Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[apedad]

SC Supreme Court says no question Alex Murdaugh committed ‘egregious ethical misconduct’

Alex Murdaugh has been ordered to appear before the South Carolina Supreme Court in June for a hearing to determine whether or not he will be disbarred.

Murdaugh was suspended from practicing law in 2021 after allegations he stole funds from clients and his former law firm. Since his suspension, Murdaugh and his attorneys have admitted his involvement in multiple other crimes, including staging his own suicide to commit life insurance fraud.

Murdaugh also admitted earlier this month that he stole $4.3 million from the sons of his former housekeeper, Gloria Satterfield.

In an order on Thursday, the state Supreme Court said there is no factual dispute that Murdaugh engaged in dishonest conduct, something that is normally established in a evidentiary hearing. Due to this fact, the Court said it is expediting Murdaugh’s disciplinary process.

His “egregious ethical misconduct subjects him to the most significant sanction available—disbarment,” the Supreme Court order states.

Murdaugh has been ordered to appear before the Court at 11 a.m. on June 22 for final arguments before they decide on whether or not he will be disbarred.

https://www.wrdw.com/2022/06/16/sc-supreme-court-says-no-question-alex-murdaugh-committed-egregious-ethical-misconduct/

Remember this guy?

2018 Housekeeper died under suspicious circumstances (case has been reopened)

June 2021 Wife and one son are murdered

September 2021 He fakes a suicide (including having someone literally shoot him in the head)

January 2022 A state grand jury accused Alex of 23 additional charges involving millions of dollars in stolen client funds.

He has also been charged with 19 new counts of breach of trust with fraudulent intent, as well as four new counts of computer offenses.

He currently faces 71 total charges from state grand jury indictments.

June 2022 Murdaugh admitted that he stole $4.3 million from the sons of his former housekeeper (insurance money payout from her death)

[Michael P]

That one word "available" does an awful lot of work.

[OtisAH]

How so?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose the idea is that there ought to be worse available. But I'm not sure what it would be, he's already facing all those charges.

[Michael P]

It's shorthand for what is available in this specific type of proceeding -- courts are obviously considering whether he is guilty of various crimes, and if he is found guilty, they can impose much more serious consequences than disbarment. Considering the allegations against him, disbarment is quite a mild sanction.

[hobie]

You've used that 'awful lot of work' as a response an awful lot of times, Michael P.

[DaivdBehar]

Has antisocial personality disorder. These people are like natural disasters everywhere he goes. It is a biological condition, but so is every human feature. The question is, what should be done. They commit 200 crimes a year. For research purposes, this person should be waterboarded to learn of all his other crimes.

The correct remedy is to kill them after 14. You can start the count, 1, 2, 3, violent crimes, 2 beatings and a bullet. Prevent their busiest period of criminality, their 20's. They are well known to their kindergarten classmates, who identify them as criminals. Only the lawyer denier continues to protect them, privilege and empower them. To get rid of them early, we may have to get rid of their lawyer protectors.

[apedad]

Texas Could Secede From U.S. in 2023 as GOP Pushes for Referendum

Under a section titled "State Sovereignty," the platform states: "Pursuant to Article 1, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government. Therefore, federally mandated legislation that infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified.

"Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto."

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-secede-us-2023-gop-pushes-referendum-1717254

Texas! Please please please attempt to secede from the US.

SERIOUSLY – YOU SHOULD TRY IT!!!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Unlikely to happen.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, unrelated note. I believe when TX was admitted to the Union, they retained the right to split into 5 states, if they so chose. As I recall, that is a decision that could be made by the TX Legislature.

[apedad]

Hey!

This recipe: https://www.themediterraneandish.com/chicken-shawarma-recipe/

Made it.
Ate it.
Saved it!!!

Super easy and delish, and it's now part of the repertoire.

Next time I'll prolly up the seasonings to full teaspoons to get more of a kick.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, I am truly glad you enjoyed that recipe! 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh. 425 for 30 minutes seems a strange substitute for the whole "low and slow" approach of the original Shawarma. I was thinking sou vide might work. How was the texture?

Guess I'll have to try this one myself, and experiment a bit. The spice mix sounds nice, anyway.

[apedad]

It's chicken thighs so they stand up pretty good under heat.

[Yatusabes]

ICWYDT

[Brett Bellmore]

The argument has been made that this dates back to their original admission to the Union, and that they wiped that slate clean by seceding during the Civil war, and were reintegrated on the same terms as any other state.

Mind, since the whole point of the Civil war was that the Union refused to admit that the Confederate states had ceased being part of the Union, that reasoning doesn't make much sense. But this isn't in the realm of logic, it's in the realm of power, and a Democratic administration would refuse to honor the deal, a Republican administration might honor it.

[not guilty]

States do not have the right under our Constitution to unilaterally secede from the United States. Any attempt to do so is null and void. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868).

If there were such a right, I can't say I would be sorry if Texas left the union.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

States do not have the right under our Constitution to unilaterally secede from the United States. Any attempt to do so is null and void.

In other words, the very first line of your post is bullshit.

[not guilty]

I have cited controlling authority. Do you have anything to the contrary?

[ducksalad]

Which would mean we're again back to the 1845 agreement still being valid.

I think the real argument is that Texas DID secede, but it was illegal, and therefore Texas suffers all the consequences of having seceded but enjoys no benefits from it.

Similarly for West Virginia being formed out of Virginia....

[Brett Bellmore]

The real argument is "You and what army?", and let's not pretend otherwise.

[Longtobefree]

Exactly.
And under the democratic administration of Joe Biden, the question "what Army" is no longer rhetorical.

[bernard11]

Amazing that losing a war of aggression carries a price.

The Confederates got off easy.

[OtisAH]

No, it couldn’t.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I live in Texas. I don't know what is being said among the political loonies but out here where the normal people live there is zero discussion of or desire to secede. It's just not a thing at all.

Commenter, I'm not certain of this, but it's my understanding that you are correct about the five state thing but that Texas lost that right as a cost of readmission to the US after the Civil War.

[bernard11]

The people you refer to as the "political loonies" control the dominant political party in Texas.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I know. Posted about that the other day and there's a second one down lower today.

[Moderation4ever]

It is a problem that some politicians in both major parties are so far from what the majority of people want. Most of us are centrist and yet it is the noisiest of each party that get the attention.

[VinniUSMC]

Sanest statement I've seen posted here all year.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The people you refer to as the "political loonies" control the dominant political party in Texas.

Perhaps you should have actually read the linked article, which included the following (though like most simpletons you would have almost certainly have interpreted "Texas Republicans" as meaning "most/all Texas Republicans" rather than the extremely tiny fraction thereof that it actually refers to):

"The movement's efforts have been promoted by Texas Republicans. Last year, state Representative Kyle Biedermann introduced a bill that called for a "Texit" referendum, which was endorsed by Texas GOP chairman Allen West. The bill ultimately failed.

The bill was rebuked by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, with Republican state Representative Jeff Leach branding it a "disgrace to the Lone Star State" and the "very definition of seditious.""

Yes, there's nothing like having your proposed legislation crushed in committee by your own party to show just how in control of it you are.

[bernard11]

Right. The insane Republican party platform doesn't reflect the views of the Republican party at all.

Some guys snuck in in the middle of the night and substituted a deranged document for the real platform.

[ducksalad]

I live in Texas too. I'm much more interested in whether we can kick a state out of the union. There's one in particular...

[DaivdBehar]

We love Texas. We do not want to let them go. Get rid of the woke scumbag lawyers driving Texas away from the union.

[Don Nico]

apedad,
They are brain dead.

[apedad]

Guns stolen in Knoxville are often taken from cars. Second Amendment advocates want to stop it

So far this year, the same trend holds true. Data compiled by the police department’s Crime Analysis Unit shows that 76 of the 134 guns reported stolen in Knoxville in 2022 to date, more than 56 percent, were taken from vehicles.

Erland confirmed the theft of guns from unlocked cars has been a persistent problem for several years.
"We really started to notice an uptick in that when Tennessee law was changed to make it legal for anyone to carry a gun in their car," Erland said.

"There was agreement that there was a need for Tennesseans to protect themselves within their cars," Hardaway told NPR.

"It didn't cross my mind that we would have that many stupid people with weapons in their cars," he said. "These are the unintended consequences that we have an obligation to go back and fix."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/guns-stolen-in-knoxville-are-often-taken-from-cars-second-amendment-advocates-want-to-stop-it/ar-AAYIA8l?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7818ce417f4d48bc86c8f6f8f0c82f5c

"It didn't cross my mind that we would have that many stupid people with weapons in their cars. . . ."

[Commenter_XY]

So wait....I can avoid the background check just by 'borrowing a firearm left locked and loaded in a vehicle in Knoxville TN for an extended long-term loan'? Those are very inattentive vehicle owners.

apedad, I think Einstein had a particularly pungent and prescient observation here: intelligence (my add: and common sense) is finite, but stupidity is infinite.

Any thoughts on a legislative fix where TN residents still retain the ability to carry guns in their cars, but addresses this situation of inattentive gun owners?

[apedad]

The story mentions they're looking at mandating locking vehicles (trunk, glove compartment, etc.) when people keep a weapon in their vehicle.

"It didn't cross my mind that we would have that many stupid people with weapons in their cars," (state Rep. G.A. Hardaway) said. "These are the unintended consequences that we have an obligation to go back and fix."

And he is trying to fix it. Hardaway co-authored a bill, HB 2087, that stalled out in this year's legislative session. The bill would make it illegal to store a firearm or ammunition in a vehicle or boat while the person is not in the vehicle or boat, unless it is locked in the trunk, utility or glove box, or in a locked container securely affixed to the vehicle or boat.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do not think this is unreasonable; Leaving a weapon in an unlocked vehicle is damned irresponsible. I'm less enthusiastic about storage requirements in homes, which are themselves usually kept locked.

[rsteinmetz]

This proposal is limited to when people are not in the vehicle, a similar provision for homes would seem appropriate.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem has been people leaving visible guns in unlocked vehicles. I don't know about you, but I lock my house when I'm away, and you can't see them from the windows anyway.

You have to keep in mind this is a civil right we're talking about, and you're talking about placing additional burdens on it, not just in a public place, but inside somebody's home. Sorry, not going there.

[Ed Grinberg]

I'm less enthusiastic about storage requirements in homes, which are themselves usually kept locked.

Right.
Laws in some U.S. jurisdictions prevent the homeowner from having ready access to a functional weapon (which makes it rather difficult to resist an armed intruder).

[apedad]

Safe storage laws promote responsible gun-owning practices by requiring gun owners to store their firearms unloaded and locked WHEN UNATTENDED.

I made the last two words in CAPS so you wouldn't miss that part.

[Bob from Ohio]

"WHEN UNATTENDED"

Like at night when sleeping?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Safe storage laws promote responsible gun-owning practices by requiring gun owners to store their firearms unloaded and locked WHEN UNATTENDED.

Don't assume your own literacy and/or attention problems are shared by others. What we did miss was your definition for "unattended", which is pretty damned important in this context...which one would think you'd have known, what with you feeling the need to emphasize it.

[ducksalad]

So I guess the traditional gun rack across the rear window of your pickup is out now.

Used to see those even in high school parking lots. Strange that gun rights have been expanded but one actually sees a lot fewer guns than 40 years ago.

[John F. Carr]

Several years ago in Massachusetts some fancy high power guns were stolen from a federal law enforcement agent's car parked in his driveway. I don't know if the car was locked.

[Moderation4ever]

Didn't cross your mind? The frequent newspaper articles about kids getting their parents guns and then accidentally shooting a sibling or parent should have given you a clue. The second amendment gives you the right to own a firearm, but each person needs to ask themselves if they have the common sense to have one around.

[con_fuse9]

I don't recall the articles being 'frequent'.

As for people asking themselves if they possess the proper attitude/mental capabilities to carry a firearm.... Good luck with that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Is AOC a danger to the family of the Supreme Court Justices?

Sources say yes.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aoc-brags-about-blocking-scotus-security-bill-after-kavanaugh-assassination-plot/

[Sarcastr0]

Your sources are...dubious.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, yes, AOC is dubious. The source here being a video she took of herself on her instagram account bragging she did exactly that.

Still, I'm tempted to believe she did what she said she did.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Dubious? She did brag about denying them extra security at a time when they are exposed to an unusual amount of crazies. I mean, she said it. Where's the doubt?

[Sarcastr0]

First, nothing has happened.

Second, that’s a pretty tendentious characterization of what happened. Par for the course with NRO.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nothing has happened yet. Aside from an abortive assassination attempt, of course. And high levels of harassment.

[wreckinball]

Ha and he's pleaded not guilty.

Wonder what the Vegas line is on him being found guilty?
If guilty what's the over/under on sentence versus the faux Patriot Front guys?
or versus Viking man?

Prediction, he'll either outright walk or be given time served plus probation

[bevis the lumberjack]

I mean, yeah, a guy travelled across the country with the intent to shoot a justice and presumably his family. That’s more than nothing.

And the fact that she’s bragging about it is pretty callous, no? Particularly since about 52.7% of her interviews involving her whining about her own safety. You’d think she’d be more empathetic to others exposed to elevated risk. But no, she’s pretty much all about herself.

[Sarcastr0]

But that was stopped by the current level of security.

The reason why only the right is talking about this is because risk assessment is subjective.

The right pretending it is objective and then going one step further to posit blood on people's hands is just more partisan bloody-shirt waiving.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But that was stopped by the current level of security."

Bullshit. He chickened out.

"The reason why only the right is talking about this is because risk assessment is subjective."

Yup. And one of the ways it's subjective is the cost of the potential loss event.

[Sarcastr0]

It's the probability that's hard to get an objective read. But you know that, and just chose the other element to be a pedant.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s still more than nothing. And maybe the next attempt will be made by someone more capable.

Are you suggesting that the justices aren’t exposed at least temporarily to an elevated level of risk. And are you defending the blatant hypocrisy of Representative “OMG what you said makes me unsafe” ?

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe! That's how risk works.

Risk can be elevated, but still well within tolerance with current protocols. I see that all the time.

You can think AOC's risk assessment is too low.
But the melodrama as though she's down for some assassinations is a bit much, no?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don't think she's rooting for an asassination but I'm not sure she's opposed. At best she's being reckless.

[Sarcastr0]

I think that's well more than what the facts support here.

