Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Jimmy the Dane]

How many out there want to wager that this Thursday thread surpasses the 500 comment mark given all the juicy meat that has developed in the last week?

[Martinned]

I guess that depends on whether the Supreme Court will decide today to abolish the administrative state.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’ve had to interact with our administrative state. It’s become way too powerful and needs to be knocked back a couple of pegs.

[Martinned]

I suspect you may well get your wish. Who needs clean air anyway?

[Martinned]

...and there it is. 6-3 for West Virginia. I guess I'm going to have to get used to swimming to work...

[Bob from Ohio]

1. Don't you live in Europe? Germany is ramping up coal plants. Maybe take the beam out of your eye.
2. CO2 isn't a pollutant .

[Martinned]

I do. And inconveniently all that American CO2 doesn't stay in America. Compared to this mess, what Europe is doing to avoid being dependent on Russian gas is just a drop in the bucket.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Martin, Germany did what you’re wanting America to do and it failed. Miserably. They’re now ramping up their coal because of the failure and because Putin cut them off.

I can’t understand how the die hard Green New Dealers can’t observe that and consider that maybe we should slow our roll a bit. Mimicking a failed plan is only going to make it harder. It’s almost as if politics has supplanted reason.

[Martinned]

Germany turned off its nuclear power plants, which is a whole separate discussion where I don't have strong views.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If you have strong views on swimming to work, you should have strong views on nuclear power.

[bevis the lumberjack]

They turned off their nukes and filled the countryside with wind turbines. Seen ‘em with my own eyes. And prices spiked and their grid collapsed at only about 40% renewable.

We’re turning off our nukes and thinking we’re gonna get to 100% renewable. It’s going to be no different, except we don’t have a Putin to buy NG from to bail us out once we shut hydrocarbons down.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TIP — I have strong views on nuclear power. I think it's a great idea, but that the nuclear power industry is not trustworthy. So let's see if they can be reformed. They have leftover waste stored outdoors at nuke sites all over the nation. Tell them to get that stuff into permanent safe underground storage. Once they prove they can do that, maybe the nation can trust them to keep their promises, and put them back in business. If they can't make that happen, tell them to take a hike; there is no reason to trust anything they say if they are either unwilling or unable to redeem the promise of cleaning up their mess.

You with me on that? Or do you think it is wise to just let bygones be bygones, but with radioactive souvenirs which last essentially forever? And then encourage more of the same?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've seen those windmills myself. Most of the times I've seen them, they weren't turning...

"They have leftover waste stored outdoors at nuke sites all over the nation. Tell them to get that stuff into permanent safe underground storage."

This is an ironic complaint. The nuclear industry was paying for years into a fund to establish a permanent safe underground storage repository for nuclear waste. The government took that money, and then didn't build the repository.

Anti-nuclear activists have worked hard to prevent any long term solution for nuclear waste from being implemented, as part of a strategy of shutting down the industry by choking it in wastes it isn't allowed to reprocess or store securely.

The problem isn't the industry, it's the government. Anti-nuke activists have enough political clout to keep any of the problems from being solved, even where solutions are obvious.

For instance, new reactor designs are available that will burn wastes in place, and can actually be fed old wastes from other plants. But you can't get approval to actually BUILD one, even on a pilot basis.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — The problem is politics? Can the nuclear industry master the politics necessary to keep its promises? If not, the promises are no good. No point trusting the nuclear industry if all they have to do is blame politics and break their promises.

Those new, unproven, reactor designs you like? More promises. If they can get the existing waste cleaned up, I'm ready to take one more try holding the football, and support a test.

[David Nieporent]

Tell them to get that stuff into permanent safe underground storage

They're not allowed to.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, that is on them. If they want a future, they have to get allowed to, and prove they can do it. If they cannot manage that, then the future is destined to be more of the same.

[Darth Buckeye]

Liberals say that it should be classified as a pollutant. Does that mean we all have to wear face masks and have tubes up our backsides in order to capture all of our C02 and methane emissions?

[Sarcastr0]

As with every substance, magnitude matters.

[Kazinski]

Yeah it matters, we've added 0.01% CO2 to the atmosphere, so now it's all the way up to 0.04%.

That's not a pollutant but the essential natural feedstock for all photosynthesis. Look out your window and every one of green those green plants is thriving because we're giving them just a little more CO2 to live on.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming

[Sarcastr0]

Neither of those are very good arguments.

Marginal percentage change can still be a big deal if there's a feedback process.

Something can be food in one dose and polluting in another.
"My home being under water is fine because the fish are happy.'

You're not this dumb.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd like to say you're not this dumb, either. CO2 levels have varied over the life of the planet from about 4,000 ppm during the cretaceous period, to as low as perhaps 190 ppm during some glacial episodes.

