but couldn't get the votes.

If there are five votes to dump Roe, Roberts can't head that off by writing an opinion that doesn't do so. He needs to convince at least one other to sign on.

[AmosArch]

Question. Even if you are the most dyed in the wool LGDKLFKLJDFJKLKLFKJLMDFKLKLFDKLFJLKLIKDFFL activist. Why would you support the obnoxious commercialized cashgrab that is 'Pride' Month or any of the other recent postmodern corporate holiday replacements? Let alone demand others celebrate them? How does buying rainbow vomit cookies or tshirts enriching the pockets of what you yourself describe as destructive slavedriving megacorps benefit LIKGDLFGJLIFKDJLOIFJLIKFKLKF people or humanity as a whole? And don't deny that Pride Month is overwhelmingly commercial even by the standards of holidays with much of the remainder being outrage porn.

Isn't it kind of like fundamentalist Christians demanding people buy christmas themed coca cola bottles? And even if you think they do indeed do stuff like that why would you imitate them? Yet theres barely a whimper of protest. I guess you're allowed to abuse minorities as long as you do it nicely.

[Randal]

Congratulations Amos, you might just be queer!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Liberation_March

[AmosArch]

So you're saying all homophobia comes from gay people?

[Randal]

Uh... ??

I was pointing out that your concern is shared by a vocal segment of the queer community... you know, the Q people, before that letter got ironically coopted by a right-wing lunacy cult.

But... it's true that some of the same Q people are upset with Ls and Gs who've taken the win of Obergefell and let go of their grievances. It was a big, ugly undercurrent during the Buttigieg campaign, for example. I suppose you could call that a form of homophobia, maybe.

[Yatusabes]

The alphabet folks are cowards. They use us gays and lesbians as their shields to capriciously, under peer pressure, fads and appearances of being "cool" to belong to a group that has endured the scars from the "straights". It in insulting and demeaning to G & L to appear to want affiliation to us without their having done the soul searching and mature reflection we have done to lay our balls and tits on the table, and brace for impact. It takes more than a bad wig, awful makeup and gawdy heels to be in a population such as ours. It is an internal thing, not a superficial outward accessory to cast on and off at will. Far left (Dan Savage), Right wing (Andrew Sullivan), liberal (Bari Weiss) and scores of other G and L authors have written extensively on the alphabet folks, and frankly we do not claim them as having anything in common with us. They are grifters. If they were to put their skin in the gayme after minimum 10 years of living as such, after achieving a mature age (25+ and older), then maybe we can talk. It is a coward's way to take affiliation with a group of G and L with not having experience with that lived orientation, one not chosen capriciously but rather accepted with resignation. Till then they merit our scorn

[Randal]

On which side of this schism do you consider Q?

[Randal]

Ok wait, they're the grifters. You're on team Buttigieg. Ok. Your mention of Dan Savage threw me off... I always thought he was queer-sympathetic but maybe I'm wrong about that.

[Yatusabes]

Stop Dan Savage: Your LGBT “Activist” is Actually a Bigot
https://outwritenewsmag.org/2014/11/stop-dan-savage-your-lgbt-activist-is-actually-a-bigot/

[shawn_dude]

I have serious doubts that you're gay. But that aside, don't speak for me. The "B" and "T" folks are part of my community just as much as the "L" and the "G."

The goal of LGBT rights was to create a safe space for us in the world, not create an exclusive club with silly rules that enforce separatism from the rest of society.

So, you know, fuck off.

[Randal]

I read Yatusabes as saying that actually, it's the Q people (and their sympathizers) who are creating an exclusive club with silly rules, and who aren't particularly interested in creating a safe space in the world as much as grievance for the sake of grievance.

[Yatusabes]

Yup. Spot on

[apedad]

Oooooooorrrr. . . you could just ignore it instead of getting your panties all wadded up.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Oooooooorrrr. . . you could just ignore it instead of getting your panties all wadded up.

I'm guessing you're oblivious to the fact that you're using the wearing of panties as a pejorative...or just aren't bright enough to realize what that says about you.

[Sarcastr0]

Capitalism clumsily trying to coopt culture is not reason to reject culture.

Unless you're a Tankie.
Telling you can't contemplate someone who isn't a tankie.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a reason to reject capitalism as practiced by big corporations.

If they want to aggressively lean onto one political side, they can enjoy their partnership with that side.

[Sarcastr0]

Its a reason to reject capitalism as practiced by big corporations.

Hahahahahahaha.

[David Bremer]

Honestly, I'm not a member of that community, but after reading your post, I'd ask to expand it just because it seems to piss you off so much. I don't agree with all of the arguments the LGBTQ community makes, but don't have to be a dick about it.

And nobody is forcing you to buy flag-bearing Coke bottles. Nor is it "abuse" to have your favorite products bear flags or rainbows (not to mention I don't recall cries of "abuse" every October when everything is pink). Plus, it's your political allies who cry over Starbucks cups, holiday wishes, and the "war or Christmas" ever December.

[bernard11]

demand others celebrate them?

I don't recall any such demands being made of me.

[AmosArch]

maybe not you personally but....

https://www.dailywire.com/news/gay-pro-baseball-player-loses-it-over-rays-refusing-to-wear-lgbtq-pride-night-logo-trashes-faith-concerns-deems-players-homophobic

[Bob from Ohio]

Some pitcher from the Cardinals also bloviated against them.

I did find this amusing:

"Openly gay pro-baseball player Bryan Ruby is outraged ...Ruby, who has played in the minor leagues but is reportedly taking June off,"

All players just take June off. When's baseball played anyway?

He doesn't have any pro stats at Baseball Reference, the Bible of stats, just college ones from 2015 and prior.

[shawn_dude]

Which is probably why it isn't career suicide for him to be out.

That should tell you something about the world we live in.

[Ben_]

Rephrase: Do extremely self-involved people enjoy being pandered to?

Yes, they do.

[Yatusabes]

Let alone demand others celebrate them?

If it is any consolation we laugh at their demands. I am not sure why any parent would want their kid to be part of such needy, attention seeking, emotionally stunted, intellectually vacuous individuals. Perhaps I understate.

There is far more to life than one's sexual orientation, an argument we made strenuously in the 80s and 90s when straights like Anita Bryant, the Moral Majority, et al, insisted on defining us merely on our sexual orientation. Now the alphabet folks have undone precisely what G and L have built for so long. Self absorbed fuckers.

[shawn_dude]

The right defines us by the sex we have, not our sexual orientation. That's why talking about mommies and daddies is okay in a Florida school but not having two mommies or two daddies. The former is "a happy family" and the latter is "sex education."

[David Nieporent]

I'll skip most of the bait in your question, and treat it seriously: because this sort of commercialized behavior normalizes homosexuality. It says that the gay community are not radicals trying to overturn society, but rather are just another community to market to, no different than promoting green stuff for St. Patrick's Day or Jewish stuff around Chanukah or military stuff around Memorial Day or Veteran's Day.

[not guilty]

By a vote of 223 to 204, the House of Representatives has passed legislation raising the minimum age for the purchase of most semiautomatic rifles to 21 and banning high-capacity ammunition magazines. Five Republicans joined most Democrats in backing the legislation. Two Democrats voted no. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/08/house-gun-legislation/

In light of the carnage committed by 18 year olds with (lawfully purchased) AR-15 rifles in Buffalo and Uvalde, this should be a no brainer, but it is unlikely to pass in the Senate. The Second Amendment does not encompass "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008). Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are "presumptively lawful regulatory measures." Id., at 627, n.26.

[not guilty]

What will it take for Republicans to stop genuflecting to the NRA? https://www.businessinsider.com/house-republicans-to-reject-gun-control-bills-nra-opposition-2022-6

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not genuflecting to the NRA. They're genuflecting to the NRA's members, who comprise well over 1% of the entire population of the US, and when you include people who follow the NRA's endorsements, several percent of the voters in any election.

Heller might have said that you don't have a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose, but it did say something about commonly owned, and both semi-automatic rifles and the normal sized magazines Democrats are trying to call "high capacity" are very widely owned.

[not guilty]

At least seven U. S. Courts of Appeals applying Heller have upheld prohibitions on large capacity magazines. Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc); Worman v. Healey, 922 F.3d 26 (1sr Cir.); Ass'n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Att'y General, 910 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 2018); Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 129 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc); New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015); Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015); Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

All of the above decisions except Duncan upheld assault weapon bans, which included a number of semi-automatic rifles.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, one goes to court with the law one has, not the law one wishes to have.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, some of the US Courts of Appeals are in all but open rebellion against Heller, purporting to apply it while actually violating it. And the Court has been entirely negligent in allowing the resulting circuit splits to persist.

[not guilty]

Where is the circuit split on large capacity magazines? Which circuit has ruled such a prohibition to be invalid?

[Brett Bellmore]

Granted, the circuit splits are on other issues, but they're still being allowed to fester.

Only 7 states have "assault" weapon bans, the same states as have magazine capacity limits. You might see a circuit split on those issues if a state in the 5th circuit attempted one, but those states wouldn't. The bans are being enacted only in circuits hostile to this right, so far as I can tell.

Is there any law that says the Supreme court can't take appeals where there isn't a split?

[Sarcastr0]

Some professionals disagree with Brett’s take on Monday the state of the law.

This is open rebellion.

[Randal]

Heller didn't say "commonly owned," it said "in common use." And it specified one and a half legitimate uses, self-defense and hunting.

If a category of arms isn't suited or commonly used for those purposes, then it isn't covered by Heller, even if it's commonly owned.

That doesn't mean it's not covered by the 2A, just that Heller doesn't get you there.

[Bob from Ohio]

AR variants are the most popular rifle by far. How is that not "in common use"?

[Randal]

Because Heller also specified the legitimate use cases. In common use... for robbing banks, for example, doesn't work.

You ought to be happy about this formulation, because it means that some guns are covered which aren't commonly owned. For example, if fox hunting is considered a legitimate use case but requires a specialty firearm, you could say that firearm is in common use for fox hunting, even if it's not at all common in the bigger picture.

[rsteinmetz]

A very small minority of crimes including bank robberies use AR or AK style weapons. Most people I know who own them use them for target shooting, surely a common and legal use.

I saw a tweet early this week that listed 13 mass shootings over the weekend. I looked up the news stories on each one. 2 were disputes at graduation parties, 2 were shootings outside night clubs, others resulted from angry confrontations. As far as I could tell a large majority involved BIPOC and none involved schools or political disputes. I couldn't tell the type of weapons used but the most common type described was a pistol.

Here's the list.
Chattanooga: 2 dead 14 wounded
Chesterfield: 1 dead 5 wounded
Summerton: 1 dead 8 wounded
Phoenix: 1 dead 8 wounded
Omaha: 1 dead 3 wounded
Macon: 1 dead 3 wounded
Philly: 3 dead 11 wounded
Mesa: 2 dead 2 wounded
Socorro: 5 wounded

I think some of the wounded later died. One story says 17 dead and over 70 wounded.

[Randal]

Certainly target shooting is common and legal, but not protected under Heller.

Again, not saying it wouldn't fly if it came before the court, just that Heller was quite specific about its boundaries.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, Heller was quite specific about NOT setting out boundaries.

"Justice Breyer chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment , one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879) , our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us."

IOW, Heller was just a first stab at defining the extent of the right, NOT a final, definitive declaration of its extent.

For instance, they explicitly did NOT reach the question of whether it's constitutionally permitted to require a license to own a firearm, because Heller was not contesting that part of the law. "We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."

And they said some sorts of laws were "presumptively" constitutional, but all that meant was that Heller shouldn't be read as overturning them; Presumptions can be rebutted, after all.

The pity of Heller is that it was a decision that anticipated a long series of clarifying cases, and then the Court went back to hiding from 2nd amendment cases again. Maybe they're ready to stop that? I hope so.

[Yatusabes]

A very small minority of crimes including bank robberies use AR or AK style weapons. Most people I know who own them use them for target shooting, surely a common and legal use.

My husband bought me an AR15 precisely because of ANTIFA BLM burning the city buildings, shooting and firebombing with Molotov cocktails our locale, and having meetings in a city park next to our home. Just like recent trends of sales of guns have grown with Hispanics and blacks, ANTIFA BLM have given folks a reason to buy weapons to protect themselves because of their lawlessness and violent anarchy.

[shawn_dude]

Your sock puppet has holes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You don't think that semiautomatic rifles and magazines with more than 10 rounds are in common use for both hunting and self defense?

[Randal]

I'm willing to assume they are, but the argument could be made that the self-defense use case wouldn't be impaired by limiting the magazine size. Heller talks a lot about this kind of thing, analyzing past and present laws and policies based on their impact on the owner's ability to use the gun for self-defense.

You guys really should read Heller!

[Kazinski]

Heller didn't narrow or reverse Miller 1939, which held the 2nd Amendment protected weapons that were "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

I can't think of a weapon that is more suitable to the militia than an AR-15, and Miller made it clear there was an individual right to own such weapons.

Heller expanded on Miller's holding of the core right to own weapons suitable to the Militia by asserting self defense as a core right also protected by the 2nd. And that handguns in common use were integral to exercising that right.

[Randal]

Heller absolutely did limit Miller on that point. Well, clarified.

Again, read it guys!

[Randal]

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

[Kazinski]

In tandem does not mean Miller is being narrowed. When things are put in context, the meaning is as likely to be expanded as it is to be narrowed. Its being expanded to include self defense, not narrowed to exclude arms suitable for the militia.

It's beyond absurd to assert that the Godfather of Originalism is going to cast aside the clear original intent of Congress to arm the militia so it would be capable of facing regular troops.

Heller specifically adopts Miller's language "in common use at the time" it says nothing about about narrowing the right to only self defense,

Scalia adds "for lawful purposes like self defense", do you think he intended to outlaw the ownership of guns for hunting because he specifically mentioned self defense, but not hunting?

You'll have to do much better than that to claim Scalia had any intent of reversing Miller or narrowing it's holding.

[Randal]

Oh God. Just read it!

[Randal]

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” ... It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

[Randal]

In other words, he's saying that back in the day, the sorts of weapons that people used for self-defence and the sorts that were useful in a militia were one and the same. Now that they're disjoint, Scalia's opinion in Heller said, let's keep the "useful for self-defense" part and let go of the outdated "useful for a militia" part.

I happen to think that's backwards, but that is what Scalia said in Heller.

[Kazinski]

Miller upheld the NFA, which taxed to death automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns.

Heller left Miller completely intact, NFA and all. But absolutely did not excise or narrow the right to own arms suitable to the Militia as Miller left it.

[Randal]

Well, it did, so, I guess read it?

[Brett Bellmore]

"I happen to think that's backwards, but that is what Scalia said in Heller."

Yes, which is why I frequently criticize Scalia over Heller. He completely blew off any consideration of whether the laws that had resulted in the divergence of commonly owned and military weapons were, themselves, constitutional. Whether a lot of unconstitutional practices had accumulated during the 78 years after Miller, during which the Court refused to take any 2nd amendment case whatsoever.