Reckless is, again, a subjective determination of the risk mix here.

I disagree with AOC here, I think. I do think a bit more security is warranted. But that doesn't make her reckless.

To be fair, were things reversed, and it were like Thomas Massie boasting and Justice Kagan in danger, I'd be a bit more heated than I am. But that just goes to the subjectivity of the analysis, not the validity on either side.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Related to this, a question for the lawyers out there.

What exactly is the interplay that is allowed between Congress and the SCOTUS, in terms of legality and Constitutionality.

For example. Say a majority (but not a supermajority) of Congress disagrees with an upcoming SCOTUS decision. Could Congress say to the SCOTUS judges "Either rule the way we want, or we drop your salary to a $1." Would that be Constitutional and/or legal? Could Congress differentiate between the justices who agreed with their preferred result and the ones who didn't?

Let's use a different example. Rather than fiscal incentives, could Congress say "Rule the way we want, or else we withdraw your police protection". And pass legislation effecting that.

What exactly is Constitutional in this regard?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they could certainly say that. They just couldn't do it. From Article 3:

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

So a pay cut, let alone a targeted one, is totally off the table.

I suspect the Supreme court might construe their police protection to be part of their compensation package, and thus not to be touched. But that's a bit iffy.

[bernard11]

You know, just a couple of days ago we heard about extensive harassment of election officials who refused to participate in Trump's coup attempt. In at least one case there was a firearm involved.

What do all those outraged by the Kavanaugh incident think about that?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I think Trump's entire post-election truck full of bullshit makes him unfit to be president again. And people that threaten violence on behalf of a sick piece of garbage like Trump should get psyc help.

But you're doing what you accuse your opponents of doing - maximizing the other side's violence while minimizing yours. The plank in your own eye.........

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally, I think that his post EC vote behavior was pretty bad, for all that how bad it was has been somewhat (but only somewhat!) exaggerated by his foes. He's not getting my vote in the 2024 primaries, but that was a given because of his age. His post election behavior just over-determines that.

If he got the nomination anyway, the Democrats would have to puke up a really horrific nominee to dissuade me from casting an LP protest vote at this point. Thinking he did nothing criminal is NOT a defense of his judgement! Sadly, I think the Democrats are probably up to that.

The news out of New Hampshire suggests that he's not going to be the nominee, though. DeSantis I think I could comfortably vote for in the general election, though I'd still probably vote for Paul in the primaries if he tries for the nomination again.

[bernard11]

No. I don't minimize it at all.

I think the Kavanaugh guy needs to go away for a long time, as do arsonists of all stripes.

As I've said, I'm tired of all the fucking violence and harassment and threats.

[rsteinmetz]

I'm undecided about the "coup attempt", but I'm certain Trump cost Republicans control of the Senate but his actions in Georgia.

[Brett Bellmore]

I tend to think McConnell cost Republicans control of the Senate, by working so hard to prevent votes on bills the House was sending over, and by demonstrating that the GOP hadn't really meant a lot of what they'd run on.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It was absolutely Trump. "No point in voting in the runoff because they won't count your vote anyway". That's enough to sway two very tight elections.

A healthy party would have kicked the asshole to the curb for all that he's done, in particular for costing them control of the Senate. But the Republican Party is very, very sick right now.

[Brett Bellmore]

If not for McConnell, it wouldn't have been close enough for that particular election to have mattered. McConnell robbed Republican voters of motivation by denying the GOP legislative victories to point to.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Congressional victories wouldn’t have amounted to a bill of beans up against the Trump Traveling Bullshit Tour.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Joe Biden and inflation.

Joe's policies are responsible for inflation. And yet he continues them, full force, which devastates the working and middle classes.

To be clear, inflation is generally caused by excessive money in the economy. So, what does Joe do? He cancels a load of student loan debt (keeping more money in the economy). He proposes a gas tax holiday (which would keep more money in the economy).

https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/bidens-plan-suspend-federal-gas-tax-blasted-fiscally-irresponsible

I mean Joe makes you wish for Jimmy Carter back...

[Krayt]

How can the President cancek student loans? Is there something in the law Congress wrote that allows it? Either that's a taking of the loaners' money, or the government pays it back, which would require clear instructions from Congress because of spending, which can only be done by Congress.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool” is a phrase that goes back to Bill Clinton, (One of his advisors, actually.) but the reasoning goes at least as far back as FDR. The executive branch is the branch that actually does stuff, and the only real constraint on what they do, once they decide they don't care what the law is, is impeachment.

So long as enough Senators would refuse to convict, a President is a dictator if he wants to be. And if his minions don't have the scruples to tell him "No.".

[wreckinball]

How could he cancel a pipeline?

One would think there would be regulations (set by law) when building pipeline and if you follow them it doesn't matter who is president.

But apparently it does.

[darkknight9]

If the loans are pre William D Ford loans, the loans are insured by select guarantor insurance agencies. If those agencies refund a lender they are automatically reimbursed from the US gov.
If the loans are Ford loans the government is the lender and the guarantor for the loans. Changing the amount due seems to be easy at that point.
In theory, all fed backed student loans were brought together (origination, lender, guarantor, servicer, etc) so that colleges and other institutions of higher learning could themselves be leaned on if their default rate and/or graduation rate dipped below the mandated levels. A college on the wrong side of that line in 99 could be warned that if they didn't straighten up and fly right... they could receive another sternly worded warning. The penalty for having fed loans guarantees taken away was negated if lost due to private lenders willing to step in to provide for the college's financial needs. Now, there's teeth behind the threat as the only lenders possible are the gov (or businesses hired to manage them for the gov). Private lenders now need to process student loans as other private loans. No shortcuts or help from the feds. Bonus points if you know which piece of legislation this was attached to. 🙂

[Aunt Teefah]

Why is inflation even higher in the UK (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/18/why-uk-highest-inflation-g7-ukraine-covid-brexit#:~:text=Britain's%20inflation%20rate%20has%20soared,the%20US%20and%20Germany's%207.4%25.) where the Conservatives are in power and have been for more than a decade, during which time they've imposed massive economic austerity programs? Biden's fault too?

[bevis the lumberjack]

You're right, man. Other team bad. Bad, bad, bad.

It's almost as if the US is a huge economic influence on the entire world. As is oil.

And if you don't think Biden is the problem with oil, answer me this. In the 70s oil spiked because of issues in the Middle East. The US petroleum industry ramped up and overdrilled and swamped the market with supply and wrecked the price spike. In the late aughts oil spiked because OPEC's ability to be the swing producer faded due to the age of their fields and because of serial bubbles blown by Alan Greenspan. The US petroleum industry ramped up and overdrilled (this was the famous shale revolution) and swamped the market with supply and drove prices from $120 to under $30 in less than a year.

Every time the price spikes huge like this the US petroleum industry overdrills and fucks it up. They're sitting on billions of barrels in the ground with all the efficiencies they learned in the shale boom still known. In any other circumstance the shale cowboys would be saddling up and getting ready to oversupply and bust prices again. But this time they're not. Why?

[Aunt Teefah]

I was responding to a comment about inflation generally, not specific to gas prices. I have no idea whether Brandon has a "problem with oil" (whatever that means), but he certainly doesn't have one that has manifested in an actual change in policy. He has not banned fracking, or enacted a windfall tax on oil companies, or nationalized oil production. The only policy change I've heard even proposed - a gas tax holiday - would *benefit* oil producers.

As for inflation, feel free to explain how social spending or debt relief in the US has resulted in even higher inflation in the UK. Take all the time you need.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Any difference between EU and UK/America most likely has to do with the insane housing market.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He and his energy secretary have threatened the industry with intermediate term extinction. He nominated an official to the fed who argued that the fed should strong arm the banks into starving the industry of capital (nomination withdrawn).

Message is loud and clear. We should be six months into a boom that would have mitigated the spike and would eventually break it. Instead they’re hunkering down to see if this passes. No sense taking long term risk if there’s no long term.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think Putin prefers 2022 America or 2018 America?

[Brett Bellmore]

Hard to say; The 2022 America makes decisions that are more beneficial to him than the 2018 America did, but the 2018 America was a lot more predictable, and you kind of want your adversaries to not be batshit crazy when they have nukes.

[wreckinball]

Ironic that the present batshit cray folks said that about Trump

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, but all THEY meant by batshit crazy was not agreeing with them. The current administration routinely does things that are just senseless.

[bernard11]

The 2022 America makes decisions that are more beneficial to him than the 2018 America did,

Because helping Ukraine fight Russia, as opposed to threatening to withhold aid unless there is a BS investigation, helps Putin.

You are deranged.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Jane's Revenge:" Real Domestic Terrorists.

This group has already committed 4 acts of arson, plus multiple acts of threatening vandalism at pregnancy centers across the country that don't believe in their pro-death policies.

Why isn't there more of a focus on this threat?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/06/left-wing-group-janes-revenge-announces-open-season-on-pro-life-pregnancy-centers/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We all know why. These are effectively state sponsored domestic terror groups.

[Brett Bellmore]

The KKK was, too. For all practical purposes Antifa and BLM are, also, given the degree of local governmental cooperation they've benefited from, especially in the form of police stand down orders and prosecutorial discretion.

The difference, though, is that Jane's Revenge tends to be operating in places where the local government isn't on their side, which means we could see some real police action against them. Just not federal.

[wreckinball]

True. As I recall the BLMers in a few instances did venture out of the big blue cities and got bounced pretty hard.

[bernard11]

More conspiracies.

You know, I don't see any of the liberal commenters here supporting arson or violence of whatever political persuasion.

Yet somehow from the other side all we hear is excuses and rationalization - "tourists" - when someone on their team does something like that.

[Yatusabes]

You know, I don't see any of the liberal commenters here supporting arson or violence of whatever political persuasion.

In medical research we call your suggestion "statistical bias". In politics, it is called whataboutism. OTOH, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), 20 years ago, called it the "dictatorship of relativism" when he identified the largest threat to the western world, which is likely the singular trademark of the Left.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The left spent the summer of 2020 defending the BLM riots. 93% non-violent and the only way to speak out and all that jazz.

If you want to say that the people criticizing the BLM rioters and Antifa frequently are just fine defending the 1/6 riots and the Proud Boys, you won't get an argument from me. That's ultimately the problem - criticism from the other team will never accomplish anything. Until Team Blue people in big numbers begin to criticize riots on the left, and likewise with Team Red and violence on the right, nothing will get done because as it is now the violent zealots interpret political excuse making as encouragement.

[Sarcastr0]

Protests != riots.

Only a few extremists were into the riots.

[bernard11]

This is a bit unfair.

Lots of people, myself included, supported the demonstrators but condemned the arsonists, vandals, etc.

Unfortunately, when you have large demonstrations there will be those who see opportunities to do a lot of crap.

[Sarcastr0]

Jimmy tried that on the double standard nonsense in this thread yesterday:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/22/10-years-in-federal-prison-for-possessing-unregistered-destructive-devices-during-portland-protests/?comments=true#comments

He was roundly debunked. Even Life of Brian shared some countervailing info.

You have a comment there, so I know you read it.

[Life of Brian]

Even Life of Brian shared some countervailing info.

First, the data I posted showed exactly one conviction and six pending nickel/dime offenses out of 97 Portland cases, so I'm really not sure what you feel is "countervailing" about it.

Second, please don't involve me in your play-the-non-lefties-against-each-other routine. You just push people further into their corners with that sort of baloney.

[Sarcastr0]

I thought it was pretty damming. 97 cases does not seem like a small number to me!
Do you think there should be lots of convictions by now? Or that no cases should be dismissed? Cases are slow, especially during Covid.

And then there were those below pointing out the limits of your tracker, so your number is actually a floor.

[Life of Brian]

97 cases does not seem like a small number to me!

Were it 97 pleas/convictions (or a number even close to that), I'd agree. But if most of the charges are dropped as these were, it may as well have been 9700. At that point it's clear the initial indictments were just posturing to calm the masses.

And then there were those below pointing out the limits of your tracker, so your number is actually a floor.

Dunno what "those below" said, but my original post both mentioned the general disclaimers right on the page, and also cross-checked the 97 against multiple articles from last year.

Did you have anything specific you'd like to point out that shows more were charged, or are you just doing your usual your-evidence-sucks-but-I'm-not-going-to-provide-anything-better routine?

[Sarcastr0]

I have no idea and it seems like you don't either, for all your speculation and gesticulating.

97 cases sure doesn't seem like local law enforcement cooperating.

[Life of Brian]

I have no idea

Then stop trying to play me against others, as I politely requested.

[Sarcastr0]

97 cases sure doesn't seem like local law enforcement cooperating.

This is from something you said, and it seems to directly contradict something Brett said ('given the degree of local governmental cooperation they've benefited from,').

This is not about people, it is about facts.

Next time I guess I'll keep your name anonymous when you provide facts I use when arguing with conservatives, if it makes you uncomfortable.

[VinniUSMC]

You were just "using facts he provided," you were attempting to prove Brett wrong by virtue of someone "on his team" supposedly "disagreeing" with him.

Stick to your own damn words and the facts. You seem to be incapable of anything other than "nuh uh, you're wrong, but I won't prove it, neener neener" lately. You're really off the deep end.

[Sarcastr0]

If my argument was a pure statement against interest one you could have a point.

But it wasn’t.

[wreckinball]

Well it's not like they are Patriot Front or anything ! LOL

The brownshirts come in many flavors for this administration. Jane's Revenge is one of them.

[Sarcastr0]

Because they suck and haven't managed anything yet. I hope they get brought to justice, but this is not where you will find evidence of left wing evildoers getting away with it.

Your media diet is in sore need to balance. Everything you link is uncritical right-wing propaganda articles. No wonder you think all sorts of incorrect stuff.

If you can't stomach sites that don't just feed you what you want to here, at least Google a story before you post it, just to see if it checks out. Then maybe you can post it from a local source, not one that has like a Hillary Death List running total.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Haven't managed anything"

Arson in 4 separate places. Burning clinics meant to help pregnant women.

[Frank Drackman]

Luckily they're about as competent at Terrorism as they are at Birth Control.

[wreckinball]

We'll see. BLM and ANTIFA were pretty effective at it.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not saying no crime occurred, I’m saying nothing has been burned down.