We've barely made a start on restoring CO2 levels to anything like what C-3 photosynthesis plants evolved under, most of the plant life on earth is struggling with CO2 starvation. We actually came close to a global extinction event, prior to humans putting CO2 back, when levels got so low that a lot of current plant life would have died off.

A lot of current plant species are simply incapable of surviving at CO2 levels much lower than existed prior to humans starting to burn coal!

[Sarcastr0]

...Do you think I'm arguing the issue with CO2 is that it'll kill all the plants, Brett?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

haha yeah, that's the only two choices, a powerful and unaccountable Administrative State or clean air!

After all, we can look around and see all the successes of the powerful Administrative State right now with our very own eyes! We live in a practical centrally planned and managed paradise!

haha yeah that's the ticket!

[Bob from Ohio]

"powerful and unaccountable Administrative State or clean air!"

Its about CO2, which does not in any way "dirty" air.

[Martinned]

It's just a gas in the air that kills people. But otherwise it's fine, nothing to see, move on.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Wait, carbon dioxide kills people? Lol. If carbon dioxide killed people, we’d all be dead. It’s everywhere.

[Martinned]

It turns out the greenhouse effect even exists when it's inconvenient to Americans.

[Don Nico]

That is not the same as your claim, "gas in the air that kills people."

[Martinned]

1. There is a certain gas in the air
2. The presence of that gas causes people to die.

What am I missing?

[Don Nico]

Martin, you clear are more interested in polemics than anything concerning gas toxicity. Yes, CO2 at 1000x greater concentration in the atmosphere has killed people. Yes, N2 dissolved in the blood has killed people in a painful death. Yes, excessive oxygen has killed people.
Your claim is disinformation, the absence of the whole truth in order to deceive.
As for Bangladesh, your claim is gaslighting; floods there are commonplace for many decades if not centuries.
As for your comment about the greenhouse effect, the strongest effect is due to water vapor and is why we have life on earth.

[bevis the lumberjack]

1. Americans have done as much to reduce their emissions as anybody has.

2. It’s terminally stupid to say that carbon dioxide kills people. Take CO2 out of the atmosphere and see what you do to forests worldwide.

[Kazinski]

Well if it were not for the greenhouse effect then the planet would be 27c cooler and in a perpetual iceball.

But almost all of the greenhouse effect is water vapor, lets address that first if its a problem.

Actually water vapor is an interesting topic. According to the AGW models, increasing heat in the atmosphere will increase absolute humidity (relative humidity is unchanged), that positive feedback is where most of the projected warming comes from.

But if that's true then why isnt water vapor in an uncontrolled feedback loop? Warmer temperatures create higher humidity which traps more heat which raises the humidity higher. And water vapor is a much more potent gas than CO2, and there is about 100 times more of it in the atmosphere, and its supply is pretty much unlimited.

[Voize of Reazon]

But if that's true then why isnt water vapor in an uncontrolled feedback loop?

Because positive feedback can amplify an effect without being unstable.

Let's assume that for every dollar you have I give you 50 cents. And then, because you now have 50 more cents, I have to give you an additional 25 cents, and so on. You won't end up with infinite riches, you will top out with twice your original stake. It only grows without limit if I give you a dollar or more for every dollar you have.

With water vapor the same principle applies, though the process is more complex. Positive feedback doesn't have to yield a runaway effect, but it can. It is possible that Venus once had oceans that it lost due to runaway greenhouse.

[Bob from Ohio]

Carbon dioxide in the air does not kill people.

[Martinned]

That will be news to people in Bangladesh, and all manner of other places in the world.

[Ben_]

You should ask them if it is news to them.

Do they believe the same stories you believe? What’s your evidence that they do?

[Kazinski]

See that's just the sort of lies that people tell about AGW that makes effective action so difficult. Almost all of the coast of Bangladesh is a river delta of the Mouths of the Ganges. The land has never been stable, never will be, at least for eons more of plate tectonics.

The oceans have been rising since the end of the last ice age, and the rate since we've been measuring it is a steady 3mm a year, which is way down from historic sea level rise. But measuring by tidal gauges which in local subsidence adds to, or isostasy subtracts from the steady trend has nothing to do with AGW.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It's just a gas in the air that kills people.

Wait until you find out about how much nitrogen you're breathing.

[Martinned]

Do tell, in what way is nitrogen in the air harmful? (Although NOx definitely is, but I'll save that lesson for another day.)

[Bob from Ohio]

In the same way CO2 is.

[Martinned]

Nitrogen contributes to the greenhouse effect? That's news.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yes, Martinned, it does.

Now what?

[Don Nico]

Did you ever hear of Oxygen privation in the low countries?
Did you ever hear of the bends?

[Kazinski]

No NO2 does not contribute to the greenhouse affect, at least if we are defining the greenhouse effect as absorbing long wave IR radiation and reflecting part of it back.