You might as well have ruled after Jim Crow that segregation laws were obviously constitutional given practice, and ignored that the practice had only grown up because the Court itself had been refusing to enforce the 14th amendment.

[Randal]

Fair. And, that's my basic problem with originalism. Every so often there's a question about a specific word in the Constitution and whether it should take the original definition or the modern definition. Of course it should take the original definition.

But that's about it for the usefulness of originalism. Beyond that it's just a smokescreen for policy preferences, and Heller is exhibit #1.

[Randal]

Heller is an example of what happens when you put originalism ahead of both textualism and logic.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It is unwise for would-be gun controllers to continue to propose useless, can't-work measures. It is worse if such measures pass than if they are voted down. If passed, their ineffectuality gets used by gun advocates as a political point against all gun controls.

Regulating magazine size is never likely to make a difference sufficient to affect the outcome of a mass shooting spree, let alone do the harder job to deprive a would-be mass killer of confidence to begin an attack.

The problem with magazines is not even specific to the magazines themselves. The problem is a combination of features used together. The magazine feature which contributes extra lethality is not size, but ready interchangeability. Put that together with semi-automatic operation, and intermediate-power light-recoil ammunition, and a would-be killer with a sack full of magazines (of whatever size) to interchange can set out for mass murder—encouraged by a high likelihood of success, and a perverted self-confidence in vengeful prowess to strike a dramatic lethal blow against . . . anything.

Probably, the psychological effect of that baleful combination of features is a greater public safety menace even than the practical enhancement to killing power. Everything which can be done to reduce the self-confidence of would-be mass killers should be counted a contribution against any urge to commit an attack.

Practical would-be gun controllers will work out a political or legal approach to disrupt the availability of guns which combine those three characteristics as a formula to commit mayhem. It would be possible to leave each of those characteristics in place and available on the market—interchangeable magazines, semi-auto operation, and intermediate-powered light-recoil ammunition—but still make a huge difference by outlawing their use in combination, as a measure against unreasonable public danger.

For instance, intermediate-powered, light-recoil ammunition can be made safely useful in bolt-action rifles with low-capacity internal box magazines. Those require reloading cartridges one-by-one. Such combinations have proved marketable and practical for target shooting and for varmint hunting.

Likewise for semi-auto operation, especially if combined for use with high-powered, high-recoil ammunition, and again with internal, low-capacity box magazines. Such combinations have proved marketable and practical for long-range target-shooting, big-game hunting, and with shotguns for waterfowl hunting.

For hunting humans, the combination uniquely optimal has been to put all three features—semi-auto operation, interchangeable magazines, and intermediate-power light-recoil ammunition—into one light-weight weapon. Gun controllers seeking actually effectual counter-measures against rage-filled hunters of fellow humans should narrow their focus, and seek action to break up and ban that combination of three features used together—interchangeable magazines, semi-auto operation, and intermediate-power light-recoil ammunition. That is the killer combination.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ineffectuality is deliberate, Stephen. If any of these measures actually worked, they'd deprive gun controllers of their excuse to pass more measures. And, as I keep pointing out, the actual goal of the gun control movement is banning guns, not reducing violence. Gun control is the end, not a means.

And you're kind of up against the Miller case, which last I heard was still good law: The guns protected by the 2nd amendment are exactly those suitable for military use.

[Ed Grinberg]

as I keep pointing out, the actual goal of the gun control movement is banning guns, not reducing violence. Gun control is the end, not a means.

Right.
I've said this before, but:
Keeping in mind that these are the same people who want to institute government censorship (by banning "hate speech" or "misinformation"), you have to ask yourself: Why would someone want you gagged & defenseless? What is it they want to do to you?

[bernard11]

And, as I keep pointing out, the actual goal of the gun control movement is banning guns, not reducing violence.

This is piffle. Once again you cannot imagine your opponents to be operating in good faith.

[Brett Bellmore]

They've actually said that was their goal, you do realize that, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Who is they, and what did they say, Brett?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I am one of, "They," and I say the opposite.

Bellmore, when you reviewed the percentages of Americans who were in the NRA, why didn't that tiny percentage give you pause? Pretty obviously, it is far too small a percentage to encompass even most gun owners. You may think that small percentage speaks for the others. My experience does not agree. I know too many people who had been lifetime gun users, who chose long ago to turn their backs on the NRA in disgust, when it became a politically extremist organization instead of the general-purpose gun advocate that it had been previously.

You ought to consider the possibility that you and others posting here are extremists, who form a distinct minority among gun owners, and even among pro-gun advocates.

I lived a large part of my life in a community more-saturated with guns than almost any you can find in the U.S. today. As I have noted, it was place where you could assure a prompt hitchhiking connection by carrying a rifle, and displaying it prominently by your left side, while you stuck out your right thumb. Almost none of the habitual gun users I knew in that community would agree with most of the pro-gun advocates commenting here. In fact, most of those traditional gun users would absolutely have refused to go into the field with these VC folks, judging them too high-risk even to hunt with.

[bernard11]

No doubt some people have said that.

But not "they." As usual, you find someone expressing an opinion and immediately ascribe it to everyone you disagree with. That some Democratic state legislator somewhere proposes something doesn't mean "the left" is all in on the proposal.

Besides, think about what you said.

Suppose someone wants to reduce violence, and thinks banning guns will accomplish that. Then it's sort of stupid to say their "real" objective is banning guns, not reducing violence.

Of course you can't bring yourself to believethat someone could think that, so you go off into Brett-universe to find something else.

[Randal]

"Miller case, which last I heard was still good law: The guns protected by the 2nd amendment are exactly those suitable for military use."

You heard wrong. Heller explicitly changed that to those suitable for self-defense. According to Heller, the 2nd amendment definitely does not cover weapons suitable for military (or militia) use, except to the extent they're also "arms 'in common use at the time' for lawful purposes like self-defense." And Heller only affirmatively covers the lawful purpose of self-defense itself, although it alludes to hunting as another likely one.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Such a law would likely be deemed unconstitutional, due to age-based discrimination.

The truth is this. 18 year old individuals are considered adults by the laws of this country. As such, they can't be discriminated against with regards to Constitutional Rights. That includes the right to buy a firearm that other normal Americans can. To say that they can vote and be drafted, but not be allowed to buy a firearm (but can be drafted and forced to use a more powerful firearm) is discriminatory.

It's discriminatory in the same way that a gun law that banned African Americans from buying certain guns would be. (And if your argument is "well 18-21 year olds commit more crimes per capita, then....) Or a law that restricted abortions by those specifically aged 18-21.

Notably, the right to buy alcohol or tobacco is not constitutionally protected.

[Sarcastr0]

The truth is this. 18 year old individuals are considered adults by the laws of this country.

Laws are not the same thing as the Constitution. And there are plenty of things 18 year olds can't do in this country.

To say that they can vote and be drafted, but not be allowed to buy a firearm (but can be drafted and forced to use a more powerful firearm) is discriminatory.
How have you been on this legal blog for so long and not learned the first thing about the Equal Protection Clause?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Are there any Constitutionally granted rights that 18 year old citizens do not have? Can you think of one?

Do they not get a trial by jury? Do they not have the right to vote? Perhaps you don't need a search warrant to search an 18 year old's car?

Just one.....

[apedad]

Can't be Representatives, Senators, Vice-Presidents or Presidents.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That's not a Constitutional right.

[Sarcastr0]

Neither are those laws about drinking and military service.

[Armchair Lawyer]

But the right to bear arms is.... and the topic of question.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one that said '18 year old individuals are considered adults by the laws of this country.'

That is plainly incorrect. And even if it were correct, our statutes have little to do with what our Constitution says.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Avoidance of the question = running away.

Your surrender is noted.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Can't be Representatives, Senators, Vice-Presidents or Presidents."

Neither can 21 year olds.

[wreckinball]

The original constitution plus the BOR (1A-10A) doesn't say much about voting. It doesn't put an age limit on the BOR.

Interesting that an amendment was needed to give 18 year olds the right to vote, same with women.

So can 1A be age limited?

I'm thinking at least the age of adulthood would be considered all rights apply.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Interesting that an amendment was needed to give 18 year olds the right to vote, same with women."

Needed to give a universal right. A few states allowed women to vote prior to that amendment.

[not guilty]

Persons under 21 are prohibited by federal law from purchasing handguns from a federally licensed firearms dealer. 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1). This prohibition was upheld against facial challenge on Second Amendment and Equal Protection grounds in National Rifle Ass’n of America, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012). A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit reached a contrary conclusion in Hirschfield v. Bureau of Alcohol, 5 F.4th 407 (4th Cir. 2021), but that opinion was vacated as moot when the last remaining plaintiff turned 21. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/192250A.p.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

Basically what you've got here is that half the judiciary are rebelling against Heller, refusing to properly apply it, and the Court has been letting them do it, because they didn't want to take more gun cases.

I assume that was on Roberts, though admittedly without proof.

Now there's enough conservatives on the Court that they can be a majority without Roberts, and they seem prepared to actually rule on 2nd amendment cases again. Coincidence?

[Ed Grinberg]

The treatment of the right to keep & bear arms by leftists is the reverse of their treatment of the "right" to abortion.
Pretending that a right spelled-out in the Constitution doesn't exist is a deliberate lie of staggering proportions. The Supreme Court is about to issue another decision (third after Heller and McDonald) undo this outright, outrageous lie (and the Left is going nuts over it).

[SRG]

18 year old individuals are considered adults by the laws of this country.

Except when it comes to alcohol

[Stephen Lathrop]

To say that they can vote and be drafted, but not be allowed to buy a firearm (but can be drafted and forced to use a more powerful firearm) is discriminatory.

That fails completely. The 18-year-old in the military gets to use a firearm only under military discipline. At all other times the guns are kept under lock and key.

More generally, military-style discipline with guns is based on more extensive experience managing guns than is available anywhere else in society. That experience ought to be available for judicious use throughout society, as a standard which by definition supports the right to keep and bear arms.

A useful modification would require separate state-centric militia organizations, governed by state appointed officers, but organized and drilled under standards set by congress. That would put present military practice to work, while staying entirely within constitutional bounds.

By the way, with that system in place, I would go farther, and let militia participants train and drill with fully automatic weapons.

[Smith_FT_MI]

Though not often the case, I think we agree on what I understand to be this suggestion of yours.

Organizing the Unorganized Militia - though facially an oxymoron - would provide the opportunities to observe members with psychological aberrations who ought to be restrained in their possession and use of certain firearms. I concur that it is within Congressional Powers to establish a training regimen with various tiers of training, viz, one level for handguns, a higher level for semiautomatic rifles, and a further level for automatic rifles. These additional training and discipline requirements ought to provide sufficient opportunity to "weed out" those persons who pose dangers. In connection with ERPO statutes - containing sufficient due process protections - this could eliminate most of the tragic abuses of the RKBA.

I say this as a full-throated defender of the 2A and the concept of the Militia as a continuing viable and essential institution.

[Randal]

You've sunken too deep into your Armchair, Lawyer. There is no constitutional "right to buy a firearm that other normal Americans can." There's a constitutional right to buy a limited set of firearms as set forth in Heller, and it's a much smaller set than "firearm[s] that other normal Americans can" buy.

So I think it would be unconstitutional to bar 18 year olds from buying a handgun for self-defense, due to 2A.

But a law barring 18 year olds from buying AK-47s would have to be challenged under Equal Protection. I'm not sure how that one would come out.

I suspect though that it would still be found unconstitutional. The situation can't be compared to alcohol due to the strangeness of section 2 of the 21st amendment, which essentially inverts normal supremacy principles so that state laws trump federal laws -- including the constitution! -- when it comes to alcohol.

[FivebySixThree]

So it is already illegal to murder. It is already illegal to use a gun in commission of a crime. So now all they want to do is raise the purchasing age?

Tell me how well making drugs illegal has worked out for us?

Making an illegal act even more illegal isn't going to solve anything.

There is no simple solution. However we need to insure authorities act when alerted by other interested parties when someone is suspected of being a danger to others.

When the same authorities cannot keep drugs, weapons, cell phones, and more, out of prisons, it really does show how ineffectual our law enforcement and courts truly are.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m not saying I’m opposed to this idea, but there is no situation in which taking a civil right away from any citizen or citizens is a “no brainer”.

“Take away the rights I don’t care about but leave those that are important to me alone”. Statist jerk.

[David Bremer]

My issue with this is that I went to high school with kids who didn't go to college after high school (as is the case with about 40% of Americans), liked to fish and hunt, and use semi-automatic rifles for hunting. I don't see why a 20-year-old hunter, who may have been living on his own for two years, shouldn't be able to buy a nice rifle if that's what he wishes to do.

[Ed Grinberg]

I don't see why a 20-year-old hunter, who may have been living on his own for two years, shouldn't be able to buy a nice rifle if that's what he wishes to do.

I don't see why a 20-year-old person, who may have been living on his own for two years, shouldn't be able to buy a handgun to defend himself against criminal scum.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One approach would be to outlaw hunting on public land.

Hunting on private land -- with the owner's permission, and appropriate safety regulation -- would be fine.

Why should some citizens be required to worry about drunken, untrained hayseeds shooting guns while enjoying a walk through public lands? Firing a gun on public land should be no more acceptable than doing so on a city sidewalk.

No free swings, clingers. Your betters will paint you into increasingly small, desolate corners of this great nation.

[David Bremer]

You've evidently never been around hunting and hunters. There's very little hunting that occurs on public land. And to the extent it occurs, it's generally going to be in far-off places, far removed from society. It's not like you can hunt deer at your local suburban park (as easy as that would be).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I spent more time around hunters before I headed to college in search of modernity, education, and opportunity.

I have seen a yahoo's weapon discharge as he stumbled over something in a field -- and his fellow hayseeds laugh about it. I also have seen a chucklehead fall from a tree stand, from which he was awaiting deer who might be enticed by a ring of salt dangling from a wire . . . and enhancing the wait with a bottle of whiskey.

In some states, not only do hunters hunt on public lands but they also are permitted to trespass on, fire weapons to or from, and remove items from private land unless the private property is properly "posted" with signs.

A handy return of serve against gun nuts would be termination of hunting on public lands. How many hunters have enough private land to support hunting?

[Stephen Lathrop]

How many hunters have enough private land to support hunting?

A lot of folks who live in close-in suburbs on half-acre lots. I know of folks who are gardeners who would hire deer hunters if the law allowed it. They live in Maryland, just a stone's throw from the D.C. line.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You figure someone with a half-acre lot should be entitled to use firearms on that property for anything other than self-defense in an emergency?

[Stephen Lathrop]

No. I think I am entitled to benefit from expectation that a tacitly expressed outrageous comment will not summon belief.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bremer — There is zero reason to use a semi-automatic rifle with an interchangeable magazine for hunting, unless you have it around because you purchased it for some other purpose. There is no reason why use of semi-auto rifles, with interchangeable magazines, chambered for medium-powered light-recoil cartridges brings any advantage to hunting which cannot be had by using a gun of some other design.