You know this, but gotta keep with your persecution spin.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

haha yeah a little bit of arson is okay if nothing burns down completely!

good one Gaslightro.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’m not saying no crime occurred, I’m saying nothing has been burned down."

But that's not what you said. You said that they hadn't managed anything, which is false. If you want to amend your claim, fine, but don't pretend you're being consistent.

[Sarcastr0]

They didn't burn any of the building down. That is the natural reading of what I wrote.

You know charges of arson don't mean you burnt a building down.

Quit being pedantic, and read like a normal person not some Internet master debater.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh, they just didn't manage to completely burn the building down. They just firebombed it, causing hundreds of thousands in damages, months to repair, and forcing the clinic to move, leaving it gutted.

That makes it OK apparently in your book...

[Sarcastr0]

You keep saying I think things are okay, when I *explicitly* said they are not.

I am, once again, pointing out why this isn't picking up media coverage as much as you want it to.

Sorry, I'm not as bloodthirsty as many of those on your side.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ding!

[Armchair Lawyer]

"at least Google a story before you post it, just to see if it checks out."

Maybe you should Google the story and post the links to see if it checks out Sarcastro.
But that would involve work on your part, and a critical look at the evidence. We know you don't do that. You're too lazy. It's easier for you to just believe the NYT rather than research both angles.

[wreckinball]

No way. Just be contrary to everything that challenges the left wing narrative. A slightly more sophisticated version of the Rev.

[Sarcastr0]

You are posting it, you should do some diligence. I call you out regularly, but It’s not up to me to clean up your stream of distorted partisan bullshit.

Brett manages to do this, even.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh Gaslightro.

The OP had a link. The link had multiple links within it, supporting the story 6 ways from Sunday.

But you never support anything. If you've got further questions, why don't you do some of your own work.

[Sarcastr0]

legalinsurrection is not the best place for analysis.

I did not deny the story, which is *very* clear from every other comment of mine in this thread.
I responded to your post about the story, which said: 'Why isn't there more of a focus on this threat?'

That was unsupported. And I explained why no one cares with the facts as they are, and also that these people should be brought to justice before they do something more destructive.

You, though, have a picture of what I totally shoulda said, and responded to that. Like you often do.

[Life of Brian]

If you can't stomach sites that don't just feed you what you want to here, at least Google a story before you post it, just to see if it checks out. Then maybe you can post it from a local source

How about the alt-right bastion known as Wikipedia, ya lazy twat. About a dozen links, including indisputably lefty rags and your suddenly-so-important local sources. First paragraph:

"Jane's Revenge is an American far-left extremist group[1], which has perpetrated and threatened violent attacks in the name of defending abortion rights.[2][3][4][5] The group has committed acts of firebombing, vandalism, and arson.[3] It was formed in 2022 in response to the leak of a possible Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.[6][2]"

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you sure did wreck the strawman that said the group didn't exist.

Good job for putting in more effort than AL though. Low bar, however. He seems proud of how he doesn't bother to check what he posts.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, you sure did wreck the strawman that said the group didn't exist.

Strawman? Please feel free to detail how what I posted isn't responsive to your criticism. I'll wait.

He seems proud of how he doesn't bother to check what he posts.

Maybe he should take your approach and just ipse dixit whatever feels convenient for the situation without posting any support at all.

[Sarcastr0]

So you failed to read where I said 'Because they suck and haven't managed anything yet. I hope they get brought to justice, but this is not where you will find evidence of left wing evildoers getting away with it.'

If you want to ask me to provide sources, do so.
Instead, you just call me names and make pedantic points and pretend they matter.

[Life of Brian]

So you failed to read where I said 'Because they suck and haven't managed anything yet.

Ackshully, I didn't. But you apparently failed to read the excerpt of my responsive source that I spoon-fed to you, which included crystal-clear language like "perpetrated . . . violent attacks" and "committed acts of firebombing, vandalism, and arson."

Now take the innocent lil' troll routine down the road.

[Sarcastr0]

What do you think I meant with didn't manage anything but yet also bring them to justice?

Your dense on purpose act sucks.

[Life of Brian]

What do you think I meant with didn't manage anything but yet also bring them to justice?

It's not my job to read your mind, trollio. What did you mean?

[Sarcastr0]

So you have no idea what you're responding to means, but you still gotta respond.

Way to go.

[Life of Brian]

I'm comfortable I know what you were bitching about. That's what I responded to.

You came back with some sort of substitute word salad and want me to respond to that instead.

So explain it or piss off.

[Sarcastr0]

There is a way to understand what I said pretty easily, but you instead strain to parse it o to incoherence if it means you can say I said something I did not.

This is such a shitty gimmick you have.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Provide sources. Do it. You offered. So do it now.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus.

Sources for *what thesis?*

You don't seem to be good at reading what I wrote, so let me know what specific thing I have said that you would like me to support with links.

You don't just say 'sources. For the...things you said.' LOL.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"If you want to ask me to provide sources, do so."

I just asked. And surprise...you don't.

No sources Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

What thesis? A blanket 'do some sources' does not answer the mail.

You really do just cargo-cult arguments you see without understanding them.

[VinniUSMC]

Sarcastr0, your dense on purpose act sucks.

[Sarcastr0]

What statement did I make you think I need to support, then?

I think I’m being quite clear and you lot are leaning on name calling because you can’t really nail down. Good example, but still want me to be bad.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, I know I unloaded a 30 round clip through your window, but I didn’t hit anybody so I haven’t done anything wrong. Right?

That’s some hellacious logic.

[Sarcastr0]

FFS, man. Second sentence: ' I hope they get brought to justice.' Not something you say when you think someone has done nothing wrong.

I'm writing about why this isn't being emblazoned across the national headlines. It's not liberal media bias, it's that attempt rarely is (absent salacious pics/video).

[bernard11]

"Patriot Front." Real domestic terrorists.

"Oath Keepers" and "Proud Boys." Violent seditionists.

Which of these three does not enjoy the support of a former President and his cultists?

[Yatusabes]

Abortions have resulted in the termination of over 70 million lives since 1973, all protected by Democrats. Start there.

Oh wait, you subscribe to a dictatorship of relativism, so there is that.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Another partisan dipshit muted. Thank you for making it obvious what you bring to the table.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'll take who is on the FBI's payroll for $500, Alex.

[wreckinball]

So what real domestic terrorism has Patriot Front committed? What have they Burned Looted or Murdered?

Yea no one was seditioning on J6 . But dupes think when the unarmed guy with horns enters the Senate he's in charge? Whatever

Now BLM and ANTIFA does it with impunity. Our Prez and Veep are OK with it . Veep contributed to bail and though they were not guilty because it was excusable rioting or something

[Commenter_XY]

SCOTUS just this week decided the Carson case, and ended discrimination against sectarian schools, and parents who elect to send their children to those schools using state provided tuition grants. This seems to be a continuation of a stream of cases (keep in mind, there were a number of religious free exercise cases during the pandemic, right?) that delineate the boundaries and contours of religious liberty, and free exercise.

Viewed this way (as a continuation of a series of cases), my question is do you think the Roberts Court is generally trending toward individual rights and autonomy, or maybe not so much?

[wreckinball]

In general no. Maybe some wins like school choice but they'll squish on Roe in some way. Either the Roberts compromise, uphold MS law and Roe, or just let Roe stand and throw out the MS law. Kavanaugh and/or ACB will squish. They've been intimidated.

And once that works it will be repeated over and over.

[OtisAH]

“…do you think the Roberts Court is generally trending toward individual rights and autonomy, or maybe not so much?”

“Nah, they’ll probably still allow abortion in some way…”

Hilarious.

[wreckinball]

You Pro-Death folks just don't get it. It is about rights. You don't have the right to kill.

Actually not hilarious.

[OtisAH]

Even more hilarious.

[wreckinball]

Very Charlie Manson like. I think he thought the Tate murder and abortion he performed was hilarious.

But keep going. Maybe change your name to Helter Skelter?

[OtisAH]

Well that’s just stupid. Go back to the funny stuff.

[wreckinball]

Ad hominem go away

[OtisAH]

Dry well, eh? That’s alright, comedy is not as easy as it looks.

[Don Nico]

"Pro-Death folks"
Which means what when BA.4 and BA.5 are invisible to vaccine induced antibodies
NEJM June 22, 2022

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think the Roberts Court is generally trending towards individual rights. (I wish they were!) Trending towards conservatism to some degree, mostly an establishment conservatism, not popular conservatism, but that's hardly the same thing.

Watching how Federalist society selected Justices rule has not favorably impressed me with the Federalist society, frankly.

[bernard11]

I agree the Roberts Court is trending - or leaping - toward establishment conservatism, or maybe it's more accurate to say it's an arm of the Republican Party.

Like the broader party it has its batshit RW crazies - Alito, Thomas, maybe Barrett, and its more establishment-oriented Republicans.

[Josh R]

I disagree with the characterization of Carson as supporting individual rights. it upheld the rights of some at the expense of others.

[Commenter_XY]

We have a difference of opinion on your interpretation. 😉

[ReaderY]

Apparently the Maine legislature passed laws denying funding to schools that treat homosexuality as sinful. The schools that sued said that if this law is enforcible, they will be unable to accept state funds.

So nothing appears to be definitely decided yet.

I would say that the state giving funds to a church conditioned on its changing its doctrines to state-approved ones raises an establishment problem. And Bob Jones was strictly limited to racial discrimination.

[mydisplayname]

For interest: https://themarkup.org/pixel-hunt/2022/06/16/facebook-is-receiving-sensitive-medical-information-from-hospital-websites

[John F. Carr]

Even government web sites are installing corporate trackers in their web pages these days.

[John F. Carr]

It is a misdemeanor to "knowingly" disclose protected health information, or a felony if it is disclosed for commercial advantage. They might just be too dumb to know.

Civil penalties still apply even if the violation was unknown and unavoidable.

[Sarcastr0]

Smithsonian's The Side Door seems a good podcast.

[Krayt]

I haven't listened yet, but their topics seem like Radiolab's, which Iove.

[Sarcastr0]

Only 2 episodes so far but both were bangers.

[Sarcastr0]

Smithsonian initial bequest and Panda sex.

[Ed Grinberg]

Radio Derb
https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/page.html

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sorry, but another Biden energy rant. After single handedly breaking the oil (and natural gas) markets in his climate panic Biden has been flailing around trying to blame somebody, anybody other than looking at himself and his people. Last week he ranted about how the refiners are holding back production. Truth is that they're running basically full out (94% utilization) and generating more product than last year.

And now it's come to light that a month ago Biden's EPA yanked a permit for the new owner of a refinery in the Virgin Islands who was willing to spend $3B to bring it up to modern emissions standards. In the name of environmental equity (like a double religious experience for those folks). So he's bitching about refining capacity while working to reduce it. These people are a joke. When he complained about capacity did he not know what his people are doing or is he just pathologically dishonest?

And the hell of it is that they've fucked us all on energy prices because we've got to do something "right now". What we were doing (displacing coal with natural gas) wasn't enough. We've got to get on the road to renewables TODAY. What nobody points out (but that Germany's experience demonstrates) is that the road we're speeding down to get to renewals has no viable endpoint. They aren't capable of carrying a grid. So WTF are we even doing?

[wreckinball]

Similar to a post above, how can they do this? If the refinery is operating within the regulations stated by law it shouldn't be an executive decision.

The company should decide whether the cost to upgrade to meet regulations is worth it based on the market.

[Darth Buckeye]

That gets personal for me. I used to be the Assistant Attorney General (Tax) in the Virgin Islands. I helped get the old HOVENSA refinery back in operation by encouraging the government to settle a tax case against the previous owners so that they could sell it. One condition of the sale was for the new owners to pay $300 million in back taxes.

It used to be the largest employer in the islands until it closed. With the new owners, we hoped that it would once again become a major employer. But now the plant is closing down again. Thanks Branden.

[bevis the lumberjack]

In some places jobs are hard to come by and you can't eat environmental equity.

But bitching about not enough refining being done while simultaneously working to reduce refining capacity takes a lot of chutzpah.

Criticizing the e&p's for not spending long term capital to increase production while saying you want them extinct within 5-10 years IN THE SAME INTERVIEW takes a lot of chutzpah.

There's always been a self balancing mechanism in the market when prices go crazy like this. Biden and his admin have neutered it, and now they're complaining that it's not working.

[Voize of Reazon]

The EPA ordered a temporary shutdown of Limetree Bay's operation over a year ago after the refinery rained droplets of oil on the neighboring area and emitted noxious gases in four separate incidents. They filed for bankruptcy a few weeks later and the assets were sold at auction toward the end of the year, reminiscent of the Hovensa bankruptcy that also involved air pollution violations and an oil spill into an aquifer.

Refining has not resumed under the new owner, so I don't believe "now it is closing down again" is correct. What did happen a few months ago was the EPA notified the new owners they would have to take steps to prevent a recurrence
of the events of last year, and to monitor benzene contamination.

Refineries will always produce some emissions, so it is a question of how much is too much. I don't know if I would leave that question entirely up to the locals but I would put more stock in their opinion than somebody a thousand miles away who is willing to see St. Croix turned into a cesspool as long as the price of gas drops.

[bernard11]

What's this? Facts?

[bevis the lumberjack]

You mean facts like Biden criticizing refiners while shutting down an attempt to add capacity? Darth Buckeye is/was a local and he gave us the local perspective.

If you want to say that environmental justice is more important that lowering gas prices, that's your prerogative. Biden needs to man up and assert that as well instead of trying to scapegoat everyone on the planet for problems caused by his decisions.

[bernard11]

I mean facts like what actually seems to have happened at the HOVENSA refinery. You know,

the refinery rained droplets of oil on the neighboring area and emitted noxious gases in four separate incidents.

Refining has not resumed under the new owner, so I don't believe "now it is closing down again" is correct. What did happen a few months ago was the EPA notified the new owners they would have to take steps to prevent a recurrence
of the events of last year, and to monitor benzene contamination.

Quite a difference from DB's account.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump will shortly get sued for defamation by various Georgia poll workers, and will promptly settle for huge money.

The smoking gun to connect Trump to a coup attempt appeared, in testimony linking Trump personally to the fake electors scam.

Lawyers across the nation are calling Rusty Bowers (conservative Arizona House speaker) the most impressively righteous witness they ever saw.

I do not know who the Justice Department will choose to lead the Trump prosecution. I presume it is now inevitable. Trump could not possibly take the stand in his own defense without extreme risk of being found guilty of a variety of charges, even in a red state.