Only gas molecules that are at least 3 atoms will absorb LWIR, 2 atom molecules like N2, O2 will not. H2O, CO2, CH4, CO2, NO2, and O3, will all absorb LWIR.

[Kazinski]

That should be "N2 does not contribute to the greenhouse effect."

[Don Nico]

Bangladesh has has devastating floods for many decades.
Your comment is hysteriaMartin,
No one said that N2 contributes to the greenhouse effect.
BTW, you do know that the stringest greenhouse gas is water vapor

[Martinned]

No one said that except BravoCharlieDelta and Bob from Ohio, who seem to practice a whole different kind of physics than everybody else. I look forward to hearing more.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Martin is getting his info from politicians and extreme environmental activists. There’s no thought being given to the fact that a lot of what they say is incorrect and hyperbolic.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Try reading a book once in awhile Martinned.

https://theconversation.com/nitrogen-pollution-the-forgotten-element-of-climate-change-69348

[Kazinski]

That gas is absolutely essential to all life on earth and it's dangerously low.

I don't want to be a scaremonger but the chemical formula for alcohol is C2H5OH, all of carbon in whiskey comes from CO2 in the atmosphere.

No CO2 = no whiskey, it's as simple as that.

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately, SCOTUS did not do that

[ReaderY]

You win your bet.

[Krayt]

It passes 500 on a boring week using active transport from months past if necessary.

[not guilty]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has indicated he will defend a law criminalizing sodomy if SCOTUS elects to reconsider Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/texas-sodomy-supreme-court-lawrence-paxton-lgbtq/

If the Court follows its reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, then Lawrence is in real danger. Stare decisis is no longer an obstacle, and the reasoning of Dobbs regarding substantive due process harks back to Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), which Lawrence overruled.

Rank misogyny is the order of the day for five justices, and LGBT hatred is likely to follow.

[not guilty]

It is not even necessary for the Texas legislature to re-enact a statute criminalizing sodomy. The statute determined to be unconstitutional in Lawrence is still on the books. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/pe/htm/pe.21.htm All it would take to create a test case would be for a rogue Texas district attorney to bring a criminal prosecution.

[Ed Grinberg]

All it would take to create a test case would be for a rogue Texas district attorney to bring a criminal prosecution.

You see kids, a rogue prosecutor isn't one who refuses to enforce the law, it's one who actually enforces it!

[NOVA Lawyer]

Attempting to enforce a law that has been declared unconstitutional is, in fact, the action of a rogue prosecutor. That is regardless of whether the law is favored by the left or right. But I suppose you think it isn't rogue if a New York official attempts to enforce the law the Court just struck down in Bruen? Or are you just a results-oriented hypocrite? Never mind. We already know the answer.

[apedad]

AG Paxton basically just said he'd uphold whatever law is on the books so this particular story is NBD.

[Armchair Lawyer]

yep.

"AG says he will uphold laws".

[Martinned]

Well, the laws he likes anyway.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No, the laws. Period. As is his duty.

[Martinned]

Does that include the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution, as interpreted in Lawrence v. Texas? Because it sure sounded like those were giving mr. Paxton some trouble.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh...

IF, as the OP proposed, the SCOTUS reconsidered Lawrence v Texas, THEN it may change the law, leaving the laws in question now Constitutional.

[Martinned]

Sigh...

How do you suppose SCOTUS might do that without some AG first bringing a case that goes against Lawrence?

[Aemon McGarret]

You don't have much experience with Ken Paxton. Enforcing or not enforcing laws is a purely political calculation. He & Gov. Abbott do not care about law or rule of law. It is all power acquisition & propaganda. His statement was to maintain his "conservative" bona fides. In this current climate, with the major changes that the Courts are making, I would not be very sure that much is not possible in terms of trying to shove all of the progressive empowerment of women & gay people back in the box. Over the last couple of months, this court has made it abundantly clear that they will continue to pursue a program to dismantle guarantees of privacy & liberty. And the "conservative" politicians are going all in to play to that small minded ignorant base. It will be wild.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Aemon McGarret — You are right to emphasize the opportunistic politics which lie behind conservative overreach. It turns out that skilled politicians in the American heartland can monetize bigotry, and use the proceeds to amass power. That adds a strong causative contribution to the explanation of attacks on individual privacy, including on the highly politicized Supreme Court.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey like these guys.

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/soros-funded-prosecutors-pledge-to-defy-pro-life-laws/

[Martinned]

Isn't it great? All the rule of law money can buy!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well yeah he’s notso hotso at upholding the law when it comes to his own behavior.

[Bob from Ohio]

He was indicted in 2015! 7 years and no trial.

[Michael P]

Given how many Democrat AGs boast 9d how many laws they will undermine, it kind of is a big deal.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"how many Democrat AGs boast 9d how many laws they will undermine,"

OK, so how many Dem AGs boast and how many laws do they undermine?