Every mass killing done using AR-style rifles provides ample reason why such weapons should not be permitted for civilian purposes of any kind. The sole exception should be for militia use under military discipline. Every other need for civilian arms, including self-defense, can be supplied more-than-adequately (and often better) by arms of other designs.

[David Bremer]

I'm not opposed to various restrictions on add-ons, modifications, caliber sizes, and various other aspects of firearms, ranging from age restrictions to outright bans. I'm responding to the overall disbelief that someone 18-20 years old has no reason to own a semi-automatic rifle.

Now, maybe saying the law covers "most" semi-automatic weapons means there are still plenty of hunting rifles available for those who want them. But as you leave exceptions open, then those who are banned find was to modify their weapons to fit within the restrictions.

[rsteinmetz]

What percentage of mass shooting actually use AR or AK style weapons? Last time I checked it was a fairly small number.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

this should be a no brainer

If by that you mean that such useless measures appeal to those who have no brains...then I agree. The magazine capacity restriction is particularly pointless, the reason for which should be obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than that of the average potato. So is your dishonestly incomplete and out-of-context citation of Heller.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's hardly a "no-brainer" because rifles have little to do with firearm homicides, the age of being a member of the militia (which Democrats love to say is the only valid reason for the 2A) is 18, and so-called "high-capacity" magazines are and have been sold as standard capacity for well over 30 years.

Part of Heller which you didn't quote was mentioning that things in common lawful use are clearly protected by the 2A. Your 'semi-automatic rifle ban' and 'high-capacity magazines' fall into that category.

[David Nieporent]

In light of the carnage committed by 18 year olds with (lawfully purchased) AR-15 rifles in Buffalo and Uvalde, this should be a no brainer,

Unless there's some reason to think that 18-year olds represent a particular risk with these weapons, it's not logical at all. That two 18-year olds used them in massacres does not represent a particular risk, any more than that a guy named Steve used them in a massacre makes it a "no brainer" to ban guys named Steve from buying them.

[not guilty]

Persons ages 18-20 with assault weapons do represent a particular risk. The mass murders in Buffalo and Uvalde illustrate a larger problem with immature shooters. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/us/politics/mass-shootings-young-men-guns.html

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Cool story. Now show the statistics for how many have gone through the ages of 18-20 while owning firearms, without murdering anyone.

[David Nieporent]

That's not how statistics work, plus note that the category in that article is "21 or younger," while the proposal is "under 21," so the data isn't even the same.

[Commenter_XY]

Is normalizing violence against members of the judiciary a symptom of moral and civic decay? How do you reverse that trend?

I have not found a historical case where that trend (normalization of violence against the judiciary) was reversed, non-violently.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothings been normalized. No one is saying this was cool and good.

But we've never really gotten very heated up about attempts that end in turning yourself in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_incidents_involving_Barack_Obama

If he'd broken into Kavanaugh's home, that'd be something to contemplate. But for now, this is just another bloody shirt on the right and everyone else is moving on with their day.

[Armchair Lawyer]

An attempted assassination is a "bloody shirt".... Unbelievable.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah it's a bloody shirt - look at you waiving it.

As usual, you ignore the part where I said, 'no one is saying this was cool and good' to pretend I said this was cool and good.

Attempted assassinations of political figures got normalized in like 1835, if not earlier.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No, I see diversion and "it wasn't important" and "look over at this other item".

[Sarcastr0]

I’m describing how it is in our country. If you think I’m wrong address that. You can come in with your outrage at me after you deal with what I’m saying.

[Michael P]

You explicitly accused him of waving a bloody shirt. That's not "describing how it is in our country", that's a personal attack -- unless you meant that the right is drawing attention to a grave threat while "everyone else is moving on with their day" (towards the 8 PM waving of a different shirt?).

[Sarcastr0]

Also unable to address what I'm saying.

[David Nieporent]

That's not a personal attack. Do you not understand the historical reference?

(Though this is not waving the bloody shirt because there's no actual blood; it's more of waving the potentially bloody shirt.)

[Michael P]

Yes, "waving the body shirt" is a pro-KKK lying leftist taking point used to denigrate concerns over political violence by Democrat partisans. Great way for S_0 to remind people that Democrats have been in favor of their thugs attacking people since Reconstruction!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You can come in with your outrage at me after you deal with what I’m saying.

The hypocrisy of that coming from the asshole who is most infamous for his dependency on dishonest straw man argumentation couldn't be more obvious.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, somebody just bought a gun and travelled completely across the country to assassinate a senior government official following statements by other government officials that could be interpreted as suggesting violence. No biggie. Nothing to see here.

And all this talk about the guy being mentally ill assumes facts not in evidence, unless you’re calling extreme political zealotry a form of mental illness - in which case this board is overrun with loonies.

[Sarcastr0]

Dismissal is quite clearly not what I'm saying. I take specific issue with the new part of the 'this is *new* and bad' thesis.

I assume having suicidal thoughts means there's a mental issue worth at least looking into.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Maybe he’s depressed because he got caught and he’s contemplating decades in prison. Or thought he was busted because the cops saw him. “Depressed” and mentally ill are not always the same thing.

The Uvalde shooter was obviously disturbed and depressed, but there’s no evidence he was mentally ill. Same with the Kavanaugh guy. Most likely is that they were both just irrationally angry.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it's a rebuttable presumption. It's not rebutted by your speculation.

[bevis the lumberjack]

MY Speculation? You’re literally saying that my speculation cannot possibly rebut your speculation. That’s ridiculous. In the absence of your initial speculation there wouldn’t have had anything to rebut.

You just go ahead and make up anything you want and expect that nobody will point out that you’re making it up.

[Sarcastr0]

Someone being suicidal gives rise to a rebuttable presumption they're mentally ill.

Your speculating that 'Maybe he’s depressed because he got caught and he’s contemplating decades in prison' does not rebut that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Saying he’s suicidal and actually being suicidal are two separate things in a situation where someone thinks they’ve just been caught trying to commit a very serious crime. If he even said it at all.

I freely admitted I have no clue as to the state of the guy’s mental health in my first post on this (the “facts not in evidence part”). If you were objective you’d do the same. There’s zero tangible evidence out there that suggests anything at all as of yet.

[Sarcastr0]

I honestly have no dog in the fight of whether he's mentally ill or not.

Other than that I take people at their word when they say they're suicidal, and think that suggests some mental health issue.

Which seems a pretty normal take to me.

You're the one concocting scenarios where he's lying or maybe just sad he got caught (when, as DMN noted, he is the one who caught himself).

[David Nieporent]

Maybe he’s depressed because he got caught

Um, he didn't "get caught." He turned himself in.

[David Nieporent]

It's kind of weird to get more worked up about a contemplated assassination that wasn't actually attempted than about actual shootings.

And, no, it assumes facts actually in evidence (as that term is used colloquially. None of the facts, including the existence of the plan, are actually in evidence.)

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, it remains to be seen who Nicholas John Roske actually is. I'd like to hear more on how Roske was identified, tracked, and arrested at 2am-ish. Also, IMHO if you are stupid or crazy enough to even attempt assassinating a sitting SCOTUS justice, a psychological exam is definitely in order. Many things went just right to nail Roske, and it is fortunate he was apprehended. My expectation is the American people have complete transparency on just what exactly happened.

My contention: Roske is a symptom. How many Article 3 judges have been the targets of violence in the last 5 years? Here in the People's Republic of NJ, there was an attempted assassination (the judges child was murdered; I was truly horrified by this) 2 years ago. Other A-3 judges have been the targets of violence (and intimidation) as well. It doesn't matter which POTUS appointed, and which Senators confirmed the Article 3 judge; that person is an article 3 judge and we (Americans) must make special efforts to ensure they do not become corrupted, or intimidated, or killed. It feels like the problem has recently (meaning, within last 5-10 years) become more acute, IMHO. Sarcastr0, just look at our society today....are we healthy and vibrant?

My concern is that we are seeing the start of normalizing the idea that violence and intimidation against the judiciary (for any reason whatsoever) is acceptable. We do not presently have a crisis, I am not saying that Sarcastr0. I see Roske as a signal, not noise; because of the general societal context this incident is occurring.

Can you think of a historical case where this trend (e.g. normalizing the idea that violence or intimidation against a judge is ever acceptable for any reason) was ever reversed, non-violently? I read Professor Volokh's series this week on the nature of a slippery slope...I've been following along. Really, it has been a challenging mental exercise understanding it; I learned a lot. So, in that vein: Are we seeing the start of a slippery slope here? 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

There are plenty of new bad things in the modern era but assasination attempts are not new.

Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address any issues it brings up. Guns, mental health, etc. But this is not a handwringing ‘what have we become’ moment. We became this long ago. So have most other countries,

[Michael P]

From "Nothing[']s been normalized." to "We became this long ago." in just over an hour. Sigh.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not some new thing; neither is it normalized.

Normalized would be if we didn’t address this as a crime or issue.

Kinda like school shootings.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah none of those school shooters are ever prosecuted or shot by the cops or anything. What the hell are you even talking about?

[Sarcastr0]

There's something systemic here, everyone knows it. The question is where - In our schools' security, in our culture, in our media, our guns. We don't really know. But singleton 'we shot him it's okay now' is not really addressing anything.

[bevis the lumberjack]

There’s something systemic here in our politicians’ language inspiring violence. That’s not been addressed either. And unlike the mass shootings there’s no interest in doing so because the political and media chuckleheads can’t tone down their rhetoric.

You’re trying to say there’s some difference as if the Kavanaugh thing is less bad but all of this is just branches of the same rotten tree.

[Sarcastr0]

Not saying I love it, but we've had war-like rhetoric in politics since at least the 1980s. (Though have you read some of Teddy's speeches...?)
It's powerful and effective rhetoric. That politicians use it is unsurprising, and is one of the prices of free speech.

And our leaders have been under threat since basically forever. As have the leaders of other countries. You need to do a lot more work if you're going to point to a new cause to such an old problem.

Address the issues clearly addressed by this guy. Don't just start attacking speech because you've decided it's the cause based on your gut.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t understand why you’re trying so hard to underplay this. It’s really really bad. If the roles were reversed there would be constant screaming about the complicity of Carlson and Cruz and obviously Trump and so on. Here it’s like the guy parked illegally. No big deal.

The outcome at Uvalde was obviously much worse than this, but arguably this is worse regarding our system. Uvalde was just one broken asshole. This sprouted directly from the toxicity of our politicians and media.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not underplaying it. I'm saying that people saying this is a new thing are wrong, not that people saying it's a bad thing are wrong.

I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

And don't play the counterfactual hypothetical double standard card. It proves nothing but your own feelings, and you're smart enough to know that.

[not guilty]

Roske reportedly called 911, told the call taker he was having suicidal thoughts and also confessed his plot to kill. I surmise that the call taker asked him his location. Police found him while he was still on the phone.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I figured he could not be mentally right. Good info...Thx.

[apedad]

FBI – Active Shooter Incidents in the US, 2021 Report

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2021-052422.pdf/view

One criticism: “The FBI and the ALERRT Center support the Don’t Name Them campaign. This campaign encourages media, law enforcement, and public information officers to shift their focus from the perpetrators of active shooter incidents toward the victims, survivors, and heroes who stopped them, as well as the communities that come together to help in the healing process.”

The Don’t Name Them campaign has an appropriate role in our society but it should NOT be part of an official law enforcement report.

And yes one can easily get the perps’ names.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The Don’t Name Them campaign has an appropriate role in our society but it should NOT be part of an official law enforcement report.

Why exactly should something that is intended to reduce the allure (to nutjobs) of going out in a blaze of glory via mass-murder (you know, a crime-prevention measure) not be part of an official law enforcement report?

[not guilty]

Supporters of abortion rights should condemn the recent firebombings of anti-abortion groups' facilities such as the one which occurred in the Buffalo area. https://buffalonews.com/news/local/political-violence-blamed-in-arson-at-anti-abortion-groups-center-in-amherst/article_9da26e5e-e669-11ec-babe-cbbbcb6659a2.html I hope that the perpetrators are prosecuted and punished.

If there is an organized group involved, it is noteworthy that arson can constitute a predicate felony for a RICO prosecution.

[not guilty]

Arson is a tactic of anti-abortion extremists. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/06/08/wyoming-abortion-clinic-fire-police-release-video-offer-reward/7548324001/ Let's leave that alone, along with bombings and targeted assassinations. Those of us who care about individual liberties are better than that.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty....I never knew that = arson can constitute a predicate felony for a RICO prosecution

I learned something new today. 🙂

[Ridgeway]

"Nice business you've got here. Be a shame if something happened to it."

Arson is a big component of "something."

[Armchair Lawyer]

Should Nancy Pelosi be investigated and her e-mails pulled and examined for Conspiracy Against the United States?

On or about May 22nd, 2022, the US Senate unanimously passed a bill to give additional police protection to the families of the SCOTUS justices. This was deemed necessary due to the increased protests and potential violence outside the homes of the Justices.

However, as of June 9th, 2022, Nancy Pelosi and the House has yet to even schedule a vote on this important bill, which passed unanimously in the Senate. In the meantime, an assassin has been arrested outside of the homes of one of the Justices. The potential violence was further realized. The only reason security was there was that the Justice was present...if his family was alone, they would've been unprotected.

Why has Pelosi not even scheduled a vote here, despite the clear and present danger? Is she conspiring with individuals to exert "pressure" on the SCOTUS Justices through violent intimidation and the absence of police protection? Events suggests yes, she potentially is. An investigation is warranted.

We had a long investigation with multiple subpoenas over the events of January 6th, where not a single Congressman was injured, and not a single firearm was brought into the Capitol by any alleged criminal. But now we have criminals bringing firearms right outside the door of the Justices of the SCOTUS...equally important individuals in the government of the US. And we have Pelosi mysteriously withholding police protection.

It's time for a full investigation.

[Sarcastr0]

This sounds more like you want revenge for the Jan 06 committee than anything else.

[wreckinball]

Or just an investigation of what happened, why it happened including lack of security rather than just a political Trump witch hunt.

[BrianL.]

Well, they wanted an independent commission, like they had for the 9/11 commission, but the Republicans wouldn't allow it.

[Randal]

It sounds like this is what they did, if tonight's hearings were any indication.

[bevis the lumberjack]

In light of recent events it seems as if there’s valid reason for concern. If a justice gets shot does Pelosi have blood on her hands?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You guys sound nearly desperate on this one.

Perhaps if Republicans offer universal background checks and registration in exchange, Democrats should vote for the laws Republicans favor with respect to special security for certain government officials.

[Sarcastr0]

What? No.

The OP is about Jan 06.

And not passing the laws you think are called for isn’t a crime.