Federal authorities report that threats of violence against House Select Committee members, and against witnesses, are up sharply.

I will take this occasion to re-offer a proposal that might have saved all this. I suggested a bill in Congress to apply to every elected official who swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The bill would required the sworn office holder to treat a certified election count as a sovereign decree—a use of the sovereign constitutive power, proclaiming who is to run government—which may not be publicly contested.

The theory is simple: the People are sovereign; government officials are absolutely subordinate to the sovereign. After an election is completed, counted and certified, there is no longer room for a sworn official of government to contest the result. At that point, reasonable controversy over the election result has concluded; continued resistance begins a rivalry between the rebellious office holder and the People. To do that opens a contest for sovereignty. That can reasonably be counted a crime akin to treason. That is exactly what former President Trump has done. Everyone ought to see clearly by now the public danger that implies.

All that danger would have been avoided had Trump simply conceded the election result. Tradition had worked so well that necessity for such a law was never thought of. Not anymore.

NOTE: For citizens who are not sworn to protect the Constitution, such a law would not affect at all their First Amendment protected right to say anything at all about an election, for as long as it pleased them to do so.

The purpose of the proposed law is to draw a sharp line of distinction between government officials on one hand, who wield state power as the gift of the People, and who thus must subordinate themselves to the People's will. And on the other hand, all the other citizens, who must remain free as members of the joint sovereignty to hold government to account. It has become crucial to make explicit the different powers those contrasting roles imply.

[bernard11]

Federal authorities report that threats of violence against House Select Committee members, and against witnesses, are up sharply.

But Kavanaugh!!

[bevis the lumberjack]

The crazies are everywhere wearing both team colors.

The fact that loonies are threatening the committee doesn’t negate the fact that someone travelled across the country to kill Kavanaugh.

Condemn it all Bernard. Minimizing one side’s violence isn’t a stand against violence.

[bernard11]

Condemn it all Bernard.

I've done that, Bevis.

Have you? Has Brett, or A.L.?

(I won't ask about some of the others.)

[bevis the lumberjack]

I certainly do. I can't speak for them any more than I can speak for you.

The only reason I brought it up with you today is you have two posts seemingly minimizing the Kavanaugh thing. If I misinterpreted those posts, then I messed up.

[bernard11]

You did misinterpret.

I don't minimize the incident. It was serious.

I was simply observing that those talking the loudest about it, and condemning left-wing violence and so on, seem seldom to peep when there are right-wing incidents.

No one has said a word, AFAICT, about the guys arrested in Idaho. Just patriots, I guess.

[wreckinball]

Regarding those folks arrested in ID. They were infiltrated by LEO and had plans to disrupt a Gay Pride parade.

They were arrested before that could happen to much fanfare.

So the guys dressed up in body armor carrying clubs and bear piss (ANTIFA) and advertising their intentions on social media can't be infiltrated and prevented from committing a crime?

The "burn it all down" BLM organizers same question?

If its happened it hasn't made the news to my knowledge. So maybe get a better example?

Seems contrived and selective based on political viewpoints.

If we're pretty damn sure that there will be violence and destruction is it OK to arrest ahead of time? Because with BLM/ANTIFA we were pretty damn sure.

[Bob from Ohio]

"plans to disrupt a Gay Pride parade"

Or plans to do a counter protest?

[wreckinball]

They were alleged to have violent intent because they had informants possibly undercover. Original cop interview slipped up and said they had undercover but now they are denying.

[Bob from Ohio]

No weapons. Pretty poor violence planning.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have to take such allegations with a grain of salt once you know the government had informants. It's SOP for the government to have their own informants propose criminal actions, and then arrest a group for conspiracy to commit those actions if they don't immediately show the informant the door.

Remember that if you're ever in a fringe group. If Bob proposes robbing a bank to finance the revolution, don't blow it off as Bob being Bob. Throw him out and report him to the police, he's probably working for them and was told to propose it.

[bernard11]

Don't be stupid.

[bernard11]

Brett falls back on his standard "false flag" argument.

Nor have I seen anything that suggests they were infiltrated or manipulated by the FBI or local police. No doubt you have a reliable source for that claim.

[Sarcastr0]

It's SOP for the government to have their own informants propose criminal actions, and then arrest a group for conspiracy to commit those actions if they don't immediately show the informant the door.

It happens, Brett, and it's shitty when it does.

But no, it's not SOP. Don't be paranoid.

[Bob from Ohio]

"guys arrested in Idaho"

What did they actually do? I suppose riding in the back of a cargo van is probably a traffic violation.

[Sarcastr0]

Surely you're not that naiive.

Actually, I know you're not. So you're minimizing actual people who it seems undeniable planned violence.

I and bernard have posts condemning Jane's Revenge (and hoping they receive legal consequences) and obviously the troubled man who planned to kill Kavanaugh.

captcrisis has been calling out violent pro-choice people on these threads for weeks.

I expect to be disappointed, but can you have the moral fiber to do the same?

[Bob from Ohio]

"undeniable [sic] planned violence"

They had no weapons. No guns, no knives, no clubs.

So, I question the "undeniable". They didn't do anything, its "planning to riot" which I didn't even know was a crime.

When the KKK does their pathetic rallies, there is a large body of counter-protestors. Should they be arrested?

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure if you're this uninformed or just lying.

They were not dressed as protests, nor does the government believe their intent was to protest - hence the charges.

Maybe the charges will be unsupported by evidence, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They were not dressed as protests,

Is there accepted protest wear? Plenty of left wingers wear masks to protests.

"nor does the government believe their intent was to protest"

Oh, so now you uncritically believe the police.

[Sarcastr0]

Is there accepted protest wear? Plenty of left wingers wear masks to protests.
They didn't just have masks, and you know it.

"nor does the government believe their intent was to protest"
Oh, so now you uncritically believe the police.

I don't immediately they're lying about everything because I want to defend my side when it gets violent.

Because I'm not a nihilistic asshole.

[VinniUSMC]

who it seems undeniable planned violence.

"Seems" is doing an awful lot of work here. I forgot that Sarcastr0 was an officer with the Thought Police.

[VinniUSMC]

Captain of the Future Crimes division too.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, jamming into a van, masking up and bringing riot shields and a smoke grenade is normal peaceful stuff.

Gotta defend yourself against those violent pride folks!

[bernard11]

An apparent leader of the group had a seven-page document outlining an operational plan in extensive detail, the chief said.

After pulling up a digital image of the document, Chief White read brief selections to The New York Times that detailed how smoke was to be used: “a column forming on the outside of the park, proceeding inward, until barriers to approach are met” and “once an appropriate amount of confrontational dynamic has been established the column will disengage and head to Sherman.”

[VinniUSMC]

What other future crimes are you ok with arresting people for?

[Sarcastr0]

Vinni, just because you are unclear on the law of attempt and conspiracy doesn’t mean you can insist everyone be as ignorant as you.

[bernard11]

Just read the comments below, Bevis, and talk to me about even-handedness.

[wreckinball]

So Patriot Front vs BLM/ANTIFA even handed?

You can't answer the question because the answer is not even handed. Unless you feel some speech is more protected than others.

[wreckinball]

The list is long.

Do you condemn BLM trespassing, vandalism and violence?
Do you support the equal application of justice in regards to civil rights, unreasonable bail, held without bail, not providing speedy trials no matter political affiliation?
Do you concur the civil rights remain no matter your political viewpoint?

[Ed Grinberg]

Do you concur the civil rights remain no matter your political viewpoint?

Yeah, leftists are really big on their opponents' civil rights...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lishenets

[wreckinball]

Just to keep it all in perspective here is a good comparison of the Blue Crazies vs Red Crazies.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/09/realclearinvestigations_jan_6-blm_comparison_database_791370.html

Hint, its not a tie score.

[wreckinball]

Any day now! Are you keeping score on these predictions?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ruby Freeman is on video cheating in the election.

Can't defame someone who is on video committing a crime.

[wreckinball]

Sussman was caught lying also. But not guilty

[OtisAH]

No, she isn’t.

[Bob from Ohio]

The walls are closing in!

[John F. Carr]

It is not in Trump's nature to promptly settle a defamation suit for huge money.

[Stephen Lathrop]

John Carr — I recognize that. Which is why the fact that he probably will settle this one that way makes it so remarkable. If Trump wants to keep his politician supporters behind him, and run again, he needs damaging evidence as far in the rearview as he can get it.

Of course, by huge money, I mean huge money for the recipients, not by Trump's standards—maybe $10-million apiece—something Trump can raise with just another few weeks of election lies.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So when the Ultra MAGA secretary of states certifies that Trump won, say, Pennsylvania in 2024 despite receiving several thousand fewer votes than his opponent, it should be illegal for anyone in the government to do anything about it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, if what you say means we need to make it a federal crime for state officials to do anything except ministerial duties to honestly count votes during an election, then I agree with you. The guy you mention ought to be under arrest. The interval between Election Day and final vote counting by congress has to be long enough to sort that out. It is after the final vote count that concession ought to become mandatory. I doubt that interval needs to be increased.

[ducksalad]

Interesting proposal but you'd need to sharpen up what you mean by "certified". At what level, precinct/county/state/all of the above?

And there's the scenario Noscitus brings up. Suppose some unhinged precinct judge in a town with 50 people certifies 1 billion votes for Miley Cyrus for president. The damage is limited to one state, but every elected official nationwide has to just smile and take it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Good points. See my reply to Noscitur above.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Germany is about eight years into the glorious future of their own Green New Deal:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/germany-declares-natural-gas-shortage-after-russia-throttled-its-supply-over-the-ukraine-war/ar-AAYMqmh?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9f4a92bc1a054077883e06317b513db6

This is what we're paying $5 gasoline to achieve.

[wreckinball]

My favorite is them laughing at Trump at the UN when he said they should keep an all of the above energy approach. Joke is on them now,

[Stephen Lathrop]

btl — Sounds fine to me. Germany may have trouble adjusting fast enough. But whatever shortfall cannot be compensated otherwise can be made up in conservation within a short span of years. Germany may have a short-term crisis on its hands.

We can do that compensation at our leisure. We just have to get enough renewables on hand to deliver what energy-panic folks like you think of as the bare maximum renewables can deliver—without consideration for need of conventional or nuclear to make up for peak demands. Then make up for peak demands by conservation instead.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Germany is completely fucked up energy wise. Lathrop "sounds fine to me".

Did you even read the article? Everything fell apart when they approached 40% of supply. Renewables won't get to providing everything but peak. Unless you think we can cut our consumption by 60% through conservation. Which is laughable.

And you moron, if you shut down the nukes and shut down hydrocarbons, they won't be available to make up for peak demands.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bevis — I think your estimates are stubbornly mistaken. What accounts for the stubbornness I cannot imagine.

I think in the U.S. we can cut energy consumption at least 40% by conservation, although not without many changes and a few dislocations. Two years ago, in New England, I cut my home heating energy use by 65% annually, by moving from a poorly insulated home to a well-insulated one. The one I left behind I could not have afforded to bring up to the standard of the one I moved into. But the guy who bought my former home has done that. The new-to-me home was also an upgrade, but already done. Across the Northeast, literally millions of opportunities for similar upgrades and ongoing energy savings remain unexploited.

Major disadvantages in energy planning have been built into present patterns of settlement and energy use. It may come as a surprise to younger Americans, but prior to 1950, almost no one in the nation enjoyed access to residential air conditioning. That did not mean hot-climate regions went unused. I grew up in Virginia and Maryland during the 40s and 50s, and well remember those different summer times. There was nothing unworkable about them.

Residential air conditioning was added to the region for convenience, but it was not really needed. But after air conditioning became widely available, architecture designed to deliver naturally-mediated habitability in hot climates was largely abandoned. We can bring that back, and do it better than before. We can also return to previous activity patterns designed to live with temperature extremes by avoidance, instead of challenging them at their peaks of heat or cold.

Throughout the American Southeast, summer temperature extremes were accommodated by longer work days, with an extended break in activity during peak temperature hours. Instead of air conditioning, less energy-intensive electric fans cooled properly designed homes and work places with night air, and kept them mostly-habitable during the day. An outdoor shaded porch was an indispensable feature to ease the worst heat extremes.

In exchange for that flexibility in dealing with a few months of challenging summer extremes of heat and humidity, the entire region enjoyed low winter energy use. Which present improved insulation capacity could cut still more.

Residential usages are the most inflexible. Industrial energy demands can be greatly alleviated by plans to require flexible use according to renewable energy availability. When I lived in Idaho during the 1970s, few people in the state were even aware that night-time use of electricity to refine phosphate fertilizers consumed an appreciable fraction of all the considerable hydro-electric power that state produced. During the day that phosphate production got turned off, and that same power source got used otherwise. It still accounts for ~ 50% of all power used in a now far-more-populated state, giving the state the lowest average cost of energy in the nation.

Of course more hydro-power is not a practical renewable choice for the present. It is mostly all spoken for. But in some locations pumped hydro-power can be an efficient storage technology to time-shift renewable energy generated by other means, such as wind and solar.

Cheap plentiful fossil fuels encouraged intensive but otherwise avoidable energy use in industry and transportation. If energy becomes more expensive, expect to see it used far more efficiently, without lost productivity. Work to engineer that process has barely begun. Widespread de-industrialization has retarded progress, as the nation basically bought its way out of high rust-belt labor and energy costs by utilizing cheap labor abroad, and taking advantage of extremely efficient water transportation to bring products here. In that respect, work to develop more efficient renewables could even encourage re-industrialization in this nation.

In other transportation-related changes, inherent energy efficiencies of rail use and water transport were widely abandoned. Fossil fueled trucking changed economic priorities, with cuts to handling costs delivering a more-efficient economic solution based on more-expensive energy use, offset by yet-larger labor cost reductions.

Now, renewable energy can accommodate more efficient computerized handling solutions, and could enable re-intensified use of inherently efficient water, rail, and over-the-road solutions. That process is already partly evident. Have you noticed how computerized logistical management has allowed phenomena like Amazon delivery services to mimic in small detail the efficiencies which containerized shipping brought to intermodal transport of bulk cargo? Adding renewable electricity as the standard fuel for Amazon's delivery fleet would take it the next energy-efficiency step, while bringing into existence dispersed electricity storage capacity in vehicle batteries recharged by night-generated wind energy for which there might otherwise be less demand.