[Michael P]

Most of them, and most of them.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Thank you for that informative response. Perhaps you could name just one.

[Harvey Mosley]

Immigration law.

[Michael P]

Immigration. Retail larceny. Camping in cities. Drug use. Assault by motor vehicle. Riot, unless it was one particular riot.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Communities have a right to protect themselves from the harmful behaviors of others.

Communities all over the world do this every day.

[Martinned]

Harmful how?

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume harmful in the sense of spreading disease. Kind of the same theory on which septic fields are regulated.

It's really hard to construct an argument for mandatory vaccination which wouldn't be as applicable to prohibiting sodomy.

But, spoiler: This Court's not going there. The votes aren't there to follow the reasoning in that direction.

[bernard11]

It's really hard to construct an argument for mandatory vaccination which wouldn't be as applicable to prohibiting sodomy.

Huh? Did you fall out of a stupid tree, and hit every branch on the way down?

Does the difference between "voluntary" and "involuntary" mean anything to you? Can vaginal intercourse spread disease?

Do you just absolutely say the first thing that comes into your head without a monet's reflection as to how idiotic it is?

[bevis the lumberjack]

These guys just have a bug up their butt (get it?) when it comes to male homosexual sex. Presumably lesbians don’t bug ‘em as much, but who knows?

They want to tell people what they can and can’t do in private. Gotta make decisions for people who aren’t capable of doing it for themselves. They’re closer that way to progressives than libertarian.

[hobie]

Lord that's an ignorant statement, even for you Brett. Woe to the client that hires Brett. His billable hours are 98% in this group because I'm unable to see any part of the day that he isn't here

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.cdc.gov/meningococcal/outbreaks/FL2022.html

Why shouldn't Florida do something about this threat?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Why shouldn't Florida do something about this threat?"

Are you suggesting that Florida should start an aggressive vaccination program, perhaps including mandatory vaccinations or are you suggesting that Florida start regulating sexual practices among consenting adults and punishing those people of whom you disapprove?

[Don Nico]

Ken Paxton needs a butt plug to keep him from saying so many obnoxious things

[ReaderY]

My thought here, given the realities of the court including Gorrsuch and Roberts’ votes in Bostock, is that we may end up with something analogous to Justice O’Conner’s concurrence in Lawrence: Sodomy laws do not violate Due Process, but same-sex-only sodomy laws (like Texas’) violate Equal Protection.

I think the logic of Dobbs leads to reversing the main opinion in Lawrence. But I think the logic of Bostock tends to lead to something like the O’Conner concurrence.

[not guilty]

Bostock was an opinion interpreting a statute. It was not grounded in the Equal Protection clause.

[Krayt]

I have to differ with your rhetoric. I support abortion rights, but it is distorting.

I recall 30 years ago, Peter Jennings leading off a story with, "People opposed to a woman's right to choose..." Aside from a news story on the evening news picking a side when journalists bleat about being disinterested, it was dishonest.

They aren't opposed to a woman's right to choose per se. They are opposed to the killing of babies.

Your statement falls into that same camp.

As for the LGBT thing, I surely can imagine the court messing with this, too. But that is conservatives being busibodies, messing with others' privacy. They don't have a baby to hang their hat on.

This is just raw, consenting "crime" idiocy.

Thank god the Democrats don'...oh my god. This nation is in a world of hurt.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't think the situation is as dire as you predict, based on the fact that the majority decision in Dobbs does attempt to distinguish between abortion and those other issues. Plus the fact that no other justice was willing to sign on to Justice Thomas' concurrence advocating the overruling of SDP completely. It is a little worrying that the majority only support half of the Timbs criteria for identifying rights protected under SDP.

[not guilty]

Notwithstanding the gossamer caveats of Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, anyone who believes that the substantive due process analysis set forth in Dobbs will not be applied to other unenumerated rights is hopelessly naive. As the dissenting justices opined, “Power, not reason, is the new currency of this Court’s decisionmaking.” quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 844 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting).

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Perhaps you're right. But if that were the case, I don't know why the majority would spend time pointing out that the state interest in protecting potential human life that exists in abortion jurisprudence isn't present in those other issues. But of course no one has ever gone broke betting on the bad faith of conservative jurists.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Just to save everyone the time, this is basically how every argument below about Dobbs overruling Roe v. Wade is going to go.

>The Constitution says nothing about abortion!
>>So many women and girls are going to die as a result of this decision by stale, white men!
>>>Justice Thomas and Barrett are white and male now?
>>>Yeah! And Justice Thomas is a (censored)!
>>Why didn't any of you liberals know what a woman was up until like last Thursday?
>>>Shut up!
>And send forth the constitutional parade of horribles with predictions of doom and gloom - gay marriage and contraception are going to be banned tomorrow! The only thing keeping us from tyranny was this 50 year old ruling!
>Coat hanger and back alley reference
>>Something something obligatory about how this also adversely effects people of color
>HOES MAD!
>>AK says something about clingers and being replaced

[Ben_]

Good summary.