We don’t investigate ‘why didn’t you pass this law’ in this country.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro has reading comprehension issue if he thinks the OP was about Jan 6th....

[Bob from Ohio]

"revenge for the Jan 06 committee"

Yes, they pull a knife, you pull a gun.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's a bad strategy for the losing side of the culture war and the wrong side of history . . . but you don't become a conservative or Republican these days with adequate education, sound judgment, strong character, and a reliable command of the reality-based facts.

So do your damnedest, clingers . . . and try not to whimper quite so much when the victors -- the side with better ideas and more and better people -- impose the reckoning.

[Michael P]

Yes. Also because of https://justthenews.com/government/congress/internal-capitol-police-review-found-sweeping-intelligence-security-failures -- what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?

[Sarcastr0]

Jan 06 was not a big deal but also a conspiracy run by Pelosi.

Listen to yourself.

[Michael P]

If you didn't make up straw men, you would have nothing at all to say.

[Sarcastr0]

"What did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?"

If you aren't talking about a conspiracy, you're doing a great job of appearing to!

[Michael P]

You're still unable to address the substance, you just hide behind weasel words like "appear".

Try reading what people are talking about -- the article is about how the Capitol Police had information about violent plans and coordinated action, but stronger responses were rejected by senior leaders. Which leaders, and why did they reject offers of support to protect the Capitol? What information did they have when they made those decisions, and what got lost before coming to their attention? In short: What did they know, and when did they know it?

[wreckinball]

Also even if you are over manned the security was certainly odd to say the least.

On some fronts you open the gates and waive folks in. On other fronts you push the barricades into the crowd and launch flash bangs and tear gas into them without provocation.

You escort by bus a group of protestors to the Capitol who then proceed in agitating and breaking windows,

You withhold bodycam and security footage instead cherry picking still shots to support the prosecution. Violating disclosure requirements

All of it on video but ignored by the committee.

But Trump!

[Randal]

The committee promised to address this. We'll see if they do. I'll be disappointed if they don't.

But speculation about Pelosi involvement seems to be based on nothing other than a desperate desire for a talking point.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He doesn't care about facts, and his MO is to gaslight and lick the boots of politicians. He's a member of the Federal Class, after all.

[wreckinball]

He's a slight more sophisticated version of the robot Rev who just keeps repeating "clingers" over and over again.

Just contrarian and in one direction only even when its 100% true but maybe inconvenient truth in his case.

And not sarcastic. Which could potentially be funny.

[Sarcastr0]

You see how you jumped from hindsight criticism to 'it would be irresponsible not to speculate?'

That's because you're pushing a conspiracy theory.

[Michael P]

No, I just see you busily making more straw men.

[Sarcastr0]

The article is nothing but smoke and speculation.

If you disagree, feel free to point to something they prove about Pelosi.

[Michael P]

As usual, you reject evidence that does not align with your biases. The article, like the report it is based on, presents specific faults in the planning process for that day. The report avoids discussing exactly which senior leaders made the wrong decisions that it identifies, or what information they had about the known threats and available resources when they made those wrong decisions. Do you not want to ensure that people in similar situations make better decisions in the future? Or do you reflexively trust your fellow Federal Class mandarins when they tell the public "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing"?

[Sarcastr0]

feel free to point to something they prove about Pelosi.

[David Nieporent]

Not sure why you're citing disgraced ex-journalist John Solomon, especially since he lies repeatedly in the link. Or is too stupid to know that Nancy Pelosi did not, and does not, control the Capitol Police.

[Michael P]

Not sure why you think ad hominem arguments stopped being a fallacy. Her appointee was on the Capitol Police Board, and rejected the presence of National Guard troops for security because of "optics". Was that decision on his own initiative, or was she involved?

[Sarcastr0]

Was that decision on his own initiative, or was she involves?

They call this Just Asking Questions, or JAQing off, and it's just another example of your conspiratorial bullshit.

No evidence, just questions you are using as evidence.

[David Nieporent]

Her appointee

Nope. Wrong again. The House Sergeant at Arms is one of the statutory members of the Capitol Police board. But the House Sergeant at Arms is not appointed to his post by the Speaker.

was on the Capitol Police Board, and rejected

Nope. There are three voting members of the Capitol Police Board, and 1 < 2, so the House Sergeant at Arms cannot "reject" anything. All he can do is vote.

the presence of National Guard troops for security because of "optics".

There were news reports to that effect; there was no testimony to that effect. The testimony was that the Capitol Police Board hadn't seen intelligence before 1/6 to warrant National Guard presence at the Capitol.

I mean, 10 seconds of common sense would tell you that if you/disgraced ex-journalist John Solomon weren't full of it, that Mitch McConnell would have spent the last year saying, "I tried to prevent this from happening, but Nancy Pelosi screwed up and let it happen."

[not guilty]

Time for a full investigation of what? Don't overlook the Speech and Debate clause.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The only reason security was there was that the Justice was present...if his family was alone, they would've been unprotected.

What makes you say that?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're an idiot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Right wingers who want to keep their political insight up to the usual standard are reminded to tune in to Fox News at 8:00 p.m. (eastern), where coverage of the House Select Committee's findings will not be covered.

[John F. Carr]

I watched the Iran-Contra hearings and have had a lifetime's worth of uninformative made-for-TV political spectacles. Dave Barry put it well in his 1987 year in review: "The central figure in the Iran-contra hearings, Lt. Col. Oliver North, becomes an instant national folk hero when, with his eyes glistening and his voice cracking with emotion, he courageously admits, before a worldwide television audience, that he is very patriotic." I also learned from the hearings that when the president signs a bill into law, he writes his signature.

There may well be worthwhile information from the January 6 committee but I don't expect to find it in live video.

[Randal]

I actually found that Oliver North moment extremely illuminating as to the nature of American politics. I was pretty young at the time, but watching him go from presumed traitor to national (political) hero definitely opened my eyes to some things.

[John F. Carr]

It was good to get a response to the loose cannon narrative. I saw an "Ollie North for President" shirt being worn in the People's Republic of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who cares what a bunch of crooks and hacks in DC do?

Only Federal Class tyrants and their bootlickers.

[wreckinball]

FWIW these hearings are always a political spectacle. Remember "I am Spartacus".

They shouldn't be but they are. Just stupid posturing

[ThePublius]

If I want Democratic crap I will subscribe to their mailing lists.

[bevis the lumberjack]

As for me and mine, since the local 9 has the day off, we’ll be watching hockey!

[apedad]

ELVIS CRACKDOWN COULD HAVE MASSIVE RIPPLE EFFECT ON VEGAS WEDDING INDUSTRY

The Las Vegas wedding industry is getting all shook up over a massive Elvis Presley crackdown.

Vegas essentially has the market cornered in regard to Elvis-themed weddings, but that could all come to a screeching halt after Authentic Brand Group, which licenses Elvis-related merchandise, issued a cease-and-desist letter to several Las Vegas chapels that lean into the "Hound Dog" singer's deep Sin City ties.

Some chapel operators think there could be a loophole, noting there's nothing stopping someone from dressing up as Elvis and performing a ceremony, as the letter can't regulate officiant's clothing. Plus, Nevada's "right of publicity" statute already covers The King's image in tribute shows.

https://www.wonderwall.com/news/vegas-wedding-industry-on-edge-amid-massive-elvis-crackdown-604842.article

OK copyright SMEs…what’s the verdict here?

Also I ate this a couple of weeks ago at Happy Jack Pancake House, Ocean City, MD.

Elvis Pancakes, $11.99
Peanut butter chip pancakes topped with a sliced banana, peanut butter drizzle, and bacon.

[Michael P]

As a copyright subject matter non-expert, I can confidently tell you that you really want trade dress or personal likeness SMEs rather than copyright SMEs.

[Commenter_XY]

So apedad....the most important question here is clearly: How were those pancakes?!??! I am already thinking of a way to make a keto-ish version. The combo sounds.....amazing. Is it? 🙂

[Bored Lawyer]

First they came for the Elvis impersonators, but I did not protest. . . .

[bernard11]

When did you get out of the hospital?

[apedad]

Study finds widening gap in death rates between US areas that vote for Democratic rather than Republican party

Americans living in counties that voted Democratic during presidential elections from 2000 to 2016 experienced larger decreases in death rates than residents of counties that voted for a Republican candidate, finds a study published by The BMJ today.

The overall study period covered five presidential elections from 2000 to 2019 and included data for 99.8% of the US population.

Between 2001 and 2019, mortality rates decreased by 22% in Democratic counties (from 850 to 664 per 100,000), but by only half that (11%) in Republican counties (from 867 to 771 per 100,000).

Consequently, the gap in mortality rates between Republican and Democratic counties jumped by 541%, from 16.7 per 100,000 in 2001 to 107 deaths per 100,000 in 2019.

Over the study period, male and female residents of Democratic counties experienced both lower mortality rates and twice the relative decrease in mortality rates than their counterparts in Republican counties.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/954985

I also read somewhere more people have died from COVID in Republican controlled areas too.

But good thing you got your guns and freedoms.

[Michael P]

With apologies to xkcd, I used to think correlation meant causation. Then I took a statistics class, and now I don't think that any more. (Post hoc ergo propter hoc?)

[David Bremer]

The last line is dumb for the reasons you said. Instead, this likely reflects the relative ages of the median republican voter versus that of the democrats, plus different rates of Covid deaths.

It is notable though because it continues to increase the chances that candidates and parties with a majority of votes still end up winning election. Or that close state-wide elections will be easier for democrats to win.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you'd have to control for a lot of potential confounding variables before you could conclude anything. Remember, Republican counties tend to be rural, and Democratic counties urban. So you may just be looking at life getting worse in rural areas, possibly as state and federal governments adopt more urban oriented policies and neglect the rural areas.

[Moderation4ever]

I am curious how you see the needs of rural areas neglected? I see the problems of rural areas as economics. When I was a kid the primary occupations in rural areas was farming. Todays farms don't rely on human labor but are much more technology oriented. What unskilled jobs that remain are typically low paying jobs filled by immigrants. Remaining small farms generally fill niche markets supplying farmers markets, cooperatives, or high end restaurants. Many of the small farmers I see at the farmers market are immigrants. I suspect the market sales supplement their income from doing farm labor on larger farms.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm positing a general shift in government priorities away from support of rural areas, as the nation becomes more urban. Really, all you need to account for the change in death rates is rural emergency rooms being downgraded to urgent cares, such as happened to the one near where I used to live. And a bit more poverty.

And government policy has a lot of influence on the economics. For instance, the EPA has really cracked down on wood heating, establishing pollution thresholds for wood stoves that really only make sense in high density areas.

The economic impact on rural regions, where the only alternative to plentiful wood is expensive propane or electric heat, can be pretty dire.

The cumulative impact of one decision after another crafted for urban areas, but applied to rural areas, too, can be pretty big, even if you assume it's just a failure to consider the interests of rural areas, not active hostility.

[bernard11]

You know, Brett, a lot of the problems with medical care in rural areas has to do with asshole Republicans not signing up for Medicaid expansion.

Rural areas aren't being neglected. They get billions in farm subsidies and similar benefits, are vastly over-represented in Congress, underfund their schools, etc. Their failures are their own fault.

[Brett Bellmore]

Subsidies for ADM do not result in rural hospitals.

[Sarcastr0]

No, but you are as usual taking a policy preference and turning it into intentional bad faith.

[Noscitur a sociis]

For once, he actually doesn't seem to be doing that.

[Sarcastr0]

Dang. You're right!

[bernard11]

No. Medicaid expansion does, though.

But hey. They're going to show Obama.

[bernard11]

Oh yeah.

Don't forget the bargain-basement grazing fees.

Not much grazing in NYC.

[Moderation4ever]

The health care issue is discussed well by benard11's comments.

The woodstove issue is fertilizer. EPA has cracked down on wood stoves for two reasons. First, they get a lot of complaints about wood stoves. You may think heating with wood is great, but your neighbors may not share that feeling. Wood smoke and animal waste products smells are common complaints to local environmental and local health agencies. BTW - your local representative who is against big government is likely passing those complaints from constituents along to the agencies. The other is that in some rural areas where air flow is limited and wood stove use is high you get really high particulate numbers. Its not to protect the cities but the locals. They have not outlawed woodstove as much as mandated the use of cleaner stoves.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Voting Republican causes you to die!

[wreckinball]

What a dumb conclusion? Why are you even on a libertarian site?

[apedad]

You misplaced your comment and should have posted it under:

Armchair Lawyer
June.9.2022 at 6:42 am
Should Nancy Pelosi be investigated and her e-mails pulled and examined for Conspiracy Against the United States?

[wreckinball]

Nope got it right.

"But good thing you got your guns and freedoms."

What libertarian position makes fun of the Bill of Rights and freedom in general? I'm sure there are communist sites you'll be right at home at.

[Bob from Ohio]

You realize lots of Democrats live in GOP counties in Miss., Alabama and Louisiana. This group also had low vaccination rates.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Your reputation for being a babbling simpleton remains intact.

[Don Nico]

"I also read somewhere more people have died from COVID in Republican controlled areas too."

Nice bit of convenient sophistry

[Life of Brian]

Having eyeballed the actual study, I think one of the clearest tells is this graph, which breaks out populations by rural/medium urban/large urban and thus doesn't have as much smoothing as the country-wide graphs.

What you see over and over is sizable and immediate shifts in presidential election years: a good sized uptick for Rs across the board in 2004; a HUGE downtick for rural D in 2008; and a largish uptick for large metro Rs in 2016.

So, Obama flips a bunch of red rural counties blue, and the study now puts that population in the D bucket. Ds' rural mortality rate drops like a rock.

Then Trump flips a number of blue metro counties red, and the study flips that population to the R bucket. Rs' mortality rate immediately rises.

Methinks if anything, they actually showed exactly the opposite of the headline conclusion.

[Moderation4ever]

Tim Michels, the Trump endorsed candidate for Wisconsin's Governor, submitted nominating signatures with errors made on those forms. Those form are being challenged and he may not have enough signatures. Michels has called the challenge frivolous. I would agree with this statement, but would also note that Michels and those like him call for strict adherence to the law. Michels would reject votes for minor omissions and minor errors. You cannot have two standards, one for yourself and one for others. He should accept he made errors and withdraw or he should back away from claims the 2020 election was rigged.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's wildly understood in politics that you'll always have bad petition signatures, and you need a significant cushion to make sure you still have enough signatures after the inevitable invalidations.

But I think we've seen an uptick lately in terms of fraudulent petition circulators delivering mass numbers of petitions that get invalidated. This can be a form of political sabotage.

Smart campaign organizations collect and inspect petitions on a continual basis, but when you get insurgent campaigns, they often fail to adequately defend themselves against these sorts of tactics, being unaware of how dirty a business politics really is.

[bernard11]

Smart campaign organizations collect and inspect petitions on a continual basis,

So you're saying the Trumpist candidate has an incompetent organization.