Your assumptions seem based on inflexible premises. Experience teaches that nothing in economic thinking is more flexibly ingenious than engineering adjustments to offset cost increases.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I'll agree that home energy efficiency could be greatly increased, over a period of half a century or more; The housing stock just doesn't turn over that fast, and forcing it to would be incredibly wasteful itself, as well as basically impossible for lack of construction resources.

But your home HVAC is only consuming a tiny fraction of your per capita energy consumption. Most of it is consumed in industrial processes that are out of your sight, but absolutely necessary to life in a modern society. And which industry already has good financial motives to make efficient.

But the real problem with 'renewables' is that they're not dispatchable or reliable. They show up when they want to, or not. You can't run an industrial civilization on power sources like that, even if their total output did match requirements on average!

And that's Bevis' point: Non-dispatchable power ruins grid reliability and efficiency long before it takes over. You have to have a huge capacity of conventional power sources wastefully idling, ready to take over, or else your grid collapses. Or else incredibly expensive battery farms.

And with power sources that are only available on a random basis, the longer you want the grid to be reliably up, the more batteries you need. Or else you need continent spanning power sharing systems that average out fluctuations, but in the process enable continent wide blackouts.

Or you can have boring nuclear power that just... works.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, nuclear power has never just worked. Only in lying press releases and mendacious hearing testimony from nuclear power boosters has it ever, "just worked."

Nevertheless, I am all for better nuclear power, or at least for giving it a cautious try. But first the industry must pass one test, to prove that this time it has ability to keep promises. Before anything new gets tried, the nuclear industry has to clean up and permanently store in one or more central facilities the high-level and low-level wastes they already created. Those wastes now mostly sit in open-air storage, in casks, at operating and retired nuke plants. Get them safely stored, and let's see what else they can do. Absent that, assume they are still lying, and thumbs down to everything else they claim. If they cannot even deliver on that one key broken promise from the past, show the damned liars the door.

You with me on that?

As for renewables, batteries are key. They let you time-shift renewable generation. They can be decentralized small batteries, as in millions of electric vehicles charging during the night. They can be large batteries, variously engineered, as in pumped storage, or hydrogen generation powered by renewables.

Creation of battery storage which can be efficient on sufficient scale ought to become the next moon landing program, but this time done by international cooperation. That is so obvious it is unbelievable it has not happened already. Put sufficient battery storage in place, and you can have whatever level of renewable energy you need. Wind, solar, tidal, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy are there to supply whatever energy is required. Generation capacity is economical enough already. The fuel is free. Burning hydrogen does not pollute much.

If I were president, at this point, my entire global warming program would be one moonshot-scale program: battery development, construed broadly, as energy storage however accomplished. Big central batteries; small distributed batteries. I would be confident with that problem solved, free market tools are already available to solve the rest of the problem.

You with me on that?

[Ben_]

One thing to note is that the German government will take actions needed to help German citizens and prevent extreme hardship. German government doesn’t hate Germans.

Biden and the Democrats won’t take any similar actions to help the American people. They’ll never back off on environmental extremism, no matter what.

[Don Nico]

They are paying more than $8 a gallon in Germany

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — That price will have to go up considerably to make it proportionate to the cost of a Mercedes or a Porsche. Anyway, it is a small country with railroads and public transit.

[Bored Lawyer]

SCOTUS decided Denzepi v. US this week. Double jeopardy opinion. Full opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-7622_ljgm.pdf

Barrett for the majority:

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects a person from being
prosecuted twice “for the same offence.” An offense defined
by one sovereign is necessarily different from an offense defined by another, even when the offenses have identical elements. Thus, a person can be successively prosecuted for
the two offenses without offending the Clause. We have
dubbed this the “dual-sovereignty” doctrine.

This case presents a twist on the usual dual-sovereignty
scenario. The mine run of these cases involves two sovereigns, each enforcing its own law. This case, by contrast,
arguably involves a single sovereign (the United States)
that enforced its own law (the Major Crimes Act) after having separately enforced the law of another sovereign (the
Code of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe). Petitioner contends
that the second prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy
Clause because the dual-sovereignty doctrine requires that
the offenses be both enacted and enforced by separate sovereigns.

We disagree. By its terms, the Clause prohibits separate
prosecutions for the same offense; it does not bar successive
prosecutions by the same sovereign. So even assuming that petitioner’s first prosecutor exercised federal rather than
tribal power, the second prosecution did not violate the Constitution’s guarantee against double jeopardy.

From Gorsuch's dissent:

Federal prosecutors tried Merle Denezpi twice for the same crime. First, they charged him with violating a federal regulation. Then, they charged him with violating an overlapping federal statute. Same defendant, same crime, same prosecuting authority. Yet according to the Court, the Double Jeopardy Clause has nothing to say about this case. How can that be? To justify its conclusion, the Court invokes the dual-sovereignty doctrine. For reasons I have offered previously, I believe that doctrine is at odds with the text and original meaning of the Constitution. See Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 1). But even taking it at face value, the doctrine cannot sustain the Court’s conclusion.

IMO, this is nuts. Gorsuch is right, this is two federal prosecutions for the same thing.

Discuss.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federals do whatever they want to whomever they want.

[Bored Lawyer]

And it is the role of the judiciary to say NO when appropriate. They failed this time, badly IMO.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the long run it is stupid to expect judges selected by a level of government to restrain that level of government. The Constitution originally set up the Senate as a body where state legislatures would chose the members for just that reason: So that judicial selection would have input from people who cared about the interests of state governments.

The 17th amendment broke that, and it is no surprise that the huge, Supreme court approved, expansion of federal power began after that amendment.

The Constitution was never perfect in that regard, but now it's imperfect AND broken.

[wreckinball]

16A was also a push in that direction.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Nice analysis.

[bernard11]

Oh for Pete's sake.

The 17th Amendment again.

Among many other problems with having the legislature pick Senators is that a gerrymandered legislature isn't going to pick Senators that represent the electorate.

[wreckinball]

Yea they have all kinds of double jeopardy traps set.

Feds can swoop in on "Civil Rights" violations or the new fad "hate crime" and have a do over.

[Brett Bellmore]

The dual sovereign excuse for permitting double jeopardy neglects that, per the 10th amendment, the Constitution set up a system of interlocking, not overlapping, sovereigns. With few exceptions, if an offense was within the jurisdiction of state law, it would not be within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and visa versa.

The Court allowing the federal government to exercise what amounts to the general police power it had deliberately NOT been delegated created this problem.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

This doesn't say to me that powers delegated to the US are prohibited to the States.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's really in face palm territory, you know that?

[Sarcastr0]

Still not tracking.

Walk me through it, please. Really make me eat crow!

To me, 'Not A, and not B, means C' does not require 'A means not B.'

[Armchair Lawyer]

You're already eating crow. Walking through it with you doesn't help...you deliberately won't get it.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice name-calling; care to actually show where I was wrong here?

Seems to me like you can't, or don't care to, but wanted to insult me anyway because that's rewarding to you.

[Noscitur a sociis]

With few exceptions, if an offense was within the jurisdiction of state law, it would not be within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and visa versa.

As I've said to you more than once in the past, the Crimes Act of 1790 defined a number of offenses that would almost certainly also violate the law of the state they were committed.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Everybody makes fun of how single party California is governed, and generally with good reason. So let's have a look at how stupid it can get in a single party red state.

I'm in Texas and it's time after six years to renew my driver's license. They allow you to make appointments at the DPS license place now which is nice, but Red Texas has become so obsessed with illegal immigration that the amount of documentation you have to take to the renewal is breathtaking. I'm a native-born 64 year old and I'm not sure I can document my citizenship to their satisfaction.

The most ironic thing is that I've got a still valid driver's license issued by the Texas DPS, and every entity on the planet accepts that license as proof of address/residency.....except for Texas DPS.

They need to lighten up some on this ridiculousness, but if it changes I'm sure it'll get worse.

There's a possibility that I'll be taken into custody and deported back to Tennessee. Hope they choose Nashville. We'll see.

[John F. Carr]

Blue Massachusetts made me bring my birth certificate to renew the license I have had for many years. It wasn't even a "REAL" ID, just a plain old fake one.

Unclear if this will change now that illegal aliens can get licenses. The legislature overrode the governor's veto earlier this month.

[bernard11]

Why did they do that?

I've never had a bit of trouble renewing my license, and have had no such requests.

[John F. Carr]

I have no clue why they did that. It seems to be a recent rule.

[DrCoke]

I don't think it's new. Back around 1984 I helped my best friend renew his Mass. DL, and they wanted his birth certificate for no apparent reason. (Can't remember the details now, but it was very stupid and onerous.)

He was an Army brat; about 30 years old at the time. He was born in the Canal Zone and lived exclusively in the US proper for several decades after that, most of them in Mass.

"The Registry" (aka "DMV" to people who drink soda or pop, rather than tonic) was particularly hellish back then.

[John F. Carr]

I transferred an out of state license over 20 years ago and renewed it several times, and only recently did Massachusetts demand a birth certificate. I'm sure I did not present a birth certificate because I did not bring it with me when I moved to Massachusetts. It was still with my family. I had to send for it and present it for the first time since I was a teenager to renew my license.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, it's gotten worse, and mainly because of the proof of immigration status. But the proof of your own identity is actually very slack, they'll take almost anything, including stuff that doesn't even have a picture on it and is easy to fake with ordinary office equipment.

Which doesn't make sense. All kinds of places and businesses depend on a TXDL as ID. Nobody, at least nobody that knows anything, thinks it's proof of immigration status.

[Bob from Ohio]

Great news!.

"Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home." Thomas in NY gun case

[wreckinball]

Agree good temporary news. But red flag laws will now be used to disarm those the regime disagrees with. That these laws have existed doesn't matter. All kinds of laws are being twisted now to prosecute political enemies while prosecutorial discretion means kneeling while they burn the place down.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://vdare.com/posts/no-one-should-trust-the-gun-grabbers-of-dc-in-either-party

[Noscitur a sociis]

Couldn't find anything on point from Stormfront?

[mse326]

Bruen decided today and NY lost. I still think conservatives will regret tying the 2nd amendment to self defense despite no language to that effect. It ultimately allows the federal government way more authority in gun control than the 2nd amendment was meant to allow. It restricts states more than what was thought, imo, but that won't nearly offset bringing the federal government in.

[Bob from Ohio]

Politics will stop them.

Gun rights have benefited a little from Heller but much more from legislative action in dozens of states. Ohio is going to be a no permit state next week, 20 years ago it didn't even have a concealed carry permit system.

[mse326]

look at how many gun regulations there are at the federal level. Frankly I think the 2nd amendment prohibits pretty much all of them, though if a state did it the 2nd wouldn't. But that isn't how the court has centered the 2nd amendment, and that means the state can't decide for itself.

[Kazinski]

You have to remember that the second amendment didn't give us the right to keep and bear arms, both sides in Bruen conceded that its an individual preexisting right. And that preexisting right was solidly grounded in self defense.

As for the federal government getting involved, they've been involved at least since the 1936 NFA. But its the political stalemate that keeps them from getting more involved.

But in any case the Article 1 militia clause gives them all the authority Congress needs to get involved anyway, if they could get political consensus.

[M L]

Peter Daszak describes the creation of COVID-19 in March of 2016.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4966587/user-clip-peter-daszak-describes-colleagues-china-manipulating-viruses

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure if you're lying or crazy.

That's about *examining* viruses to see if any of them are worth creating countermeasures against. Zero creation at all. \

It is not straightforward. First of all, we are only looking at viral families that include those that have gotten to people from animals. We have narrowed it down from there. Then, when you get a sequence, and it looks like a relative to the known nasty pathogen, just like we did with sars -- we found viruses in bats. Some of them looked very similar to sars. We sequenced the spine protein, the protein that attaches to cells, and then you create pseudo-particles, insert proteins from the viruses that combined to human cells. Each step of this, you move closer and closer to could the virus become pathogenic in people? You narrow down the field. You reduce the cost, and end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers. And you look at the people, and the people in the region that live where the animal lives, do we see antibodies specific to…

[bernard11]

He's both.

[Don Nico]

Did US Biotechnology Help to Create COVID-19?
Neil Harrison, Jeffrey Sachs | May 27, 2022 | Project Syndicate
https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/did-us-technology-help-create-covid-19-in-china-by-neil-l-harrison-and-jeffrey-d-sachs-2022-05?barrier=accesspaylog

Read the entire piece.
NEW YORK – When US President Joe Biden asked the United States Intelligence Community to determine the origin of COVID-19, its conclusion was remarkably understated but nonetheless shocking. In a one-page summary, the IC made clear that it could not rule out the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 (the
virus that causes COVID-19) emerged from a laboratory.
But even more shocking for Americans and the world is an additional point on which the IC remained mum: If the virus did indeed result from laboratory research and experimentation, it was almost certainly created with US biotechnology and know-how that had been made available to researchers in China.
To learn the complete truth about the origins of COVID-19, we need a full, independent investigation not only into the outbreak in Wuhan, China, but also into the relevant US scientific research, international outreach, and technology licensing in the lead-up to the pandemic.
We recently called for such an investigation in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Some might dismiss our reasons for doing so as a “conspiracy theory.” But let us be crystal clear: If the virus did emerge from a laboratory, it almost surely did so accidentally in the normal course of research, possibly going undetected via asymptomatic infection.
It is of course also still possible that the virus had a natural origin. The bottom line is that nobody knows. That is why it is so important to investigate all the relevant information contained in databases available in the US.
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES
Since the start of the pandemic in early 2020, the US government has pointed an accusatory finger at China. But while it is true that the first observed COVID-19 cases were in Wuhan, the full story of the outbreak could involve America’s role in researching coronaviruses and in sharing its biotechnology with others around the world, including China. US scientists who work with SARS-like coronaviruses regularly create and test dangerous novel variants with the aim of developing drugs and vaccines against them. Such “gain-of-function” research has been conducted for decades, but it has always been controversial, owing to concerns that it could
result in an accidental outbreak, or that the techniques and technologies for creating new viruses could end up in the wrong hands. It is reasonable to ask whether SARS-CoV-2 owes its remarkable infectivity to this broader research effort.
Unfortunately, Unfortunately, US authorities have sought to suppress this very question. Early in the epidemic, a small group of virologists queried by the US National Institutes of Health told the NIH leadership that SARS-CoV-2 might have arisen from laboratory research, noting that the virus has unusual features that
virologists in the US have been using in experiments for years – often with support from the NIH.
How do we know what NIH officials were told, and when? Because we now have publicly available information released by the NIH in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. We know that on February 1, 2020, the NIH held a conference call with a group of top virologists to discuss the possible origin of the virus. On that call, several of the researchers pointed out that laboratory manipulation of the virus was not only possible, but according to some, even likely. At that point, the NIH should have called for an
urgent independent investigation. Instead, the NIH has sought to dismiss and discredit this line of inquiry.
HEADS IN THE SAND
Within days of the February 1 call, a group of virologists, including some who were on it, prepared the first draft of a paper on the “Proximal Origin of SARSCoV- 2.” The final draft was published a month later, in March 2020. Despite the initial observations on February 1 that the virus showed signs of possible laboratory manipulation, the March paper concluded that there was
overwhelming evidence that it had emerged from nature.
The authors claimed that the virus could not possibly have come from a laboratory because “the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.” Yet the single footnote (number 20) backing up that key claim refers to a paper from 2014, which means that the authors’ supposedly “irrefutable evidence” was at least five
years out of date.