Note that even this a huge improvement because it's about policy.

Remember when every discussion was about how one of the special people was in danger of having an emotionally imperfect day because of some out-of-context, edited Trump quote? And how we should all be condemned to feel bad and be treated badly because one of the special people wasn't being catered to in every regard?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Here is a possible a compromise on gun access.

1. No one can possess a firearm without a federal license. These license must be issued to any law-abiding adult who passes a background check and a simple safety and proficiency course.

2. No state can prohibit firearms ownership or carrying by federally-licensed citizens except in certain defined, sensitive places (e.g. schools and government buildings).

I realize this is obivously unconstitutional on both sides, so set aside those objections for now. Would anyone be interested in something along these lines?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Explain what that is a, "compromise." What does anyone concerned about gun violence get out of that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Anybody who's concerned about "gun violence" is an asshole who doesn't care if you get knifed or beaten with a lead pipe, so who cares what they get out of that?

I might care what people who are concerned about "violence" think. Never people who care about "gun violence".

[Martinned]

That's the spirit! Way to go, embracing the positive attitude of compromise!

[Voize of Reazon]

Brett, do you think, if firearms were harder to come by, that Subway employee in Atlanta who put too much mayo on a sandwich would have been beaten to death with a lead pipe instead?

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you think if baseball bats were harder to come by, John and James Savey would still be alive, and Lisa Savey would not be crippled?

Violence is a worthy concern. People who are only concerned with "gun violence" are just people who want to take guns away, and use violence as an excuse.

[Voize of Reazon]

Brett, you'll need more evidence if you are going to claim that violence engendered by the proliferation of baseball bats is remotely comparable to that from firearms.

Firearm ubiquity enables escalations like the Subway incident last Sunday or the road rage shooting in Pennsylvania yesterday. Two examples in less than a week, while you had to reach back two years for your baseball bat story. And toddlers rarely attack their mothers with baseball bats, but they do shoot them - in March in a Food for Less parking lot in Illinois, in January in a Walmart parking lot in Texas, last August on a Zoom call in Florida.

Violence is a worthy concern. Anyone sharing that concern should thoughtfully consider whether the US being flooded with guns contributes to the problem.

[StellaLink_the dog]

" And toddlers rarely attack their mothers with baseball bats, but they do shoot them "

And rarely do toddlers stumble upon improperly secured baseball bats and beat themselves to death.

But, toddlers do often drown in pools and buckets and bathtubs. Therefore, guns should not be controlled in any way.

Anyone who is concerned about children being injured and killed by firearms but is not as concerned about children being injured and killed in bicycle accidents is an "asshole" ... "who want to take guns away, and use violence as an excuse."

And, guns are protected by the Constitution but bicycles and baseball bats, which are not suitable for arming militias, are not.

[Nisiiko]

Possibly. I think, that if blacks were more strictly regulated the way they were in the past, the incident wouldn't have happened in the first place.

[StellaLink_the dog]

It must really suck to be you.

[Nisiiko]

Do you deny that blacks, due to their higher testosterone levels and lower IQs, commit 10-40 times as much violent crime as whites do?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Do you deny that blacks, due to their higher testosterone levels and lower IQs, commit 10-40 times as much violent crime as whites do?"

Yes.

[Nisiiko]

Then you're a delusional idiot.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Then you're a delusional idiot."

Your claim:
"[blacks] commit 10-40 times as much violent crime as whites do"
is false.

[Nisiiko]

I said "as much." Not "as many," you moron.

[StellaLink_the dog]

I said "as much." Not "as many," you moron.

What the fuck are you babbling on about? By what measure do blacks "commit 10-40 times as much violent crime as whites do?"

[bernard11]

Anybody who's concerned about "violence" is an asshole who doesn't care about fraud or embezzlement or any other non-violent crime.

I might care what people who care about "crime" think. Never people who care about "violence."

[defaultdotxbe]

Federal licensing and mandatory safety training before owning any kind of gun. You know, two of things you have been clamoring after for years?

[Nisiiko]

The left. But they want the federal rules to be a floor, not a ceiling. The proposal above would preempt state regulatory authority.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Probably not.

It doesn't do anything for those who want to take away guns from people. And then it puts a lot more power regarding guns in the hands of the federal government, which makes those who are wary of federal overreach even more wary.

[JohnSteed]

Now that California’s AG has doxxed every single person in the state with a concealed carry permit, the idea of a single federal list of gun owners seems like such a really, really good idea.
What could go wrong?