Yeah. I can believe that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, sure, why wouldn't I say that? Running for office competently is complicated, there are all sorts of written and unwritten rules. Somebody who's new to it is bound to make mistakes, especially if the party establishment isn't interested in lending them any help.

[bernard11]

Somebody who's new to it is bound to make mistakes, especially if the party establishment isn't interested in lending them any help.

You know Brett, governor is an executive position, a pretty complicated one. I'd think that someone who is claiming he would be a great governor ought to have enough administrative skills - or know how to hire someone who does - to manage the signature-gathering process without fucking it up, even without help from the party organization.

That said, I agree with David N. below that if it just some minor technical nitpick he should be allowed to run.

[David Nieporent]

You're confusing the Michigan GOP candidate issue, where their signatures were fraudulent, with Michels' problem, which is a ticky-tack technical paperwork error.

The kind that you routinely think should invalidate actual ballots, and that you attack judges and election officials when they sensibly refuse to interpret in that way.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

But the 2020 election was rigged. Especially in Wisconsin. Without fail, Milwaukee County Democrat election workers conjure up some late-night illegal vote dump to push Democrats over the top. They did it with Tony Evers and they did it with Biden.

[SRG]

But the 2020 election was rigged.

CMAFR. Over 60 court cases lost - of which about a third were dismissed explicitly on the merits, admission by Trump's attorneys in court that they were not alleging fraud, post-election audits showing no fraud, etc.

[Moderation4ever]

Americans know there were attempts to rig the 2020 election. We have the former President asking state officials to find votes. We know there was a conspiracy to appoint fake electors. Also, a conspiracy to force VP Penace to reject valid electors. We have evidence of these facts, which is more than you have for your story about Milwaukee.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/524415-milwaukee-election-official-given-police-escort-to-turn-in-absentee/

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/06/milwaukee-county-has-more-than-50-000-uncounted-absentee-ballots/1916187002/

So weird.

[wreckinball]

Ignore what you se before your eyes. I mean the Roulette wheel always comes up red 50 times in a row. Nothing to see.

Don't you remember previous elections where 5 states stopped counting on election day with one candidate winning, followed by a vote step change overnight and all 5 going one way.

Kicking observers out, covering up windows all normal!

[SRG]

In at least one state, the GOP changed the counting rules so that mail-in ballots - disproportionately cast by Democratic voters - would not be counted until after walk-in ballots - disproportionately cast by Republican voters. The reason was precisely so that they could claim that a late swing, expected by these rules, was due to rigging and so that ignorant suckers like you would fall for it.

IIRC the window-covering was due to attempts at illegal photographing.

With all these alleged instances you'd think that the Trumpists would have won at least a few cases, particularly with Trump-appointed judges, Didn't happen. Funny that.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Republicans rig elections, but Democrats never would!!!

lmao u fkn ppl i swear

[Sarcastr0]

We have seen Republicans attempt to do so. Not so for Democrats.

[wreckinball]

Stated with eyes firmly shut

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Let me guess the PV video with that Ilhan Ohmar ballot harvester/buyer was edited "out of context" and he wasn't really buying ballots!

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, Veritas is *regularly* shown to be full of shit.

Did they back anything up, or was it just someone saying to a hidden camera they totally did some ballot harvesting?

And ballot harvesting is not voter fraud either.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You clearly are speaking ignorantly about the crimes caught on video.

[Ben_]

Sarcastr0 is just outright lying about Project Veritas here.

He can’t point to any specifics because there are none.

[Sarcastr0]

You want specifics about how Project Veritas is full of shit? Just Google it. It's on their wiki, there are plenty of articles. I think Snopes has a dossier.

Ben just wants to believe and it's made him fall for anything.

[Sarcastr0]

You know, the left has some orgs trying to peddle the left-wing version of Project Veritas does, and not alot of people buy.

Not that the left is great in all things, but they do a better job of not swallowing nonsense.

[Ben_]

I’ll get a lot of echo-chamber repeating of lies about them if I Google it.

PV did probably make one or two mistakes over the decades though.

[Sarcastr0]

You wanted specifics. But then you call them all lies.

Keep linking hilarious dumbass nonsense then.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Telling people to "google it" isn't specifics.

[Michael P]

It's as specific as he ever gets.

[Sarcastr0]

The wiki has lots of examples.

You all know this. But you are pretending you don't. That there really isn't a well known set of scandalous lies they've been caught in.

Because you don't care about the truth, only that your priors are confirmed and the libs get owned.

Shameful.

[wreckinball]

See just dumb shit contrarian replies. So we assume its edited and I guess same with 2000 Mules video which came from government surveillance cameras.

Ballot harvesting law varies from state to state, legality and allowed extent, but there is video (see 2000 Mules) that shows illegal activity.

[David Nieporent]

The 2000 Mules video of course was edited — it's not just hours of raw footage, you know — and doesn't show anything anyway.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol good grief you're serious

[Sarcastr0]

lol good grief you believe the pack of lies in that dumbass video.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you, if you go forward with these awful decisions." - Chuck Schumer

[Michael P]

Someone told me that we became that long ago. I'm not sure whether he meant when Obama lied about the Supreme Court in a State Of The Union address or when Roosevelt made it clear that he would pack the Court if they didn't effectively rewrite the Constitution to allow his policies.

[Ed Grinberg]

Roosevelt, Obama, Schumer -- all Democrats. What is it about leftists and attacking the legal system? Can't they achieve their goals honestly / legally?

[SRG]

I suppose McConnell refusing to give Garland even a hearing was fine and dandy and then ramming through Amy Gilead Barrett likewise.

[wreckinball]

Deflection. Has precedent in previous administrations both D and R.

But what a wise move. Garland is absolutely terrible.

But he has those terroristic school board parents on watch ! Ha

[SRG]

Deflection. Has precedent in previous administrations both D and R.

Nope. McConnell appealed to precedent as though it were a regular occurrence. It wasn't - I think about 1880 or so. The practice in the last 100 years or so was to give the nominee a hearing at the very least.

Also, if McConnell's argument was right wrt Garland it necessarily had to be wrong for Barrett.

Not that you really care, let's face it.

[Brett Bellmore]

In a country that's over 200 years old, appealing to the last 100 years is cherrypicking. And that's so even if McConnell is a dishonest asshole.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Constitution says the Senate must advise and offer consent.

Does the Constitution say it must be a hearing? Or did the Senate find another way to advise and consent?

[SRG]

Time was no hearing was required. It would be an automatic vote in the Senate.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'd propose an amendment to,

1) Fix the size of the Court at 9 members,

and,

2) Mandate that the Senate do an up/down roll call vote on any nominee to the bench within 4 months of the nomination, or they are automatically deemed to have been confirmed.

Mind, that second clause would need some detail work to prevent unpopular nominees from being filibustered into office, while at the same time preventing votes from being forced prior to fact finding and debate.

[bernard11]

Simple enough.

If no vote is held the Senate cannot conduct any other business, and no one gets paid - Senators, staff, etc., until one is held.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we want to allow them some reasonable time to at least conduct hearings into the nominee, rather than proceeding directly to an up/down vote.

[bernard11]

I meant after the four months, not immediately.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is that what the constitution says? An automatic vote in the Senate?

From what I've read the Senate Majority Leader speaks for the Senate. The Senate spoke, via the Senate Majority Leader, and didn't consent to Garland thereby fulfilling its duties.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Amy Gilead Barrett

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Democrat said it so nothing will happen. If a Republican (especially Trump) says something like that it is straight to jail.

[wreckinball]

Seems a lot more straightforward than "go peacefully" which of course the clown show J6 committee will go over an over again.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Words only mean what they plainly state when leftists say stuff. When done by the right they are all coded words like "go peacefully" is really "go riot and overthrow the government".

Fun parlor trick though when you can turn anything someone says into exactly what you need to be for political gain.

[Randal]

Call me when the DOJ has hundreds of people charged with crimes of political violence all claiming that Schumer made them do it.

[SRG]

What is the overlap between the people who oppose any further gun restrictions and the people who support QI and who agree with Egbert v Boule? If we're talking matters of principle, the answer should be, small. In practice, I suspect it's very high.

[ThePublius]

IANAL: what's "QI?"

[Ben_]

It’s a wireless battery charging standard.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Qualified Immunity.

[ThePublius]

Thank you!

[Bob from Ohio]

"answer should be, small"

Why? They are different types of issues.

[SRG]

They both deal with government tyranny and the constitutional rights of citizens.

[Bob from Ohio]

So, those who favor expansive free speech rights should also favor expansive gun rights?

Or expansive 5th amendment rights?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Setting aside the fact that one can oppose gun restrictions for reasons independent of the constitution, I'm not sure why a belief about the substantive meaning of one constitutional right implies any particular belief about how easily it should be to win a lawsuit over the violation of different constitutional rights (or vice versa).

[ThePublius]

WHY does the U.S. government presume the power to implement policies by regulation and executive orders in areas for which they are not granted power in the constitution? And, what can be done about it?

I'm specifically referring to economy, energy, environment, housing, research, and education.

For example, what business is it of the U.S. federal government to "save the planet" from CO2 emissions, when a large swath of the population doesn't even buy in to the Catastrophic AGW theory, even many prominent scientists? And, what gives them the power and the right to thwart the fossil fuel industry and economy to carry out their goals? It is abundantly clear that the doubling of gas prices since Biden took office is intentional. They have said as much.

Similarly, by what right or granted power does the federal government, principally the federal reserve bank, manipulate the economy via the money supply and other mechanisms? They can arbitrarily, and as influenced by politics, increase or decrease the value of money, which is a form of taxation. How can we stop this?

Also, why is it their business where and how people live, how they arrange themselves in communities and neighborhoods, how much housing costs, and so on and so forth?

By what right or power do they make huge amounts of money available in the form of loans for college, which over the last 50 years has inflated the cost of college by fifteen, twenty, even one hundred times? It's clear they have driven the cost up, created and fostered an industry, and created a rich, privileged class of professors and administrators where previously none existed or was required.

How can we stop all of this?

[Ben_]

A lot of it will stop the day they have to borrow money to pay interest on the money they borrowed before. One or two years after that you will see the Federal government is about 25% of it's former size.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federal Class and its bootlickers have come to believe that the General Welfare clause is an open-ended grant to them to do whatever they want so long as they say their intent is to promote the general welfare of the United States.

[Sarcastr0]

How do you read that text otherwise?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That it's the setup for the list of enumerated powers that follow.

[Sarcastr0]

You have any evidence for that parsing other than your preferred policies?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I have good ol’ TJs take on it as support:

Thomas Jefferson asserted that “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

[Sarcastr0]

That supports my interpretation, lol.

[jb]

And also, as it turns out, there were different people involved with the drafting of the Constitution and some of them had different opinions! Cherry picking one that agrees with you doesn't make your position unequivocally correct.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think the enumerated powers were just an e.g. following "do whatever you want if it's with pure of heart"?

[Sarcastr0]

The enumerated powers are about regulation - prohibition in other words. The bit that potentially includes government use of force.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Coining money, raising armies and establishing a post office are about regulation?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a restriction on the exercise of enumerated powers, Sarcastr0; Even if a power IS enumerated, it's not supposed to be exercised except for the general welfare.

[apedad]

Part of our general welfare includes economy, energy, environment, housing, research, and education, n'est-ce pas?

[SRG]

Note that our OP was suspiciously quiet about the military and the justice system.

[Bob from Ohio]

"suspiciously quiet"

He mentioned "areas for which they are not granted power in the constitution". Military and federal courts are in the Constitution.

[SRG]

The powers granted in the constitution do not extend to much of what we see in the military or in the justice system.

[Sarcastr0]

You say this, Brett, but you have no support for that take. It's in the part that lists the legislative power. You would render it a nullity.

You have a policy preference, and are reading into the language as much as any bad-faith strawman judge you complain about.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The General Welfare Clause is part of the Tax and Spending clause.

[Sarcastr0]

So?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The General Welfare Clause and the Tax and Spending Clause aren't "It's in the part that lists the legislative power. You would render it a nullity."

You fucking dunce.

[bernard11]

That's a nonsensical reading.

The section lays out Congress' powers, and you decide that one of them, which is actually listed in the same paragraph as several others, is a restriction, and not a power.

Get serious.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

How do you read that text otherwise?

By activating at least a 2nd brain cell.

[Sarcastr0]

What says they cannot, if necessary to fulfill their duties?

Executive orders and delegation to administrative bodies both have Founding era precedents.

General Welfare does not exclude lending. To banks or students. And bank interest rates are not taxes.

We rejected the Articles of Confederation and then again strengthened Federal power after the Civil War. We learned that live as let live is a recipe for disunion and illiberal discrimination.

So the real answer is educate yourself. Tour Constitution does not instantiate Social Statistics, nor Atlas Shrugged.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In your belief system, what's the limiting principle(s) of Federal power?

[wreckinball]

Whatever you say he's going to say it isn't so.

[apedad]

I don't know about 'limiting principles(s)' but I'm familiar with the constitutional limits of Federal power.

What do YOU consider are the 'limiting principles(s)' of Federal power?

[Sarcastr0]

Regulatory power must have a nexus with an enumerated power.

Spending power is limited by politics, the Bill of Rights, and the 14A.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The General Welfare clause is part of the Tax and Spending clause though so that understanding doesn’t make much sense.

[Sarcastr0]

You're an idiot who thinks that the spending clause does not include the power to spend.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're an idiot who thinks the General Welfare Clause and the Enumerated Powers are part of the Necessary and Proper Clause and not in a completely different part of the Constitution.

lmao

[Bob from Ohio]

"General Welfare does not exclude lending."

Sec. 8 gives Congress the power to borrow, No mention of lending.

[Sarcastr0]

If you can spend, does that not encompass the power to lend?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you can spend, does that not encompass the power to lend?

No, because "lend" and "spend" are two very different things. It's why we have different words for them.

[Sarcastr0]

Encompass != equal to.

If I can broadly give money (via contract or grant or transfer payment or any other vehicle) giving money on the condition I get it back with interest seems within that power as well.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Encompass != equal to.

Captain Straw Man strikes again. "very different" does not simply mean "not equal". Lending is not a subset of spending.

giving money

"Lending" is not "giving". Again, we have different words for these concepts because they're very different things. If someone gives you $100 (even if it's in exchange for some good/service) they are not expecting you to give them that $100 back (with or without interest) at some point. That is "spending". If someone "lends" you that sum then they are very much expecting you to return it at some point (usually with interest). And there are a whole host of issues involved with lending that are not involved with spending.

[bernard11]

You miss sarcastro's point entirely.

If the government can give someone money for college then surely it can lend the money instead. Isn't there something about the greater power including the lesser?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You miss sarcastro's point entirely.

My posts make it abundantly clear...to anyone with reading comprehension skills at least equal to those of the average 3rd grader...that I didn't miss it at all, and have quite well addressed it.