[Sarcastr0]

This is, of course, a far cry from 'Peter Daszak describes the creation of COVID-19 in March of 2016.'

Though I also don't think this article says much even with it's weaker thesis that questions remain. 'Some things look suggestive' is not much of a case.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but throwing bombs like ML did is not productive.

[Michael P]

You're still using 2020-era talking points. Even the head of the WHO now recognizes that a lab leak is the most likely way that the COVID-19 pandemic started -- and WIV is known to conduct gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

Also, you quoted an incorrect transcript of the video. The core of what Daszak actually said starts around 40 seconds: "Then we -- well, I didn't do this work, but my colleagues in China did the work -- you create pseudoparticles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses, see if they bind to human cells. And each step of this, you move closer and closer to 'this virus could really become pathogenic in people'."

Do you think they use some well-controlled nanofactory that creates those pseudoparticles and inserts those spike proteins? Or did they use the simple, standard way of editing the virus in question?

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts.

They didn’t create new spike proteins, they studied existing ones, you yutz.

[Estragon]

To the attorneys:

Have you ever sought a presidential pardon after giving a client legal advice? What do you think that implies about the quality of said advice? Asking for a friend of the blog.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

To the Fascists, why do you think thought crimes are real crimes?

Asking for a Normal.

[Estragon]

Thanks, that’s helpful. You’re not an attorney, I’m guessing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I see no evidence he possesses a college degree. He is unfamiliar with standard English, for example.

Typical clinger, in many respects.

[Michael P]

It probably means that somebody expects a political persecution. Who is surprised that that's what we got?

[Estragon]

My question was directed at attorneys, I suspect you are not one. I am familiar with the huckleberry hot takes, thanks but no thanks for yet another example.

[Michael P]

Ask a stupid question, get an obvious answer. You don't want an answer from an attorney, you want an answer from a Democrat hack.

[Estragon]

I wonder what that makes you then

[M L]

Washington Post November 22, 2020

The Energy 202: Conservatives predict gas prices will spike under Biden. Experts say those fears are overblown.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/12/energy-202-conservatives-predict-gas-prices-will-spike-under-biden-experts-say-those-fears-are-overblown/

EXPERTS SAY

[NonLawyerDan]

Looking to pick y'all's brains on where to find foundational arguments for Originalism. First, an oft-quoted bit from Scalia: "The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words." After that quotation, the Wikipedia entry for Originalism continues with, "Though there is evidence that the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be like a statute, this fact does not matter under Scalia's approach. Adherence to original meaning is explicitly divorced from the intent of the Founders; rather, the reasons for adhering to original meaning derive from other justifications, such as the argument that the understanding of the ratifiers (the people of the several States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution) should be controlling, as well as consequentialist arguments about original meaning's positive effect on rule of law." But that bit from Wiki provides no citations. Where can I find any of these "other justifications" provided by Scalia or any Originalist, especially non-consequentialist justifications?
I don't want to argue about Originalism. I'm just looking for citations of explicit foundational arguments made by self-declared Originalists as to WHY those EXACT words, as understood generally at that time, should bind us. (I am sure that some of you are thinking "WTF, is this guy an idiot?" Maybe yes, maybe no. But please just humor me.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Those exact words don't bind "us", they bind the government, because they constituted the government, and it is those words the government purports to be following, and which every member of the government has to swear an oath to uphold. Without those words, what do they have to claim such power? The threat of violence if we don't let them?

"As generally understood at the time", because the Constitution is written language, and that's how written language works. If you're trying to understand what something written over 200 years ago means, you need to know what the words meant THEN, not today.

Because what it meant then is what it means today, or you're abandoning the function of language: To transmit meaning across space and time.

Now, if you don't care what it really means, and are just using it as a talisman to wave around while you do what you want, then you don't need to engage in that exercise, doing it might even get in your way.

[SRG]

But then we get Scalia's hypocrisy. If "cruel and unusual" is to be read as what was understood to be cruel and unusual then - which was what Scalia has frequently stated, so should "arms". And yet...

[M L]

We don't get there quite yet. The question was about the basic principle of originalism, which is relatively simple and straightforward. Once that is agreed upon, then we get to the more complex discussion of applying this principle to infinitely variable facts and hypotheticals, the development of new technologies, etc.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And yet what?

[SRG]

And yet Scalia doesn't apply the same principle of interpretation - what did it mean then? - for "arms". Duh.

[Michael P]

It means cannons? The kind of firearms issued to military units? Those things that most people have two of, one attached to each shoulder? Please, share what you think "arms" meant then.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what's called the level of abstraction two-step. You switch back and forth between levels of abstraction as suits you. At the one end, the Constitution just dictates good government, and the details are just details. At the other end the 2nd amendment only protects arms that existed at the time of ratification.

It means, as people explained at the time, the kind of firearms issued to military units. As that kind changes, the kind guaranteed changes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, the issue of what "arms" meant at the time of enactment is one of the central considerations of Heller:

efore addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

What do you see as inconsistent, or even in tension, with Scalia's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence? I assume you're can't be suggesting that Scalia should have interpreted "arms" to include only specific weapons that actually existed in 1791 since A.) that's idiotic and B.) it has no counterpart in anything Scalia ever said about cruel and unusual punishment.

[SRG]

it has no counterpart in anything Scalia ever said about cruel and unusual punishment.

Wrong-o. Scalia has said explicitly more than once - in particular in a sit-down debate with Breyer - that "cruel and unusual" means whatever was cruel and unusual at the time the BoR was written.

No wonder you don't like that.

[NonLawyerDan]

First, yes, the Constitution applies to those who swear an oath to it. I was thinking of "us" as in the country, but fair enough. (Do new citizens swear an oath to the Constitution?)

Citation, though? That is what I want. It sounds to me like you are likely in agreement with the "the understanding of the ratifiers should be controlling" argument. Why should that be controlling? I imagine one argument might be: "Sovereignty lies with the people" is itself a foundational principle, and the Constitution reflects the voice of the people. Is that the argument? If yes, where is the argument made? And if there is a different foundational argument, what is it and where is it made?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Do new citizens swear an oath to the Constitution?"

Yeah, actually.

" It sounds to me like you are likely in agreement with the "the understanding of the ratifiers should be controlling" argument."

Let's get back to the function of language: Communicating meaning across space and time. People intending to communicate an idea chose words which, given the state of language at the time, will cause people receiving them to reproduce the idea. So, except in pathological cases, the understanding of the author, the textual meaning of the text, and the understanding of the reader, all converge on the same idea.

So I don't see a huge scope for difference between understanding of the authors, textual interpretation, and understanding of the ratifiers. Unless somebody majorly screws up, they arrive in the same place.

Now, after 200 years or so have intervened, it's important to remember that "state of the language at the time" if you want to reproduce the idea. That's originalism.

One of those pathological cases is where the people on the receiving end of the transmission reject the idea communicated, aren't willing to let language work. Not usually a big problem with cook books, say, because people don't have strong opinions about ingredients in recipes. Even if they don't like the recipe as communicated, they're comfortable with just saying it's a bad recipe.

It can be a bad problem with laws, because the meanings of laws have consequences, which people care strongly about, and they may care more strongly about the consequences than they do about successful communication. Which is where we are today, a lot of the time.

But, if people are willing to accept meanings they don't happen to like, all modes of interpretation except living constitutionalism tend to converge. Except living constitutionalism, because it isn't actually a mode of interpretation, it's a decision to do something else...

[NonLawyerDan]

Pretty sure I follow all you say, but still not getting at what I want. For one, I want a citation. But first, there may be something else I'm looking for. I'll give a hypothetical to flesh it out.

Imagine that the Constitution came to be the law of the land without any approval by state conventions or by any other means linked to the people. Go with whatever story you like: maybe there was some major unrest right after the Philly Convention closed, and with the confederation starting to breaking up GW was convinced to reconstitute an army and they restored order, with GW as some form of leader. After a few years, he declared "OK, now let's start over, but with this new Constitution." So it becomes the law of the land, and after a few decades of relative peace and prosperity, most treat it as the legitimate rules of the game.

Would this not make any difference to Originalists? I don't think I can answer that question without knowing their foundational argument. Everything goes back to the function of language only if we have a reason to accept that specific language, right? Would originalism call for that Constitution to be treated like ours is? If yes, why? If no, why? The answers to those questions should address the foundational argument, I think.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by wanting a citation. Instead of answering the question, you want me to direct you to somebody else answering it? I'm a lay originalist, not a legal scholar, I don't have those on tap, though I do read the writings of such scholars.

Anyway, there are two separate questions here:
1) What does the Constitution mean?
2) Why should we care?

Originalism is an answer to the first question, not the second. It's perfectly possible to be an originalist and say that the answer to the 2nd question is, "We shouldn't."

But, if you're going to try to use the Constitution as a basis for a claim of power, as our government routinely does, you've already declared that the answer to the second question isn't "We shouldn't.", which takes you back to the first question, "What does it mean?"

And originalism is an answer to that question.

[NonLawyerDan]

"if you're going to try to use the Constitution as a basis for a claim of power, as our government routinely does,"

And you assume this why? I'm just looking for answers to the 2nd question. I'm comfortable with consequentialist arguments, but I doubt the typical originalist is.

[M L]

The whole thing is summed up in the last 40 seconds of this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CnJhnIxAFY&t=115s&ab_channel=JoshBlackman

[NonLawyerDan]

ML, You are correct above that I am not interested in specifics about applying the principle. As for the clip from Barnett, the 'we can't change the laws, and they can't change the Constitution" is clever, but it seems one step short of foundational. Is he supportive of what I wrote above: "Sovereignty lies with the people" is itself a foundational principle, and the Constitution reflects the voice of the people.

If yes, please just give me a citation. The closest I have found is some citations of Federalist 78, "will of the leg vs. will of the people" stuff.

[Sarcastr0]

It's eating my link, but check out the Dissenting Opinion podcast's deep dive into originalism:

The Emergence of Originalism
June 16, 2021

In Episode 1 of Deep Dive, Will and Adam discuss the rise of originalism up to about 2013, including the three main arguments for originalism: the linguistic argument, two consequentialist arguments, and they ponder: What's the difference between a fried chicken recipe and a Constitution? How important are state constitutions compared to the US Constitution, and how easy or difficult should it be to create constitutional amendments? What should the amendment process look like? Spoiler alert: the movie plot of Lincoln is discussed

[NonLawyerDan]

Thanks. Looks good. I'll definitely check it out.

[ducksalad]

I assume you know about Scalia's book. You can see 33 pages of it for free on Google books:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Matter_of_Interpretation/2-b-CwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
Used copies go for under $5 on Amazon.

[NonLawyerDan]

Have the book. And pp.53-54 would seem to be built on something like the argument I mention above: " 'Sovereignty lies with the people' is itself a foundational principle, and the Constitution reflects the voice of the people. " Maybe the explicit foundational argument is elsewhere in the book, but I haven't found it.

But I can't find anywhere that he actually states a foundation. In a talk with Breyer he says something like "And why can we strike down [something that goes against the BoR]? Because the people said we could." With that comment, it seems pretty clear that his foundational argument is something like the "Sovereignty lies... " argument. But I'd like to find the argument explicitly made.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

SCOTUS knocked down another corrupt DC court outcome.

DC Circuit Federals: Dear Republican Legislatures, the Democrats in the Executive can effectively represent your interests when they ignore your wishes.

SCOTUS: Eat shit you commie scum. DIAF.

[apedad]

The Biden Administration Screwed Over the Solar-Panel Industry

https://slate.com/technology/2022/06/biden-executive-orders-solar-panels-energy-auxin.html

If you can get past the headline, you'll read that the Biden Administration is taking positive steps towards solar power.

A March probe by the Dept. of Commerce (of potential Chinese imports through third-party countries), put a chill on domestic production.

However, Biden's latest, ". . . executive announcement outlines plans to address holdups in U.S. solar supplies, including: Having the federal government serve as a guaranteed customer for solar equipment and contracts, and expanding domestic production of important solar panel parts like photovoltaic modules and module components. The order also notes ongoing initiatives by the administration to accelerate and cheapen solar installment on public lands, ease the process by which individual neighborhoods can participate in community solar projects, advance 'resilient' solar installations in Puerto Rico, and outline training materials and guidelines for solar workers.

Most essential, however, is the measure 'temporarily facilitating U.S. solar deployers’ ability to source solar modules and cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam by providing that those components can be imported free of certain duties for 24 months.' This pointed directive waives all possible tariffs on solar imports from those countries for at least two years."

[SRG]

Look on the bright side. We can now threaten federal officers with our guns if we think they're infringing on our rights. And the NRA and the GOP will of course support me because that's what 2A is all about and they're strongly opposed to big government and Federal tyranny, which is why they're so critical of QI and in the case of the Federal agents, absolute immunity. Right?

[David Nieporent]

It's as difficult to hold corrupt prosecutors accountable as it is corrupt cops, if not more so. See this twitter thread of one person's attempt to do so:

https://twitter.com/larabazelon/status/1539645457495773184

[M L]

So he should be disbarred because he said pussy?