[StellaLink_the dog]

Why shouldn't the information about people with concealed carry permits be public? Voter registration records are public, why not ATF Forms 4473?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've got an alternate suggestion: Since adults who can't own guns are a tiny fraction of the population, and generally are subject to other civil liberties losses on account of criminal history, why not, instead of forcing t he vast majority to jump through hoops, just require convicted felons to wear some sort of ankle band for life, with an RFID chip in it?

Put all the inconvenience on the people you're depriving of the right.

[Martinned]

Why not tattoo FELON on their foreheads while you're at it?

[Brett Bellmore]

That would be kind of awkward if the conviction were later overturned, no?

We currently sometimes require ankle bands of criminals out on bail or parole, so it's not like it would be a dramatic change of policy. And why not place the inconvenience on the tiny disqualified minority, rather than the vast majority whose rights are unimpaired?

Alternatively, regularly distribute and update a database with biometrics of people who'd been disqualified from firearms ownership, so that anybody considering selling a gun could consult it? I bet a cheap cellphone app could check somebody's retinal print or finger prints against a database, and by so distributing it you wouldn't be informing the government when ordinary citizens exercised their rights.

The general notion here is that any regulation of the exercise of a constitutional right should minimize interference with that exercise, so why shouldn't the system be designed so the burden falls on the few who are disqualified, rather than the many who are not?

[Martinned]

By that logic, maybe the death penalty isn't such a great idea either.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't argue with that. I will argue with people who claim the death penalty is unconstitutional despite the Constitution explicitly acknowledging it. I won't argue with people who claim it's a bad idea because it's irreversible and mistakes get made. It is, and they do.

Probably the best way to get rid of the death penalty would be to make life sentences reliably life sentences.

[Martinned]

I think it depends on *how* the Constitution acknowledges it.

As an extreme example, the Constitution could just say "the death penalty is a lawful punishment for murder". No ifs and buts about it, that would be the end of the matter.

But that's not how the death penalty is mentioned in the Constutition. Instead, the Consititution says "the death penalty illegal if X", where X is lack of due process. But that does not mean that other constitutional clauses cannot be interpreted as also imposing necessary conditions before the death penalty can be lawful. (At a minimum, the relevant statute has to be lawfully enacted under Article I, the trial has to comply with the jury clause, the confrontation clause, etc..)

Now, I think the bar should be quite high before reaching the conclusion that the death penalty is categorically unconstitutional because, like you say, the Constitution clearly contemplates that it isn't. But I don't think any part of the Constitution categorically prevents such a conclusion.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Now, I think the bar should be quite high before reaching the conclusion that the death penalty is categorically unconstitutional because, like you say, the Constitution clearly contemplates that it isn't."

Well, that's a fairly ambivalent way of putting it. "contemplates", like maybe the Constitution was mulling it over. Rather than coming right out and saying it was an expected penalty, which would have been strange if it had been unconstitutional.

[Martinned]

The Constitution assumes, but does not say, that the death penalty is lawful. And things the Constitution assumes aren't binding on anyone. The Constitution also assumes that black people are inferior, but that doesn't mean Dredd Scott was correctly decided.

[Martinned]

By the way, speaking of life sentences, outside of the US the arc of the moral universe still bends towards justice. Last month the Supreme Court of Canada held unanimously, in R. v. Bissonnette, that a life sentence without the opportunity of parole is unconstitutional because it is "intrinsically incompatible with human dignity. Such a sentence is degrading insofar as it negates, in advance and irreversibly, the penological objective of rehabilitation."

https://strasbourgobservers.com/2022/06/28/r-v-bissonnette-supreme-court-of-canada-builds-on-ecthr-precedents-to-outlaw-whole-life-imprisonment-and-develops-principles-applicable-also-to-extradition-that-may-lead-to-such-sentences/

[Bob from Ohio]

"life sentence without the opportunity of parole is unconstitutional"

The slippery slope in operation. Death penalty is abolished but murderers will still be sentenced to life. Oh, not that kind of "life". Next, "life" at all is bad.

[Martinned]

That's not a slipperly slope. The death penalty and LWOP are just each, separately, unconstitutional under the laws of most civilised nations.

[Bob from Ohio]

Death penalty activists [some wearing judicial robes] campaign against it and say that it is ok since murderers still will be punished. Then the other punishments are removed or limited because the same activists [some wearing judicial robes] say those are cruel too.

[Martinned]

Yes, aren't activist judges the worst???

[Nelson]

Nice!

[Life of Brian]

I bet a cheap cellphone app could check somebody's retinal print or finger prints against a database

The challenge with a felons-only blacklist is if I don't match to the list, there's no way to distinguish whether I'm a good guy or if I've just used one of many trivial ways to defeat a fingerprint/retinal scan.

And there's no appetite for a national fingerprint/retinal scan database, and rightly so.

[Don Nico]

No, Martin.
A simple red F would suffice

[Kazinski]

That's gun registration, and the only purpose of gun registration is to know where the guns are when you want to confiscate them. And you don't have to go any further than Canada to see that in practice.