If the government can give someone money for college then surely it can lend the money instead. Isn't there something about the greater power including the lesser?

And here's the proof that you lack the aforementioned reading comprehension skills. If there is a reasonably intelligent adult in your home, have them explain to you what "not a subset of" means.

[bernard11]

Ok. You're still an idiot.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Ok. You're still an idiot.

Your inability to comprehend simple written English doesn't make anyone an idiot but you.

[Michael P]

Which part of the Constitution says (the US federal) government can give someone money for college? That's specific welfare, not general welfare.

[Sarcastr0]

An educated populace is general welfare.

[ThePublius]

"What says they cannot, if necessary to fulfill their duties?"

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"Duties" is nowhere defined in the constitution, and becomes everything and anything the ruling class wants, constitution be damned!

[Sarcastr0]

"make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, and that right there limits the laws Congress can pass, if properly interpreted, because if a law is neither necessary nor proper to that end, Congress isn't empowered to enact it.

[Sarcastr0]

Except for spending, which is an enumerated power, you atextual legal realist.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You really don't know what the enumerated powers are. Wow.

[Sarcastr0]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You think this does not mean spending?

[ThePublius]

"And bank interest rates are not taxes."

That's a very cynical retort to what I said. I said (or meant to communicate) that the fed does things to intentionally affect the currency - often to inflate it. Intentional inflation is a tax, for all intents and purposes.

[bernard11]

Yet Congress has the power

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

[ThePublius]

"regulate the Value thereof"

I'd like to know the original intent of this phrase. I doubt it includes pumping, injecting liquidity into the economy, basically printing money without any backing to manipulate the economy. I rather think it was about denomination.

[Sarcastr0]

Text > Intent.

Only intent if text is ambiguous.

This is originalism 101.

[ThePublius]

Context matters.

[ThePublius]

A little research renders your comment meaningless.

https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/congress-shall-coin-money-and-regulate-the-value-thereof

[bernard11]

Well, no.

Once again, I don't think the founders' understanding of the world binds us.

[ThePublius]

Oh, but it does, since they wrote the Constitution, which binds us.

As it is today, many think it can be whatever they want it to be. This is clearly wrong, or do you disagree with that? If it can't be whatever you want it to be, then what exactly is it?

[Sarcastr0]

The Constitution was written as a framework, not an airtight set of instructions. Hence referring to general stuff like 'the judicial power' without laying out what it is or how it works.

Some stuff is textually clear - age limits on some offices, etc. So you start with the text. Not intent, text. Which you have failed to do.

After that, I agree with bernard11 that modern understanding and purposivism take over. But even an originalist would disagree with you as to intent:

Original public meaning included the understanding that Constitutional Law was not statutory interpretation - it was a common law practice that started at ambiguities in text, but was also based on precedents. As such, it evolved some.

Read Will Baude.

[wreckinball]

The "General Welfare" argument is another example of ridiculous much like the 2A Militia debate.

Of course the GW clause was not meant to null and void the limited Federal government

Of course the militia clause in 2A was not meant to restrict the right to bear arms to just the militia.

Just not serious.

[apedad]

So those terms (General Welfare, Militia), were just throw in there because. . . they had extra ink?

[wreckinball]

Once again not serious.

Federal power, such as even the power of Federal taxation, was over the first 150 years was what the document said. Otherwise there would have been no need for many of the amendments such as 16A (income tax). Certainly there would have been no need for 10A because Fed power is unlimited right?

GW was not do anything you want except for the non-serious activist crowd.

The militia was the people and was a supporting argument for the right to bear arms. It was not exclusive

Once again non-serious (NS) if you think in 1790 that 2A meant just those enlisted in the militia could have arms.

So can the police bear arms? They are not the militia either. See just stupid.

[apedad]

Article I
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Let us know when you find a limit on the first clause, of the first section, of the first article in our Constitution.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's a stupid challenge. Look, it says "herein granted" There's a limit, right there: If it isn't 'herein granted', Congress doesn't have it.

Section EIGHT is where the powers are granted. In the very first paragraph, you have them limited to the common defense, and general welfare.

Then Section NINE adds a bunch of specific prohibitions.

[apedad]

Sect. 8, "...shall have the Power...," is not a limit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not those specific four words, no.

[Sarcastr0]

You have thus far provided no positive evidence for your parsing.

[jb]

"Federal power, such as even the power of Federal taxation, was over the first 150 years was what the document said. Otherwise there would have been no need for many of the amendments such as 16A (income tax)."

Until the 16th amendment, there was indeed a limitation on taxation which in turn was a limitation on how much the government could spend. Once the government could raise a lot more money that did indeed make the relatively broad spending power much more significant.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So those terms (General Welfare, Militia), were just throw in there because. . . they had extra ink?

Are you of the belief that primates evolved hands just so they could be used to wave away substantive questions?

Simple question: Are you asserting that the "General Welfare" clause was added so as to constitute a blank check of federal power, thus rendering the explicit enumeration thereof utterly meaningless? Yes or no.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you asserting that the "General Welfare" clause was added so as to constitute a blank check of federal power, thus rendering the explicit enumeration thereof utterly meaningless? Yes or no..

I'm quite comfortable saying 'no' for apedad in response to your false choice.

General welfare is about spending. That is not nearly all of government's power.

[Brett Bellmore]

How much does the government actually do without spending money, though?

[Sarcastr0]

Are you serious? All rulemakings and adjudications and the like. And federal criminal law.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

All rulemakings and adjudications and the like. And federal criminal law.

And you think those activities don't involve spending?

[Sarcastr0]

They don't draw their power from the General Welfare Clause.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

They don't draw their power from the General Welfare Clause.

Which, of course, has nothing at all to do with what you said nor my response to it, you buffoon.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'm quite comfortable saying...

You're quite comfortable with...even addicted to, apparently...lying through your virtual teeth at every opportunity, so your comfort with doing other things is so of no value.

...'no' for apedad in response to your false choice.

It's not a false choice. Either the clause grants Congress unspecified unenumerated powers (with no stated limits) or it doesn't.

General welfare is about spending.

And? Perhaps you've gotten lost. Here is OP's assertion regarding the GW clause:

"Of course the GW clause was not meant to null and void the limited Federal government"

Here is apedad's response:

"So those terms (General Welfare, Militia), were just throw in there because. . . they had extra ink?"

The context was not confined to "spending". It was a comment about the notion that the GW clause serves to "null and void the limited Federal government" (in other words, providing a "blank check" of federal power).

Do try to keep up and comment on what is actually being discussed rather than what the voices in your head are talking about.

[ReaderY]

But “general welfare” is a spending power, not a regulatory power. It’s been well settled that the federal government’s power to spend money is much broader than its power to regulate.

It’s an explicit enimwrated power.

The main debate has been whether the federal government can condition receipt of federal money on a state’s passing laws or doing things the federal government likes. However, a much-overlooked section of Sebillius significantly cut back the federal government’s power to do this. The opinion said states had a right to choose whether to expand Medicaid or continue it as it was. That’s a significant limitation on federal power and assertion of states’ rights.

[Ben_]

Doomsayers are screaming about articles from leftwing media outlet Vox the last week or so. Some of the people at Vox have decided that climate change is just a problem to be overcome, just like every other problem people have overcome throughout history. Reactions range from yeah, welcome back to sanity to REEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! we are betrayed and Vox is teh evil now.

Is doomsday going out of fashion?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Imagine these Democrat brains that have been bathing in cortisol for the past few decades careening from one existential crisis to another and living day to day in constant fear.

It's part of the reason why there is a mental health crisis, I believe.

[Ben_]

Yeah, but are they finally getting tired of congratulating themselves for feeling bad?

Are they finally starting to realize that hysterically insisting everyone behave like penitent energy sinners isn’t working? And that getting more and more hysterical accomplishes nothing?

Doomsayers' influence on energy policy probably peaked the day before the Ukraine invasion. Now they face big election losses, reprisals from sinners who resent the scourge, and (most powerfully) the simple technical reality of human energy needs.

Either doomsday goes out of fashion or fashion embraces more and more extreme levels of hysteria for years to come.

Meanwhile the weather is actually pretty nice for everyone else.

[Sarcastr0]

Where do you find your doomsayers? Leftists of TikTok or the like?

[Ben_]

AOC and the "1028 days left" girl. They’re prominent now.

[Sarcastr0]

AOC was 'screaming about articles from leftwing media outlet Vox the last week or so?'

[Ben_]

You should tell Vox that no one is saying…. [whatever]. Gaslighting might work on them.

[Sarcastr0]

All I know is that you said "Doomsayers are screaming about articles from leftwing media outlet Vox the last week or so."

And apparently AOC is who you were talking about?

[Ben_]

No one said "AOC was 'screaming about articles from leftwing media outlet Vox the last week or so?'"

I’m not playing your dumb word games

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, I asked where you found your doomsayers, and you said where.

I can't help you if you're not consistent with what you say.

[Ben_]

Are they not doomsayers?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Where do you find your doomsayers? Leftists of TikTok or the like?

The UN, the U.S. House of Representatives, etc.

You don't get out much, do you?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you believe AGW is an existential threat to humanity?

[Jaypd]

So I finally decided to peruse this "Thursday Open Thread" thing and I deeply regret it.

Do the writers for this blog ever wonder if anyone is reading it aside from these inane commenters?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Do the writers for this blog ever wonder if anyone is reading it aside from these inane commenters?

Given that it tends to be the most popular thread, by far, most weeks (in terms of participation) I'd say there's precious little reason for them to wonder that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"inane" or "insane"?

Both fit.

[Randal]

There's no need to wonder.

[M L]

The WHO's Pandemic Treaty: The End of National Sovereignty and Freedom

According to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the first director-general of the WHO and who is not actually a medical doctor, this treaty represents an “opportunity to strengthen the global health architecture to protect and promote the well-being of all people.” If passed, the Pandemic Treaty will allow the WHO to make radical changes to the healthcare systems of its member countries starting in 2024.

In particular, this agreement will grant the WHO the power to declare a pandemic, based on its own vaguely defined criteria, in any of its 194 member countries at any point in the future. It will also permit the WHO to unilaterally determine what measures will be imposed in response to these future declared pandemics, including lockdown policies, mandatory masking, social distancing, and coercing the population into undergoing medical treatments and vaccinations.

Contrary to popular opinion, the WHO is not an independent, unbiased, and ethical organization that aims to achieve the common good. In reality, its goals and agendas are set by its donors, including some of the world’s richest countries and most influential philanthropists. For decades, “philanthropists and their foundations have [gained] increasing influence” when it comes to shaping the global health agenda by “placing people in international organisations, and gaining privileged access to scientific, business and political elites.”

https://mises.org/wire/whos-pandemic-treaty-end-national-sovereignty-and-freedom

[bernard11]

This is idiotic.

If passed, the Pandemic Treaty will allow the WHO to make radical changes to the healthcare systems of its member countries starting in 2024.

various horrible things...

First of all, no document exists yet.

More important, what makes you, or those morons at the Mises Institute, think the WHO has the power to "pass" a treaty? What do you make the odds that the US would sign and ratify such a pact?

[M L]

What makes you think Biden wouldn't sign it? Obama signed the Paris climate agreement, and the Iran nuclear agreement. Neither of those things were ratified by the Senate. For many reasons, the Constitution may as well be a roll of toilet paper.

Now, is this "pandemic treaty" the singular end to sovereignty and freedom? I doubt it. But this is an important story and what I found striking is that when I heard about it, I went Googling and the censorship of Google search results is shocking and appalling. They exclude everything they don't like. Only when I tried a different search engine did I find anything remotely informative.

[Sarcastr0]

Guess who else has to approve treaties, you poor excuse for a lawyer?

[M L]

Do you support the pandemic treaty or not? It is supported by opinion writers at WaPo. It is supported by "the experts" that the New York Times likes to cite in their headlines. It is supported by the "global leaders," and you know those folks are smart.

What's not to like about the pandemic treaty? Why don't you support it?

[Sarcastr0]

I think you are wetting your pants over literally nothing.

[M L]

Well I think it's an important topic all these "global leaders" are discussing, don't you? Whether one is for or against. And you seem to be against it for some reason.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I think this threat is entirely unrealistic and made up. And in general fears about 'global leaders' is more antisemetic trope rewarmed than actually how the world works.

The world is not a coordinated place.

[bernard11]

I don't even know what the damn thing says, because, guess what, it doesn't exist, you jackass.

Member States – countries – of the World Health Organization have agreed to “kickstart a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

I do note that famed leftist radical Boris Johnson seems to be involved, so I doubt it's a plot for world domination by the WHO.

All I've seen is a bunch of language about cooperation in the face of pandemic. None of the stuff the idiots at the Mises Institute have you so riled up about.

So fuck off with the questions. Go wave a confederate flag or something.

[M L]

It sounds like you support the idea. Can you give some examples for how you think nations should "cooperate in the face of a pandemic" that requires an international treaty? I'm open to hearing the good ideas.

[M L]

Sarcastr0,

Why are you so against the pandemic treaty? Are you some kind of right wing nut job?

[apedad]

Texas school district refuses to say if the Uvalde police chief accused of delaying the mass shooting response is still working there

Dr. Hal Harrell, the superintendent of the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, was asked by a reporter during a press briefing whether Pete Arredondo, the chief of police for the school district, is still working for the district.

"That's a personnel matter," Harrell responded. "I am not going to be able to answer that in a public forum."

https://www.insider.com/texas-school-district-refuses-details-embattled-uvalde-police-chief-employed-2022-6

WHAT?!?!?

Sure there are privacy laws to protect release of civil servant's personal information - but that cannot prevent a manager from stating whether someone is still employed or not.

I get it. . . a huge 24/7 spotlight is shining on this little town and its leaders which they simply can't handle.

But at least consult your lawyers and SMEs (e.g. HR), before showing your dumbassery.

[Bob from Ohio]

Isn't the answer clearly "Yes". If "no", he would have said so to deflect heat.

Texas should dissolve the school district as well as the police dept. and start over.

City council too unless Arredondo resigns or is expelled.

[ducksalad]

Well, there are cases (especially in public employment) where the supervisor says something like "you're fired effective 5pm June 9" and then the employee deploys some kind of appeal process. Weeks/months/years later, if they lose the process, they were in fact fired as of 5pm June 9th. If they win, then they never were fired. In the meantime they're some kind of Schrodinger's Cat.

At least that's how it appears to a non-lawyer who's seen many such firings.

[John F. Carr]

Try asking "is he still on the payroll?" Salary is a public record where I live.

[Brett Bellmore]

Poll by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

They mostly focus on "Great Replacement" topics, but some interesting numbers in there.

Over a third of Democrats agree that demographic change in America is being deliberately engineered by left to replace conservative voters. And younger Democrats are MUCH more likely to think it's deliberate than older ones, nearly as much so as Republicans of the same age. (Unfortunately, they didn't to the age breakdown on whether they thought it was a good thing.)