That was Trump's chief offense too, as I recall.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What rule or rules of professional conduct do you think the prosecutor violated?

[David Nieporent]

I think this sounds pretty bad: "These prosecutors buried evidence that the cop who arrested the defendant was himself about to be charged by their office for far more serious crimes. They took him off the witness list to bury that info. When defense counsel smelled a rat, they blocked his motion for discovery."

[Bob from Ohio]

"He admitted that he sent an email to his colleagues calling a female prosecutor "a pussy." He explained that he used the word in its proper "dictionary sense" because the female prosecutor was "weak, cowardly, and timid."

Where are my smelling salts? The prosecutor is correct, calling "a" pussy is calling them "weak, cowardly, and timid". Its applied to men all the time.

[Sarcastr0]

These prosecutors buried evidence that the cop who arrested the defendant was himself about to be charged by their office for far more serious crimes. They took him off the witness list to bury that info. When defense counsel smelled a rat, they blocked his motion for discovery.

The appellate court took a dim view of the prosecutors' conduct, writing that "it smacked of gamesmanship," expressed "serious concerns" and said "the record does not reveal any legitimate reason" for what the prosecutors did.

Y'all focusing on the wrong thing, seems to me.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oddly, Prof. Bazalon failed to mention that the appellate court affirmed the conviction after expressly finding that there was no Brady violation. See People v. Lewis, 192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 460 (Cal. App. 2015). I guess it just slipped her mind.

And just as well she didn't bother to include a copy of her complaint or the response that she's so upset about - people probably would have just found them boring.

[Sarcastr0]

Isn't that a collateral issue to whether the prosecutor was unethical? IIRC, a lawyer's behavior doesn't need to be material to be illegitimate.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't think the prosecutor handled this situation correctly, but suggesting that a defensible mistake in handling a concededly difficult decision is preposterous. I also think Prof. Bazalon's summary of the case is tendentiously misleading, I find her decision not to provide her audience with any of the underlying materials highly suspect, and the credulity with which so many sophisticated legal minds are spreading this calumny deeply disappointing.

[Sarcastr0]

Mistake is...generous.

Of course Bazelon is to be taken with a grain of salt - she's acting as an advocate here. But that court sure did light up that prosecutor, looks like.

[Michael P]

By pointing out that the defendant was complaining about information that would not have saved him?

When the zealous advocate starts bringing up unrelated topics like their target calling a colleague a "pussy", it's a good sign they are scraping the bottom of the barrel and coming up more with splinters than actual goods.

[Sarcastr0]

My 3:30 post quotes from the court.

You are trying to pull it back to more convenient ground.

Try and stay on topic of this thread though.

[David Nieporent]

No, you're being misleading there. The appellate court found misconduct. Violating Brady is not the only way for the prosecution to commit misconduct.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"The super-sad story of...

I find it extremely difficult to take seriously any alleged adult who uses phrases like "super-sad". Ditto anyone who cites a Twitter stream full of out-of-context quote snippets and unsubstantiated and utterly detail-free allegations that she was somehow wronged by the CA Bar Association as evidence of the difficulty of holding "corrupt prosecutors" accountable...especially when the allegations don't contain any specific examples of actual corruption. I have no doubt that such corruption exists, nor that addressing it is difficult...but this Twitter stream isn't what I'd call a compelling case for either.

[not guilty]

Reports are that Donald Trump is prepared to blame the events of January 4-6, 2021 all on John Eastman and pretend Trump had nothing to do with it. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/06/donald-trump-john-eastman-january-6-strategy This apparently misapprehends the liability of one co-conspirator for the actions of others.

As his request for a pardon indicates, Eastman is likely aware that he is facing serious exposure for Trump's attempt to corrupt Mike Pence in regard to the electoral count. As I have suggested before, he would do well to seek a cooperation agreement with the Department of Justice, make a detailed proffer implicating Trump, and engage in charge bargaining. That is his best hope to serve a shorter prison sentence rather than a longer one.

[Bob from Ohio]

Whew, thought you were sick or something.

Keep hope alive!

[Sarcastr0]

How do you think your drumbeat of 'It's not bad, if Trump gets away with it' is playing?

[Bob from Ohio]

6 years of Trump about to be indicted, Trump to go to jail, Trump in trouble, etc., etc., etc. That is what [Keep hope alive!, Walls are closing in!] is mocking.

If it happens, maybe I'll care.

[Moderation4ever]

The US Constitution give the President the power to pardon. The authors of the Constitution were wise enough to limit that power with regard to impeachment. They were not wise enough to see a person like the former President. A President who would send people out to do criminal acts with the promise he would pardon them if they were caught. I would suggest that it is time to think about amending the Constitution with regards to Presidential pardons.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The US Constitution give the President the power to pardon. The authors of the Constitution were wise enough to limit that power with regard to impeachment.

What the hell are you babbling about?

[Moderation4ever]

US Constitution Section 2 "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment."

The authors never thought like Trump, who would just have somene commit a crime for him and then he will pardon them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or somebody like Bill Clinton, who'd simply sold a pardon to Marc Rich?

[Moderation4ever]

What is worse selling a pardon or using it to cover your own crime?

[Sarcastr0]

Bill Clinton: also bad.

Now try something else to defend this behavior.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Will Prof. Volokh discontinue his silence concerning former Prof. Eastman by vouching anew for his fellow conservative’s character during the sentencing or disbarment hearings?

Will he request that his testimony be sealed?

[Estragon]

It’s possible the proprietor will have something to say after he finishes serializing a twenty year old law review article. Possible, but— unlikely. Can we hear from Orin Kerr?? I know he watched today

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled today that a woman can sue Harvard for emotional distress because Harvard published a picture of slaves taken in 1850. The recklessly cruel institution didn't even care that she claimed they were her ancestors.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2022/06/23/e13138.pdf

[Bob from Ohio]

Good. Get some of that endowment!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The resentment from Backwater Bob the Downscale Deed Proofreader toward his betters is intense.

[not guilty]

The Department of Justice has issued another round of grand jury subpoenas for various persons in states that submitted bogus slates of electors to the National Archives. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/us/politics/justice-dept-jan-6-subpoenas.html

The concerted action that produced this fake elector scheme is likely to be the undoing of Trump and his high level cohorts. The submission of these phony documents evinces a conspiracy to defraud the United States and the substantive offense of making false statements in writing to a federal agency. The bad actors who made these false submissions were initially willing to act as Trump stooges, but they are likely now to provide information inculpating the higher ups who put the scheme in motion.

[John F. Carr]

The committee was teasing a Trump connection to the fake electors earlier in the week. I have not seen new incriminating evidence. If you think the Eastman conspiracy was already criminal, you can lock him up without the fake electors. Otherwise, you need evidence that Trump personally and with required criminal intent did conspire to submit or count fake electors, assisted in their preparation or submission, or solicited somebody to submit or count them. ("Hey, Mike, once you've thrown out the legit Pennsylvania electors you should count my fake electors instead.")

[not guilty]

Eastman didn't conspire with himself, and the bogus electoral slates were central to Trump and Eastman importuning Pence to reject valid slates of electors. The conspiratorial objective was to obtain for Trump a benefit he was not entitled to -- a second term in office. The submission of phony elector slates in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(3) was central to the unlawful scheme.

Testimony before the January 6 House committee indicates that Trump called Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, and put her in touch with Eastman, who then engaged with the RNC about the scheme over the following months. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/rnc-coordinated-fake-electors-trump-direct-request McDaniel testified in her deposition that Trump:

turned the call over to Mr. Eastman, who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of these legal challenges that were ongoing changed the result of any of the states. I think more, just helping them reach out and assemble them. My understanding is the campaign did take the lead, and we just were helping them in that — in that role.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The Left is going to need some more dead kids to use as political props....

[Estragon]

Why don’t you go back to your office and we’ll call you if there’s an oil spill

[Michael P]

Why don't you hold off with the personal attacks and learn how to make an actual argument?

[Estragon]

Hey I’m just quoting from the hearing jimmy didn’t watch today. All complaints about personal attacks on Mr. Clark should be forwarded to former DAAG Richard Donohue. Too on the nose?

You mean like “the left is going to need more dead kids for political props”? That kind of actual argument?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

While Jeffrey Clark stood at the sidewalk in his pajamas this morning, watching representative of America search his house for more evidence of un-American conduct and seize his electronic devices, he must have been comforted by the thought that his Federalist Society pals at the Volokh Conspiracy will not say a word about his disgusting conduct.

Carry on, cowardly clingers.

[wreckinball]

God you’re just so dumb

[Estragon]

Like this Michael? An actual argument like this?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Clark has children, I hope they got to see Clark perp-walked in his jammies while federal agents turned the house inside-out. The sooner they recognize what a lousy person their father is, the better chance they will have to build decent, non-clinger lives.

Conservatives can whine about it at their next Federalist Society meeting. This white, male, right-wing blog can continue to pretend none of this is happening.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I do not watch scripted television drama. Gave it up about 15 years ago when the quality just dropped off to nothing. So, yes, you are correct. I did not watch the "hearings"...

[Estragon]

Well, Jimmy, after you watch 2000 mules for the 5th time, the hearings might interest you? J6 seems to be your personal hobby horse is all.

Ps: bad ruling for mr Williams today:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22066359-220622-abj-riley-williams-opinion

[Jimmy the Dane]

I point out double standards and injustice. Unless you are fine with the United States having political prisoners you should really start caring. One day it might you in the dock and are you really going to be surprised when no one seems to care?

[Michael P]

Judging by his comments, yes, he will be surprised -- or at least act like it.

[Sarcastr0]

There are no political prisoners, and thus no double standard.

[Michael P]

Is tu quoque really all you have to defend your behavior? If Jimmy jumped off a cliff, would you do the same?

[wreckinball]

There is a book out “Three Felonies a Day”

But just finished Laptop from Hell

Hunter says “hold my beer” literally. Three felonies an hour? Unreal

[Estragon]

You should re-watch 2000 mules next. I’m sure there’s some nuggets you missed on the first viewing

[wreckinball]

God you’re just so dumb

[Estragon]

And you my friend perfectly embody the type of person Yankee legend Phil Rizzuto described as a “huckleberry”

[wreckinball]

Uh no still just dumb. Do you ever make a point?

[Estragon]

Bless your heart, huck

[wreckinball]

Can’t do it can you dumb shit? Make a counter point

[Estragon]

Shitposter only has shitposting in his quiver. News at 11.

[Estragon]

I wonder if Mr. Clark got the point yesterday morning at 530 am

[wreckinball]

That’s your counterpoint about Hunter? Wow you’re an idiot

[Estragon]

No comment on hunter. I’ll leave you and kalak to pour over the videos to your hearts content. Definitely access from your home computer.

[not guilty]

Federal officials early Wednesday searched the home of Jeffrey Clark, the stooge whom Donald Trump wanted to install as Acting Attorney General. They reportedly took his electronic devices.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/23/law-enforcement-trump-official-coup-00041767

What does that mean? We can only speculate, but it means at a minimum that a judge or magistrate was persuaded of the existence of probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found on the premises.

[John F. Carr]

Clark strikes me as more legally vulnerable than Trump.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Convinced just like those FISA judges!

[Jimmy the Dane]

Remember in 2020 when every single demoncrat stood up to lecture us all about the "rule of law"...?

That as so two years ago. Supreme Court decision that you don't agree with? "Let's just ignore it!" is the response of the left this evening.

I'll say it again. This is why these people are dangerous. They are mentally ill and have absolutely no moral compass. Treat them accordingly.

[Drbusybody]

I note with curiosity that the Supreme Court has not announced any opinion days for next week. Usually after their Thursday conference, they announce their opinion days for the coming week. I doubt that they are going to announce all nine remaining decisions on Friday, June 24.

This leads me to speculate that they are going to announce their final decisions quietly some day next week without advance notice that it's going to happen. Possibly this is related to the rumors of violence that are in the air.

[loki13]

So, I am wondering if Prof. Volokh or Prof. Barnett, both of whom are on the Board of Advisers of the NCLA, are going to comment on the dumping and scrubbing of Jeffrey Clark? I wonder if Josh "I know who the real Jews are, and who gets religious exemptions" Blackman is going to comment either, given that he was the individual who posted about the job opening there after he was dumped.

HA! Of course not. Even though this issue was raised repeatedly at the time of the hiring both generally and in the comments of the VC. And even though his incompetence (well, legally speaking ... obviously, his partisan bona fides were established to get him the sinecure until it was no longer sustainable) was already established.

Look, there are a lot of issues on which people can reasonably disagree. At a certain point, however, this isn't one of them. There will always be profound disagreements between people on serious policy issues; the genius of a system like ours is that these disagreements are sorted through a regular system of elections- if you lose today, perhaps you will win 4 years, 8 years, or a generation from now (as Goldwater supporters recognized). Fundamentally, however, you must respect and bolster that process.

And if you're not a part of the solution, or, worse, you stand silently by while you let others undermine it (because you don't want to lose credibility with "your side"), you will end with a situation far worse than you could have imagined. It is better that the "other side" gain power temporarily than "your side" be that boot in your face, forever.

I am reminded of EV's Pollyanna comment just before the transition- hey everyone, don't worry, be happy! Well, as we now see, it only happened because there were people, on EV's side, that fought to make it so. That put their careers on the line, and their credibility, and didn't have the luxury of a Koch-approved job at the end of that tunnel.

Oh, well. You can be a Orin Kerr, or an Adler ... or not, I guess.

[Michael P]

Yes, all serious people agree that leftist bureaucrats illegally changed election procedures in 2020, with the effect that voting illegally was much easier and harder to detect. All serious people agree that more than enough votes to change the outcome of the election had chain-of-custody failures. And so forth.

Unfortunately, leftists have decided they want to be the "boot stamping on the human face, for ever" -- just like the socialist Party in that book. They show it with vaccine mandates, by trying to disarm law-abiding citizens, by politically biased law enforcement, by show trials in Congress. Sad!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

None of them give a flying shit about the obvious and blatant coordination between the Democrats in Congress and the Democrats at the DOJ on these raids.

None of them. Fuck all these people, Democrats and the rest of the Federal Class are evil subhuman monsters. Top to bootlicking bottom.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you consider this is the comment of a serious person?

[loki13]

One would think that the relative change in the ratio of posts from serious legal professionals to others would be a warning sign, but alas, I think that for EV this is, increasingly, a feature and not a bug.