I wouldn't mind a federal concealed carry permit good in 50 states. But I'm not going to concede a federal gun registry to get it.

[defaultdotxbe]

It's not gun registration, its owner registration. They'd know who owns guns, but not what they own, how many they own, or where they keep them.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah. And we can also require a license if you want to practice free speech. And if the cops show up at your door wanting to search without a warrant just show them your federal Probable Cause Required license or they’ll get to come in.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"we can also require a license"

You seem to have advocated license-like requirements for having sex (homosexuals can't have sex without being vaccinated and everything that requirement would entail) so why are suddenly pro-liberty?

[Commenter_XY]

Federal license implies federal database. Is that what you propose? What is the role of the state in your compromise?

[not guilty]

I have been skeptical of criminally prosecuting Donald Trump directly for his inflammatory speech to the crowd on January 6, 2021. I still think that his conduct predating the 6th presents a better theory for criminal culpability.

Testimony before the House January 6 investigating committee that Trump knew that several in the crowd were bearing arms and that Trump intended to march to the Capitol himself, however, makes an incitement prosecution more appealing. https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-case-for-prosecuting-donald-trump That brings Trump's speech on the ellipse much closer to the Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), threshold of advocacy directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action which is likely to incite or produce such action.

[DaivdBehar]

You are just a Democrat conductin Democrat lawfare.

[StellaLink_the dog]

And you are just a serial onanist leaving evidence wherever you go.

[Sarcastr0]

The 'They're not here to hurt me' during the attack on the Capitol is not great for the 'Trump didn't know what he was doing' crowd.

It was a bad argument to begin with - saying Trump was some kind of baby-man incapable of volition on Jan 06, but they'll still vote to reelect someone that dangerous to the Presidency because even a threat to the Republic is better than a Democratic President for another four years.

But now there is good evidence that not just those surrounding him, but Trump himself was fine with using the Jan 06 violence to seizing power against the will of the people.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"They're not here to hurt me' during the attack on the Capitol"

Another Sarcastro-ism, without facts to back it up. Probably because it's incorrect.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Given your propensity to lie, Armchair, I’m not sure that you should be opening your mouth.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you still going on the testimony of a confirmed perjurer?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What are the odds of the FBI with CNN in tow doing a predawn raid at her house over this?

[Sarcastr0]

Confirmed!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, when somebody testifies to something under oath, and everybody involved offers to testify that they're lying, I think we can call them a confirmed perjurer.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Good thing that hasn’t happened in this case.

[Moderation4ever]

Except no one has testified that Cassidy Hutchinson has lied. So at this point her statement are the record.

[Don Nico]

"Except no one has testified that Cassidy Hutchinson has lied."
No yet. But the secret service agents in questioned have volunteered to be called.Let Liz Cheney do just that

[Moderation4ever]

I suspect that part of Liz Cheney's strategy is to do just that, and that Ms. Hutchinson's testimony necessitate testimony from reluctant witnesses.

[bernard11]

"Except no one has testified that Cassidy Hutchinson has lied."

It seems neither of the agents involved have even said that, on the record, to a reporter.

And let's suppose they do testify, under oath, that the conversation never happened. Why do you leap to the conclusion that Hutchinson is the one lying? Why not the agents who, by the way, are known to be extreme Trump loyalists, and one of whom - Ornato - may have a bit of a history of not being entirely truthful.

[Kazinski]

She wasn't there, her testimony is completely valueless without confirmation by someone who was.

Being contradicted by everyone who was there just completely discredits everything she says including 'and' and 'the'.

[not guilty]

This is investigation, not proof in a court of law. Parts of Ms. Hutchinson's testimony are hearsay; other parts are not. But in any event, hearsay is routinely elicited and considered at the investigative stage.

[Moderation4ever]

Read the transcripts, her testimony was not about what happened but what was reported to her. Mr. Ornato needs to clear this up. Until then her testimony is the record.

[David Nieporent]

She wasn't there, her testimony is completely valueless without confirmation by someone who was.

I love all the Twitter lawyers who heard the word hearsay on an episode of Law & Order and triumphantly use it without the slightest understanding of what it is or how it is used. Hint: hearsay evidence is used all the time. Guess what: you can be arrested and/or indicted purely on hearsay.

Also, she was not contradicted by anyone.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"No yet. But the secret service agents in questioned have volunteered to be called.Let Liz Cheney do just that..."

That part of her testimony was hearsay anyway. The critical part was her testimony about what she herself heard President Trump say. She did use a lot of qualifying language there, though.

[bernard11]

So far, "everyone involved" hasn't even spoken on the record to a reporter, much less testified. Why don't you apply your usual skepticism about anonymous sources, not going on the record, etc., here?

Besides, she didn't claim to have witnessed the incident. She said Ornato told her it happened. He hasn't denied that. So maybe he lied, exaggerated, etc. Wouldn't be the first time a man lied to a pretty woman to impress her.