Younger Democratic men are almost as hostile to feminism and transgender ideology as Republicans, and the views of younger Democrats on feminism and gender issues are a LOT closer to those of Republicans than the older Democrats' are.

Republicans and Democrats agree that political violence is bad, but the younger demographics of both parties are a LOT more open to political violence than the older demographics. 3-4 times more likely!

Overall, it looks to me like the progs may be losing the next generation of Democrats, but it also looks to me like we're in for a generation or more of political violence.

[bernard11]

Interesting poll. It's frightening what some people believe.

Note that the numbers for the various subgroups are shaky. I make the 95% CI to be around +/- 7.5%

[Brett Bellmore]

Which isn't enough to render some of those numbers less deeply scary.

If the Republican party were smart, (They're not.) they'd rerun that poll with some serious effort to increase the sample size, and explore what's going on. They may have an opening to capture some of the younger Democrats, if those numbers are right. There appear to be some issues where the left is losing the next generation of voters.

[apedad]

"The place sounds like it's imploding": SCOTUS insiders spill more dirt as court hunts for leaker

At this juncture, it's unclear what, if any, progress has been made by the court in identifying the leaker. The investigation is currently being led by Supreme Court Marshal Gail A. Curley, who, as NPR notes, has no apparent experience as an investigator.

Several insiders told the outlet that the inquiry's latest developments have been "nightmares," in part because they've only added to the atmosphere of distrust between colleagues.

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/09/the-place-sounds-like-its-imploding-scotus-insiders-spill-more-dirt-as-hunts-for-leaker/

I called this when the announcement first came out that the marshal's office would be unprepared to take on this investigation.

It's simply outside of their statutory responsibilities and they were never hired, trained, or equipped to conduct this kind of investigation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Another rotten Federal institution getting what it deserves.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, movement conservative,
Republican, "academic" blog has operated for

SIXTEEN (16) DAYS

without publishing a vile
racial slur and operated for

TWO (2) YEARS

without imposing hypocritical,
viewpoint-driven censorship.

CONGRATULATIONS ! ? ! ? !

[Frank Drackman]

You remind me of a "Movement", "Reverend", The Bowel kind

[Frank Drackman]

How can anyone take the January 6th thang seriously?
That sad excuse for a "Gallows"?? be lucky to even support AOC's skinny neck, much less that Tub-O'-Lard Jerry "The Nad" Nad-ler. You want a decent Gallows you'd need a crew of someone with experience building one, Hondurans, Nicaraguans.
And Congress just doesn't have to accept the Electoral results if there's been some Chi-canery goin' on, see 1876, Election of, or like that Waterhead Jamie Raskin did in )-16, lets go to the Video!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxEr_mRpp44

Frank "Erection-ist"

[SRG]

It seems that the standard (implicit) defence to the argument that 1/6 was an insurrection was that the plotters were too incompetent, so it doesn't really count.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you've got that backwards.

From the "wasn't an insurrection" side of the argument, leaving their weapons behind is evidence that they weren't engaged in insurrection, because that's not something insurrectionists would have done.

It's the people who think it WAS an insurrection who have to explain that as their just being incompetent.

It's like the last time I went to the bank. I say I was there to do some banking, you say I was a bank robber. I point out that I didn't bring a gun, I didn't bring a note, and I didn't at any point threaten the teller, I just went through the normal motions of making a withdrawal from my account.

You say that just proves I'm really bad at bank robbery.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Add even if you yelled at a teller, ripped a few pens off their chains and spilled a bunch of deposit slips on the floor while there, that's still not robbing (or even attempting to rob) a bank.

[bernard11]

They left guns behind, but apparently had some sort of "strike force" ready in Maryland.

I don't know why they did that, but don't rule out incompetence. But that's a red herring, Brett. They plainly were prepared to use violence, and did use it, and their objective was plainly to stop the certification of the EV's, thereby disrupting, violently, the proceeding.

Anyway, WTF was it, if not an insurrection? And don't start that "tourist" bullshit.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

and their objective was plainly to stop the certification of the EV's

The fact that nothing they did had even the slightest potential to stop the certification of the EVs (non-possessive) would suggest that your attempt at mind-reading is a bust.

[M L]

Don't make yourself look like a food by using the word "insurrection."

Yeah, they were looking to violently overthrow the most powerful government in the world! Sure, they were all unarmed. But...the armed ones were secretly waiting in a different state or something! Get a grip, man.

[bernard11]

I point out that I didn't bring a gun, I didn't bring a note, and I didn't at any point threaten the teller,

So you brought a baseball bat, smashed in the door, pushed security out of the way, started yelling about hanging people if they didn't give you money, even though you had no account. You did all this in the company of others who also had no accounts and were making similar threats.

Your analogy stinks.

Stop defending the indefensible.

[M L]

No, it's that they were engaging in a peaceful protest. One that was especially peaceful compared to the BLM and Antifa events.

The "gallows" were obviously an artistic prop and expressive speech, rather than evidence of murderous intent on the part of these unarmed folks. Kind of like the guillotine outside the Trump White House. https://www.newsweek.com/protest-trump-doll-guillotine-outside-white-house-rnc-1528381 I think you have to be dishonest to miss the point and claim instead, "oh, they were just incompetent, that's why they constructed a [gallows/guillotine] that wasn't capable of [hanging whoever/beheading Trump]."

[bernard11]

Oh fuck off.

That's ridiculous trollishness beyond belief. It's deranged.

[M L]

What? Why? You seem brainwashed.

[Sarcastr0]

You're just trolling now.

Lame.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey did you see that video were Nadler shit himself during that press event?

[Frank Drackman]

How could they tell?

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.newsweek.com/matt-gaetz-claims-jamie-raskin-unable-do-job-due-son-suicide-1714151

What an absolutely shitty person.

[Frank Drackman]

Raskin? you're right, I think it's that whole "Boy Named Jamie" thang.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Wow. Another shitty person. Who would expect that here.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey (man!) don't be so hard on yourself, you were born shitty.

[Bob from Ohio]

"As one of his first actions in Congress, Raskin and several other members of House of Representatives objected to the certification of the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump due to alleged ties with Russia, and Russia's interference in the 2016 election, as well as voter suppression efforts. "

Insurrectionist!

"In February 2022, whilst his wife was under consideration for a position as the Federal Reserve’s vice chairwoman of supervision, it was reported that Raskin violated the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act by failing to properly disclose share dealings by his wife. One instance was where his wife received stock for advising a Colorado-based financial technology trust company, and the other was where his wife sold stock in Reserve Trust for $1.5 million, but the sale was not disclosed for a further eight months. "

Corrupt.

He is a shitty person.

[Frank Drackman]

Liz Chaney's Dad shot more peoples than all of the January 6th "Insurrectionists" combined!! (I'm assuming Lt. Michael Bird wasn't an Insurrectionist)

[Nisiiko]

When leftists say "common sense gun regulation," they mean a full ban on civilian owned firearms.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Their objective is civilian disarmament. Imagine what this country would be like with piece of shit institutions like the DOJ and IC that aren’t checked even remotely by private gun ownership? They already are lawless and partisan just imagine if we were completely disarmed?

[Nisiiko]

They don't want the criminal non-whites disarmed. Just us.

[John F. Carr]

Common sense gun control means every American should be able to hit the 10 ring shooting a handgun at 20 feet.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Has there ever been an instance where the Federal class said “hey, we finally solved problem X, we will disband the Department X, reduce spending and rollback the supporting regulations because X is finally solved?”

I mean aren’t the Federals still controlling the price of raisins from some problem over a 100 years ago?

I’m sure there might be one or two cases, but in general it seems like they can’t ever solve anything, and in fact create problems for themselves to solve and endlessly demand more grants of power and more of our wealth.

[Frank Drackman]

They've sort of done that with the (Co) "Vid", funny how the mask mandate ended days before the White House Press Whores Dinner,

Frank "Prefers (Dr.) Jill Biden with a Mask"

[Sarcastr0]

Federal Alcohol Administration.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Uh, "The Act still partly continues in force, underpinning the powers of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)."

lmao

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So you're saying the Federal Government no longer regulates alcohol because they solved the problems associated with it?

[Sarcastr0]

Your Q:
Has there ever been an instance where the Federal class said “hey, we finally solved problem X, we will disband the Department X, reduce spending and rollback the supporting regulations because X is finally solved?”

Revectoring to a new department solving a different problem delivers what you asked.

So you've changed the goalposts to repealing (rather than revising) the statute.
No new goalposts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It was created to regulate the alcohol industry. How was that solved? Is alcohol no longer federally regulated?

[David Nieporent]

Ron DeSantis was rightly condemned for going after Disney over its political stances, and then more recently going after the Tampa Bay Rays for theirs, with the latter consisting of vetoing funding they were set to receive¹ because they endorsed gun control. But he's hardly the only one, and the GOP are hardly the only culprits:

Virginia lawmakers are currently considering legislation meant to entice the Commanders to relocate to Virginia, and some indicated Del Rio’s comments could resonate in Richmond and endanger the stadium efforts. “Just sealed the deal to cast my vote as a NO,” state Sen. Jeremy McPike, D-Prince William County, tweeted Wednesday. “I think what’s burning down today is the stadium.”

McPike told 106.7 The Fan that he was canceling a Thursday meeting with Wright to discuss the stadium legislation, saying: “There’s too much stuff going on with the organization. They’ve got to get it together.”

McPike had previously expressed reservations about the proposed stadium legislation and shared transportation concerns around a potential Woodbridge location.

Virginia state Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, was similarly critical of the Commanders coach, saying Del Rio’s comments “makes clear to me that we won’t be seeing any more votes on stadium bills this year.”

https://www.fredericknewspost.com/sports/level/professional/commanders-coordinator-jack-del-rio-calls-jan-6-insurrection-a-dust-up/article_b217a36c-e8b4-5e6d-9d99-c39ebb23654b.html
​
​
​
​
¹The proper amount of funding for any professional sports facility is $0. But the proper amount of consideration their political stances should go into that decision is 0%.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Now do for the next time the left pulls such a political stunt when someone does something that is "racist" or something similar. That will be fun to see.

[David Nieporent]

Me: "The right did bad thing X, but the left sometimes does X too."
Jimmy; "Now talk about the left."

[Jimmy the Dane]

If there is no double standard then you will be happy to condemn every single similar action out of the left. Problem is that the standard is almost always applied disproportionately to the right and never, or rarely, to the left. If you are a disingenuous partisan hack at least you can embrace the gross double standard.

Same goes with plots to murder public officials. Conservative supreme court justice gets spiked after less than 24 hours. Democrat stays in the news for weeks, months, and even gets mentioned after years.

[David Nieporent]

Me: "The right did bad thing X, but the left sometimes does X too."
Jimmy; "Now talk about the left."

[Randal]

I have no problem with any of this with one tiny exception.

In all these cases, the government decided to stop giving special favors to some entity based on its beliefs. I think special favors are suspect anyway, but if we're doing special favors, it's naive to think that it can or even should be done in some beliefs-neutral way. If Disney went back to being explicitly antisemitic, for instance, which it's allowed to, I would hope that all its special privileges would be yanked.

The tiny exception is that I find the culture war distasteful in general, and dangerous, so to the extent this is all being done in order to more deeply divide America, that obviously sucks.

[Frank Drackman]

Whenever I hear "1/6" I think of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, that's fought in ever Wah since WW1 (OK, Missed out on Korea/Veet-nam(wouldn't call it "Missing") but served in Cuber during the "Crisis" (how unilaterally pulling our Nukes out of Turkey was "Facing down the Roosh-uns" is beyond me) Dominican in 65', Panama 89' and all the way up to Syria in 0-17'
think any of the "1-6" Committee knows any of the above?? (I'd say couldn't poor piss out of boot without written instructions)
I know the screening to get into the hearing will be pretty strict, but would love to see Pencil Neck get the "Animal House" treatment,
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=animal+house+bullshit+scene&&view=detail&mid=8BA31A1C52F8463E91A98BA31A1C52F8463E91A9&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Danimal%2Bhouse%2Bbullshit%

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is that intended to be impressive?

The United States military -- despite stunning resource advantages -- hasn't won a war in 75 years. Instead, taxpayers have settled for a series of vague draws with ragtag irregulars, punctuated by disgraces involving war criminals, mercenaries, and torture.

[ducksalad]

I think Grenada and Panama were both illegitimate. However, I think you have to admit that in both cases the US administration accomplished all their initial goals, and the aftermath wasn't so bad that they should be counted as effective losses.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The glorious achievements in Grenada and Panama constituted "winning a war" every bit as much as a five-year-old bicycling most of the way down the driveway with training wheels constitutes winning the Tour de France.

I am confident the United States military appreciates the support though, particularly after a rough 75-year dry spell.

[Frank Drackman]

I bow to your Superior experience, which one of the vague draws did you serve in?
Oh yeah, you couldn't serve in the Spanish Amurican Wah because of that whole "No Homos" thang, I know, you're much better now!
Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Haven't been paying attention,
Should be an interesting hearing tonight, I assume the Officer who murdered Ashley Babbit will undergo some tough cross examination?

[M L]

The leading candidate for Republican nominee to governor of Michigan was just arrested by the FBI for something about Jan 6.

Without knowing anything about it, sounds like the political establishment behaving as usual. They're usually able to keep out anyone who might rock the boat.

[M L]

Apparently he never even entered the building. But allegedly he nudged a barrier and made some gestures, or something.

[John F. Carr]

Unlike most of the arrest affidavits, this one was not very clear when it comes to connecting the facts to the law. The affiant says the plaza was closed, but the maps of the defendant's position do not have the closed portion of the plaza clearly marked and I do not know if the maps place him in a closed area. The affidavit does not say whether the plaza was closed for Secret Service protective purposes (making it a restricted area) or for Capitol crowd control purposes (triggering a different law, if any). Is he alleged to have aided and abetted violations of law by waving his hands?

The magistrate should have asked the agent to clarify before signing the warrant.

[Bob from Ohio]

The internal security agency just arrested a leading provincial opposition figure at the request of the ruling regime's prosecuting arm.

Nothing to see here.

[M L]

Nothing at all!

By the way I Love Democracy. Don't Attack Our Democracy or you'll be tortured and beaten in a D.C. prison.

[Bob from Ohio]

Coincidentally on the day of the dog and pony committee hearing too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whining, obsolete, bigoted, backwater clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

I'm beginning to think I should have spent even more time on political activities that crushed conservatives' disgusting aspirations and less time on making money. Watching Republicans' disaffected, dispirited, defeated whimpering at the Volokh Conspiracy is more fun than buying another BMW, or taking in a few extra shows on a Stones tour.

On second though, I could have done both -- spent more time on political activities and still been able to afford any BMW or Stones show I want. So I should have worked harder on political and election matters.