[Estragon]

The contrast from this project’s humble beginnings is indeed striking, for those of us who remember the old days

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is there no concern at all that the DOJ just told SCOTUS to suck it on their 2A ruling?

[apedad]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, June 23, 2022

Justice Department Statement on Supreme Court Ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:

“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.”

Not sure how. ". . . enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools. . . ," equates to telling SCOTUS to suck it.

But maybe you know more than the rest of us.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is that normal for a supposedly objective and allegedly non-political agency to do?

[apedad]

Apparently yes.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Statement from Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Today's Free Speech Supreme Court Decision in Favor of Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers (NIFLA v. Becerra)

Today Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's ruling in NIFLA v. Becerra:

“We are pleased that today’s decision protects Americans’ freedom of speech. Speakers should not be forced by their government to promote a message with which they disagree, and pro-life pregnancy centers in California should not be forced to advertise abortion and undermine the very reason they exist. This Department will continue to vigorously defend the freedom of all Americans to speak peacefully in accord with their deeply held beliefs and conscience."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well, thank you for pointing that out. I admit my first take was wrong.

The DOJ is still full of Democrat commie traitors.

[Michael P]

Are you suggesting that agreeing with the Supreme Court is a way to tell SCOTUS to "suck it"?

New York's requirement is not reasonable. It is an almost blanket ban, giving unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats discretion to deny Second Amendment rights to Americans based on the incorrect notion that people need to prove they deserve to exercise their rights.

The thinness of the DOJ statement illustrates that the gun grabbers don't actually have a constitutional basis for their policy preferences.

[apedad]

Are you suggesting that. . .

No, I was just pointing out that the DOJ does make statements on SC decisions.

BCD had thought it was unusual.

[apedad]

WHERE'S THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY BLOG ON VEGA V. TEKOH????????????????

[Moderation4ever]

The issue of Presidential pardons came up today in this thread and during the Congressional hearing. The US Constitution gives the President the authority to pardon. This power was abused in the former Administration. Changing the President's pardoning power would require an amendment, and this is a difficult process.

My question, could Congress pass a bill that would still allow the Presidential pardons, but require they only be issued after the individual's case has been adjudicated? This would prevent a pardon to hide evidence of a crime by the President.

[Brett Bellmore]

That seems more like a court thing than a Congress thing, to me. The Supreme court could rule that the President's pardon power doesn't work that way. But Congress can't manipulate how a President exercises inherent powers of the office, any more than the President can issue executive orders telling Congress how to conduct its sessions.

I've always found the whole "pardon before adjudication" thing a bit dubious. Unfortunately, it's a dubious practice with a lot of precedent behind it.

[Moderation4ever]

Does it really have a lot of precedent? The only case that comes to mind for me is President Nixon's pardon. Are they many others?

[apedad]

No, President Trump did not abuse the pardoning power.

He had full constitutional authority to pardon those folks for any reason he chose; there are zero qualifiers in the Constitution.

He could even ask for payments from pardon requestors (whether Congress would impeach a President over that is another question).

[Sarcastr0]

Abuse of power does not mean doing things not within your power, it means using things that are in your power for corrupt ends.

[Moderation4ever]

A democracy depends on people following both written rules and unwritten rules. Former President Trump pushed the written rules and skipped the unwritten ones. You are correct that there is only one limit on the Constitutional power to pardon. Most would say that pardoning a person to prevent them from testifying against you is abuse. I would also say that pardoning before adjudication is an abuse. Much like NDAs used in employment or in settling cases.

[M L]

Yes, Biden Is Hiding His Plan To Rig The 2022 Midterm Elections

President Biden really does not want the public to know about his federal takeover of election administration. Dozens of members of Congress have repeatedly asked for details, to no avail. Good government groups, members of the media, and private citizens have filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Not a single one has been responded to. All signs indicate a concerted effort to keep the public in the dark until at least after the November midterm elections. The lack of transparency and responsiveness is so bad that the Department of Justice and some of its agencies have been repeatedly sued for the information.

When President Biden ordered all 600 federal agencies to “expand citizens’ opportunities to register to vote and to obtain information about, and participate in, the electoral process” on March 7, 2021, Republican politicians, Constitutional scholars, and election integrity specialists began to worry exactly what was up his sleeve.

They had good reason. The 2020 election had suffered from widespread and coordinated efforts by Democrat activists and donors to run “Get Out The Vote” operations from inside state and local government election offices, predominantly in the Democrat-leaning areas of swing states. Independent researchers have shown the effect of this takeover of government election offices was extremely partisan and favored Democrats overwhelmingly...

Biden gave each agency 200 days to file their plans for approval by none other than Susan Rice, his hyperpartisan domestic policy advisor. Yet fully nine months after those plans were due, they are all being hidden from the public, even as evidence is emerging that the election operation is in full swing.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/23/yes-biden-is-hiding-his-plan-to-rig-the-2022-midterm-elections/

[David Nieporent]

The 2020 election had suffered from widespread and coordinated efforts by Democrat activists and donors to run “Get Out The Vote” operations

This is an interesting use of the word "suffered."

[M L]

This is third world stuff . . .

Merrick Garland’s Department Of Justice Is A Threat To The Republic

In the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday morning, more than a dozen federal investigators raided the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official with the Trump administration. Why? Because Clark had the temerity to investigate claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election.

That made Clark a target for the House Democrats’ Jan. 6 committee, whose Soviet-style show trial spent a good deal of time Wednesday implying that Clark, who once oversaw 1,400 lawyers and two divisions at DOJ, is traitor who tried to overturn the results of the election.

This should come as no surprise, since the entire raison d’être of the Jan. 6 committee is to smear anyone who questioned the outcome of the election or raised concerns about its unprecedented irregularities as a coup-plotter responsible for the Jan. 6 “insurrection.” In fact, Clark’s only crime is that in a sea of attorneys who didn’t want to lift a finger to investigate the election, he looked for options and fought to uncover the truth.

Of course, he’s not the only one the DOJ targeted this week. The same day Clark’s house was raided, FBI agents raided the home of Michael McDonald, Nevada’s top GOP official.

His crime, according to the Justice Department and the Jan. 6 committee, was signing a document with five other Nevada Republican Party electors after the 2020 election signaling their support for Trump. Among the signatories of the purely symbolic document was state GOP secretary James DeGraffenreid, whom FBI agents tried but failed to find on Wednesday.

These are just a few of the people against whom the Jan. 6 committee has unleashed Garland’s Justice Department. So far, the committee has subpoenaed more than 100 lawmakers, local officials like McDonald and DeGraffenreid, internet and communications companies, Trump White House officials, and others. Make no mistake: the committee is using the DOJ as a weapon against its political enemies, and Garland is allowing it to happen.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/24/merrick-garlands-department-of-justice-is-a-threat-to-the-republic/

[bernard11]

The Federalist will rot your brain.

[Estragon]

Has the federalist seen the warrant? Because I haven’t

[David Nieporent]

1) The Federalist? Was Weekly World News not available?
2) The author of the article does not understand the difference between Congress and the DOJ.
3) The author of the article is a liar who thinks Clark wanted to "investigate fraud" rather than overthrow the government. Which is why every single other Trump appointee threatened to resign if he tried.
4) The author of the article is a liar who pretends to confuse a fraudulent electoral vote certificate for a tweet.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, Dobbs just hit the fan, and, yes, Roe is toast. Burnt toast, even.

"Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

"ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion."

[ReaderY]

And the final Alito opinion looks remarkably similar to the leaked draft. No Justice switched sides either. All votes, including Roberts’ separate concurrence in the judgment and the 3 dissenters, are as predicted.

[swood1000]

There are many citations in the press of the court’s statement that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” On the other hand, the Thomas concurrence issues a direct call for a reconsideration of substantive due process jurisprudence and suggests that this will require a reconsideration of Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v Hodges. Will we see such a reconsideration?

[swood1000]

As Alexander Hamilton put it,

“The words ‘due process’ have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of the legislature.”

[David Nieporent]

1) No. Thomas loves to issue irrelevant concurrences reconsidering precedents that nobody else does.
2) Right after Thomas says that, he says that these things could be constitutionally protected in other ways besides SDP. It's really just SDP he hates.

[Brett Bellmore]

P&I vs SDP does make a difference, though, even if every single right the Court declared under SDP were imported directly into the P&I clause. P&I rights only go to citizens.

[ReaderY]

The first thing on my mind is Dobbs.

The second thing on my mind is Dobbs.

The third thing on my mind is Dobbs.

The fourth thing…

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Moloch, his worshippers, those Jews down in FL and the Reverend are most hurt today.

[M L]

Gov Hochul had a nice rant about muskets.

I wonder if since TV didn't exist back when the 1st amendment was passed, that means we can prevent her from spewing her stupidity over the airwaves?

[John F. Carr]

The government has great power to regulate the content going over the airwaves, in ways that would be unconstitutional applied to media that existed in the 18th century. We don't hear much about content rules any more because who watches broadcast TV?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's higher here. And yeah, it's high across the world, what you're looking at here was the Western governments all generally screwing up in the same way, Biden just doubled down on it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure Florida is a Southern state, and I can assure you that DeSantis is pretty popular here in South Carolina.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How's he wrong?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Biden is the guy that fucked yo crude oil. All by himself. That’s a world commodity that affects everything.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe *anyone* making a claim, first or otherwise, should establish its veracity?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh Queenie,

The claim was verified. Repeatedly. In the original post. With the original link. And the links within it.

But sure, next time you post, remember to include the primary local news sources as well as any other links you make.

[Sarcastr0]

This is my position.

And I don't always do a great job! But then when called on it, I at least don't shift the burden to the one asking me for sources.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did you hear the audio he leaked of the Federals intimidating him and bullying him instead of actually, you know, investigating?

It was quite eye-opening, if your eyes were still closed to the traitorous and evil Federal Class that is.

There is literally no greater threat to human freedom these days than the Federals.

[Brett Bellmore]

More polls and with larger samples are needed. With a sample size of 400 in one state, this is barely suggestive.

It's just that what it suggests is that Trump is in trouble.

Not so much in a "Republicans are turning on him" sense. More of a, "Thanks for your service, now why don't you let somebody younger and less obsessed about the 2020 election take over?" kind of way.

[Longtobefree]

FL is very culturally diverse; like a lot of states, there is a great difference in social and political attitudes along the city/rural split.
Miami is sometimes referred to as the sixth borough, central Florida has a lot of horse farms and cattle, and the panhandle lives by beach tourists (and some say political graft).

[Brett Bellmore]

"Lots" being seven whole countries, two of which are third world countries currently suffering from hyperinflation.

But, yeah, there are countries with worse inflation, and they're all also countries with badly managed governments.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think career politicians care more about the prerogatives of the state governments whose power they exercise than do the citizens of the state. They'd be defending institutional interests against a competing institution, an acknowledged aspect of our constitutional design.

[Ed Grinberg]

Maybe try the John Birch Society for one closer to your views?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't their main point opposition to communism? And you find that beyond the pale?

[bernard11]

Their main point was that pretty much everyone was a Communist, up to and including Eisenhower.

[bernard11]

I think career politicians care more about the prerogatives of the state governments whose power they exercise than do the citizens of the state.

So the career politicians, and not the people, should be the ones to strike the balance?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh Gaslightro.

You always shift the burden and avoid the question. It's practically your MO.

I provided a link. The link had multiple linked stories within it. But that's apparently "not good enough for you" and you demanded the local news stories too?

You never...never...provide evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

You're arguing against a thesis that I never had.

And your source is still indicative of your utter lack of critical thinking when reading a right-wing source.

I don't slam-post whatever I read at Jacobin without Googling. You really are lazy.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Rhoid. Great comment, bruh.

[DaivdBehar]

Hey, Rhoid. Great Comment,Dude.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Your mistake was in thinking it wasn't already googled. Another error on your part.

[DaivdBehar]

Hey, Rhoid. Let us pray, you never come in contact with one of these natural disasters. Their damage is 100% the fault of the scumbag lawyer profession. We know who they are at age 3. How? The crime meter is whirring at supersonic speed from that age. But they are totally protected. If you so much as criticize one of them, you get written up and lose your job.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, try thinking of governments as more like machines. There's no "should" here, there are feedback mechanisms. "Should" won't make the machine run right.

The Constitution was, expressly, designed to counter ambition with ambition, interest against interest, by dividing power both horizontally and vertically, with each center of power having some leverage against the others with which it can defend itself. On the theory that divided power was less likely to be dangerous.

It wasn't designed to maximally effectuate the will of the people, because doing THAT is hideously dangerous.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's nothing about being dumb, it's entirely about incentives.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't lie AL, you didn't check your legalinsurrection source; that much is pretty clear.

[VinniUSMC]

Sarcastr0: "I know you are, but what am I?"

"I know what it is, but I didn't read it"

"I don't need evidence, I know, and you're wrong"

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh Gaslightro....

"You didn't do what you said you did. You did what I said you did!"

Not like I haven't posted stories about the rampage of abortion burnings before the original post on this thread...

At this point, you've shot your credibility to hell.

[Sarcastr0]

Once again you pretend I’m denying something I am not.

It’s the implication of a double standard that is bad analysis.

You keep trying to move away from your original thesis, despite what I’ve told you is my issue over and over.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Which claims were laughable and why were they so?

[bernard11]

And the incentives work in favor of popular elections.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it is very naiive to think nationalizing state elections would do anything good, based on recent history.

The 17th is the hope for a solution to increasingly losing the popular vote finding something radical to latch onto, that is all.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, he was politically inexperienced. But I do think he had some complicity in being lead astray, there was a lot of motivated reasoning on his part at work.

Basically, he saw himself as cheated of an election victory by illegitimate means, and that wasn't an irrational thing to think given how many election rule changes were done in an irregular manner. But that didn't mean a remedy was available to him, and he couldn't accept that, which made him easy prey for the con men willing to tell him that there was a remedy.

I liked a lot that he did as President, and think he'd have been a lot better President than Biden has, had he won, but that unquestionably reveals a deep seated tendency towards motivated reasoning which is really undesirable in a President.

Which doesn't really settle the question of whether he'd be worse than Biden, because Biden is also prone to motivated reasoning about the legitimacy of things he really wants to do, if not what would be worse, simply not caring whether they're legitimate if he can get away with them.