[Frank Drackman]

might want to spend some time this fall, "Reverend"

[Brett Bellmore]

This is not "behaving as usual", though if we're very unlucky it might become unusual behavior. It's a radical step forward in the politicization of the FBI.

[Sarcastr0]

Never mind if he's guilty, Brett is sure there is a conspiracy!

[Bob from Ohio]

Guilty of what? A misdemeanor trespass charge from 16 months ago.

Dangerous man!

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's all Jan 06 was.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yeah, that's all Jan 06 was.

The subject that you're commenting on is what one specific individual did, not what "Jan 06 was", you dishonest sack of shit.

[M L]

Never mind if HRC is guilty, arresting politicians is third world! Lock him up!

[Brett Bellmore]

Surely, Sarcastr0, you're aware that he would normally have been notified they wanted him, and extended an opportunity to surrender to authorities without a splashy public arrest. This was clearly done for political effect.

[Sarcastr0]

How long do you think the FBI takes to set up an arrest? You think they can turn it this fast?

[Don Nico]

If need be, yes.

[Sarcastr0]

No, actually. They have internal procedures, and they don't like to lose.

[Ben_]

^ cool story

[Don Nico]

Evidence S_0, evidence.

[M L]

16 months is fast?

[Sarcastr0]

Disingenuous asshole.

Your post implied that this guy's Republican candidacy was why he was targeted.

Now you're saying this was part of the usual Jan 06 investigation coming out.

Fuck you.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Disingenuous asshole.

And if anyone knows about being a disingenuous asshole.....

[Yatusabes]

I recall the olden days when the Left and Atheists on NPR derided the Catholic Church for teaching about sin, imposing Catholic dogmas and teaching about Heaven and Hell. Now every bitchy queen wants to be pope, tries to outdo Tomas de Torquemada with their fantasy Inquisitions, and have a higher calling to personify Dante Alighieri's Inferno in vivo.

Proof that God exists: a mute button for bitter bottoms like Sarcastr0

[M L]

Whatchu talking about, fool? You're being even stupider than usual today.

[M L]

After a bit of digging I find he's been doing the governor thing since at least 2/1/21. SMH....

[Sarcastr0]

The GOP should maybe have spent less time obeying Trump and foregrounding anyone who thought the election was stolen. That dumbass requirement means a lot of your candidates may have done some shit on Jan 06.

Thursday afternoon, a post appeared on Kelley's campaign Facebook page with just the words, "Political Prisoner."
Yeah, this guys seems super normal.

[Ben_]

That’s the cheerleading for totalitarian tactics right there. You love that the FBI is explicitly acting based on politics. You love high profile arrests of counterrevolutionaries (for misdemeanors, to advance a propaganda campaign).

[Brett Bellmore]

They publicly arrested a candidate for Governor, on MISDEMEANOR charges. Then after they had their nicely coordinated photo op of him being hauled off in handcuffs, they released him on his own recognizance without requiring bail be posted. Nothing about that strikes you as a bit off?

Normally functioning democracies don't pull that crap, Sarcastr0. That's banana republic behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

Your appeal to what you feel normally functioning democracies do is noted, Brett.

But in reality, throwing the book at Jan 06 insurrectionists is normal and pretty popular.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're just going to chuckle as we descend into a hell of show trials for political enemies, aren't you? At least, so long as nobody you like is on the dock.

[Ben_]

He will pretend to care about standards and norms all the while.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The left thinks voters are too dumb to forget that two years ago they were defunding police departments and talking about how law enforcement is racist. Or that light on crime DA's not prosecuting real criminals did not have an immediate and detrimental effect to quality of life especially in major cities.

Regressive loses according to Brandon mean that "both parties must take crime seriously...."

Don't let Brandon pull the wool over your eyes. We know who is at fault here. Hold them responsible.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, part of the deal is that we use the police for too many things.

Your facile connection between crime and police is not clear. Some police seems to be needed - but how many, and doing what?

[ThePublius]

His point is not that it is not complex, but that it is not binary. "Defund the police" is clearly extreme and unworkable. There is plenty of evidence to support this.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a bad slogan. As some (but not all) the activists describe it, it's not unworkable; Europe does some stuff like it - uses other groups for stuff we use police for. Domestic cases; mental health cases; animal issues. You know, people trained for what we ask them for.

Jimmy is drawing causal connections via spite along, not facts.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what you're saying is, since a few of the activists described something that might have worked, we should ignore that the people in charge instead did something stupid and destructive? Over and over?

It is, in fact, perfectly explicable that they kept doing something stupid and destructive. It's the "The worse, the better" principle: If you want a revolution, you have to make things intolerably bad first, because the people won't revolt if they're happy.

And the people pushing defunding the police are Marxist revolutionaries, for the most part.

[Sarcastr0]

What did the people in charge do, Brett? What did they actually do?

Jimmy is arguing that the police *have* been defunded, and 'light on crime DA's not prosecuting real criminals' and crime is rampant. None of that is true.

NYC is one of the safest cities in America, somehow. Maybe Jimmy is full of it and you shouldn't try to defend his rants based on some fictional view of how cities are.

the people pushing defunding the police are Marxist revolutionaries, for the most part.
No, you just see Marxism everywhere.

[Brett Bellmore]

They actually defunded the police, obviously.

"Jimmy is arguing that the police *have* been defunded, and 'light on crime DA's not prosecuting real criminals' and crime is rampant. None of that is true."

Again with the 'your lying eyes' arguments. No, all of that is true.

"No, you just see Marxism everywhere."

They actually call themselves Marxists! Remember, the founders of BLM bragged about being trained Marxists? Have you seen what self-declared Marxists say about it?

At this point I suspect that if I said Karl Marx was a Marxist, you'd deny it.

[Sarcastr0]

One of them called themselves a Marxist. Which you've been bandying about for a couple of years now.

"Jimmy is arguing that the police *have* been defunded, and 'light on crime DA's not prosecuting real criminals' and crime is rampant. None of that is true."

Again with the 'your lying eyes' arguments. No, all of that is true
Your lack of sources to show I'm wrong is telling.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, been pointing it out for a couple years now, and you're still determined to ignore it.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh: once again: BLM is a movement, like the civil rights movement. There was a small group of people who were a part of that movement who formed a specific organization — registered it as a 501(c)(3) and everything — that used the phrase Black Lives Matter in its name.

That small group of people is not "BLM." They are not the "founders of BLM." They are the founders of one specific organization.

It would be like if the Black Panthers had called themselves Civil Rights Movement Inc. instead of the Black Panthers, and then you decided that everything the Black Panthers did was actually what the Civil Rights Movement did, nevermind SNCC and CORE and SCLC and the millions of supporters not members of any of those groups.

[M L]

FBI Chief Comey Misled Congress’s 'Gang of 8' Over Russiagate, Lisa Page Memo Reveals

June 9, 2022

The FBI deceived the House, Senate and the Justice Department about the substance and strength of evidence undergirding its counterintelligence investigation of President Trump, according to a recently declassified document and other material.

A seven-page internal FBI memo dated March 8, 2017, shows that "talking points" prepared for then-FBI Director James Comey for his meeting the next day with the congressional leadership were riddled with half-truths, outright falsehoods, and critical omissions. Both the Senate and the House opened investigations and held hearings based in part on the misrepresentations made in those FBI briefings, one of which was held in the Senate that morning and the other in the House later that afternoon. RealClearInvestigations reached out to every member of the leadership, sometimes known as the "Gang of Eight." Some declined to comment, while others did not respond to queries.

The talking points were prepared by Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer who later resigned from the bureau amid accusations of anti-Trump bias, and were used by Comey in his meeting with Hill leaders. They described reports the FBI received in 2016 from "a former FBI CHS," or confidential human source, about former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page) allegedly conspiring with the Kremlin to hack the election.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/06/09/fbi_chief_comey_misled_congresss_gang_of_8_over_russiagate_lisa_page_memo_reveals_836434.html

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Nothing will happen to them for their crimes because they were doing it for the General Welfare of the United States which grants the Federal Class unlimited powers to do whatever they wish so long as their hearts are pure.

And defeating Trump and his supporters is for the General Welfare of the United States and Sacred Democracy so the Federal Class has an unlimited grant to harass, oppress, and imprison Trump and his supporters.

[M L]

A prostitute who bought crack for and had orgies with Hunter Biden got a $20,000 federal PPP stimulus for her "female owned sole propietorship" after Joe was elected.

It is listed as in the industry of "independent artists, writers, and performers."

https://twitter.com/lukerosiak/status/1534177661718646786

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Now!

[Sarcastr0]

You're really credulous if you believe Luke Rosiak without checking.

[David Nieporent]

But if Rosiak is telling the truth, so what?

[M L]

I was hoping you'd check for me. Well? Debunk please.

[bernard11]

Nothing to debunk.

You made an empty, evidence-free claim, and you ask others to prove it wrong?

I saw a tweet that said M.L. was a serial rapist. Debunk please.

[M L]

Why do you think there's no evidence? It's on Hunters laptop apparently. Let me guess - Russian conspiracy?

[ducksalad]

Well, someone with that name definitely got a PPP stimulus:

https://data.augustachronicle.com/paycheck-protection-program-loans/nevada/cheryl-deboves/8463038710/?page=1&searchtext=cheryl%20deboves&state=Nevada

Whether it's the same Cheryl Deboves, and whether anyone named Cheryl Deboves actually was involved with Hunter Biden, who knows. And JFTR, I don't think having sex with Hunter Biden should necessarily disqualify anyone from a generally available government program.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Hey everybody, Nisiiko's here!

[arbitrary aardvark]

earlier today justice alito, w/ thomas and gorsuch, dissented from the denial/dismissal of a stay in the PA ballot envelope case. it might be worthy of a post at some point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

American history test question circa 2050:

Which point does the American mainstream recognize as the most important precipitating factor with respect to the enlargement of the United States Supreme Court during the early 21st century, toward the end of the culture war?

___ gun safety
___ abortion
___ election procedure rulings
___ privilege for religion
___ bigotry (racism, misogyny, gay-bashing, xenophobia, etc.)
___ partisanship, legislative/government gridlock
___ election results (empowerment of Democrats)
___ rulings concerning admission of states
___ insurrectionist activities

Which point should be recognized as the next most important factor?

Explain your answers.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, weren't you promising SCOTUS enlargement within 6 months of POTUS Biden taking office? What happened?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A couple of uncooperative, unreliable Democratic senators.

When Democrats have the votes, the conduct of the Court’s wingnuts is largely ensuring Court enlargement.

Unless Republicans persuade more Americans to embrace bigotry, backwardness, childish superstition, and belligerent ignorance, and desolate backwaters, the trajectory of the culture war and of the Court seems relatively predictable.

[M L]

Largest illegal migrant caravan OF ALL TIME gathering south of the border! Yeehaw!

Today’s caravan dwarfs those formed in 2018. Reporting indicates that the current caravan could swell to include over 15,000 individuals – all of whom plan to travel to the United States and claim asylum. Migrants abuse the asylum process because it grants them temporary legal status in the country, where they are free to live and work while their asylum claim navigates through the immigration courts. https://www.fairus.org/blog/2022/06/07/largest-ever-migrant-caravan-heading-united-states

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They're lawbreaking is for the General Welfare of the United States so its okay.

[David Nieporent]

Whoops! Someone's worried about the January 6 hearings! Time to whip out the fake caravan stories again!

[Ben_]

Good luck getting anyone besides obsessed haters to care about that clown show.

[Brett Bellmore]

More "me or your lying eyes" arguments?

Well, not arguments, as such, I suppose.

Is NBC in on the plot?

[Sarcastr0]

Not quite 'Largest illegal migrant caravan OF ALL TIME gathering south of the border! Yeehaw' Brett, but you keep grasping at those straws!

[Brett Bellmore]

What, you're arguing that it might just only be the second largest in history?

While my point was just that it's not a fake caravan. Mind you, I suspect David knew that quite well.

[David Nieporent]

The point is that the story is fake. There are always people coming to the U.S.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the point is that the story is true, and you desperately want people to believe that it's fake. To the point where you'll blow off reports in the MSM.

You're not just in denial about what's going on, you've somehow convinced yourself that everybody else is obligated to join you in that.

[Ben_]

High profile and before the election would be helpful.

[M L]

EU to exempt private and corporate jets from green aviation fuel tax.

We are not all in this together.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1533703301908291586

[Ben_]

Wow. Just when you thought government environmentalists couldn’t get any more effete and disconnected from regular people…

[M L]

"And luxury yachts as well."

[apedad]

U.S. Supreme Court allows counting of undated mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania

A divided (6 - 3), U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the counting of undated mail-in ballots in an undecided 2021 election for a Pennsylvania judgeship in a case that again revealed the tensions among the justices over voting rights.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-allows-counting-undated-mail-in-ballots-pennsylvania-2022-06-09/

Alito's reasoning so completely weak.

From his dissent:

This application for a stay pending certiorari involves the
counting of undated mail-in ballots in one state-court judi-
cial election. A stay pending certiorari is appropriate only
if the Court is likely to grant review; certiorari is discretion-
ary; and the Court now denies the stay. I would agree with
that decision were it not for concern about the effect that
the Third Circuit’s interpretation of 52 U. S. C.
§10101(a)(2)(B) may have in the federal and state elections
that will be held in Pennsylvania in November.

The Third Circuit’s interpretation broke new ground, and at this juncture, it appears to me that that interpretation is very likely wrong. If left undisturbed, it could well affect the outcome of the fall elections, and it would be far better for us to address that interpretation before, rather than after, it has that effect. I would therefore enter a stay pending certiorari and advise that any petition for certiorari and brief in opposition should be filed expeditiously. If that is done, the Court will be in a position to grant review, set an expedited briefing schedule, and if necessary, set the case for argument in October.

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ritter-v-migliori-supreme-court-stay-denial-order

THAT's his standard?!?

Something "may" have an effect?

It "could" well affect. . . .?

Sheesh.

[M L]

For kicks, I just checked out the washington post website.

The front page has eighteen (18) total headlines, and sixteen (16) of them are about "Jan. 6" which I haven't kept up with at all and very few people are paying any attention to.

Zero (0) about inflation with the new report today, which is a topic that every ordinary American is thinking about daily, as our criminal government has stolen trillions from them with this regressive form of backdoor taxation.

[M L]

For the other two headlines, one of them is, of course, Russia warmongering, calling for us to "Defeat Russia."

The other is some kind of inside baseball about how they (the Washington Post) are liars, but they're having some weird public argument between themselves and their own reporter Taylor Lorenz about who lies better, or something.

[Sarcastr0]

Why would Jan 06 be a big deal today, do you think?

Good lord, you've curated your reality so hard you've lost touch with current events.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would be a big dealt today because the Democrats are airing an extended campaign commercial based on it.

[M L]

This is projection, Sarcastr0. Jan 6 is not a current event, and neither is Democrats wanting to talk about Jan 6. That has been all day every day for 520 days now. Are there any new "revelations"?

The new inflation numbers are a current event.