An apparently Ornato has been deposed, though this incident didn't come up. According to one of the committee members, his memories of Jan. 6 were not clear during the deposition. IOW, he claimed he "didn't recall" a large number of times.

Apparently he and Engel were also regarded within the Secret Service as Trump yes-men. So maybe there's an issue of their credibility as well.

But if he and Engel would like to testify in person and answer questions about all the events of the day, I'm sure the committee will be glad to oblige them.

But you know, Brett. The whole "controversy" is ginned up bullshit, and you're falling for it, as usual. It's a trivial part of her testimony, and nobody has attacked the rest. It's the only thing the RW noise machine could find to attack her with, so they've made a big fat phony issue out of it.

Perjury!! Really? Do you think she made the story up? What if it turns out - worst case - that someone other than Ornato told her the story? Perjury? Really?

What this whole business reveals is nothing about Hutchinson but how utterly slimy the RW media is, how slavishly devoted to Trump. And you too.

[Moderation4ever]

All good points.

[Don Nico]

"So far, "everyone involved" hasn't even spoken on the record to a reporter, much less testified. Why don't you apply your usual skepticism about anonymous sources, not going on the record, etc., here?"
Who cares about "on the record with the media."Let them be called to testify under oath.

In the meanwhile, why is Garland sitting on his hands. The American people do not need theater, it needs a prosecution in open court. If Mr Biden prefers not to see a past President in an orange suit, he can commute the sentence

[Bob from Ohio]

"why is Garland sitting on his hands"

Biden's people want Trump as the 2024 opponent.

"If Mr Biden prefers not to see a past President in an orange suit, he can commute the sentence"

Trump can do that himself in January 2025!

[Martinned]

If the Democrats wanted Trump to be the nominee in 2024, there would be no better way to guarantee that than to prosecute him for literally anything.

[bernard11]

When DOJ gets a search warrant for Eastman's phone it's terrible, and they are "treating him like a common criminal," etc.

If they don't act Garland is sitting on his hands. I'd like to see him be more aggressive, as I would like to see NYC be more aggressive on tax matters.

Maybe he is waiting for the committee to finish its investigation.

[bernard11]

Who cares about "on the record with the media."Let them be called to testify under oath.

Sure. But the refusal to go on the record is an an indicator of how confident they are about their claims.

Personally, I think they are going to dodge testifying. My guess is that they will agree to answer only questions about the lunge, and that won't be acceptable, so they will not show up.

Remember, the Trumpists - Bannon, Navarro, Cippolone, etc. have refused to answer subpoenas. Plenty of opportunity to defend Trump, rejected.

[David Nieporent]

In the meanwhile, why is Garland sitting on his hands.

Why do you think Garland is sitting on his hands?

Have you missed all the right wing loons squealing about how unfair it was to search Jeffrey Clark's house, for instance?

Prosecution is the last step, not the first. And prosecution of the head of the mafia organization is the last prosecution, not the first.

[Kazinski]

Well so far NO ONE involved has spoken on the record because Hutchinson wasn't there.

The only real benefit of hearsay testimony is to have an idea who to ask about what to get the real story. But it's pretty useless as even an indication of the real facts and useless of of course for a basis of prosecution.

However I doubt we are going to get the secret service agents testifying under oath because it would spoil all the fun, and I say fun, because it's certainly nothing serious.

[not guilty]

The testimony that Trump said that the people with weapons "are not there to hurt [him]" would be non-hearsay if offered in a criminal prosecution of Trump. It would be a statement of a party-opponent under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2). The direction to take away the magnetometers is not hearsay at all.

[bernard11]

Well so far NO ONE involved has spoken on the record because Hutchinson wasn't there.

Hutchinson testified to what she was told, and she was certainly there when that happened.

However I doubt we are going to get the secret service agents testifying under oath

Me too. Because they are going to find excuses to dodge.

[David Nieporent]

I think we can call them a confirmed perjurer.

Well, that's because you're not very smart.

1) That's not what "confirmed" means.
2) That's not what perjury means.
3) That's not what anybody, let alone "everybody," did.

[bernard11]

Why can't you stop worshipping Trump?

[Kazinski]

I hope that's not directed to me, because I'm certainly not a Trump worshiper, he will be my last choice in the primaries.

And if he gets the nomination he will be my second to the last choice among the major parties.

[Sarcastr0]

So functionally nothing he can do or has done will shake your support.

Might as well be worship.

[not guilty]

Brett, what confirmed perjurer do you refer to? And what do you claim as confirmation?

[John F. Carr]

I have been reading Le Monde since the start of the war to try to improve my French reading comrehension. I learned a new idiom from their translation of Trump's (alleged) statements: "Je m'en fous".

I don't see any additional liability for his knowledge that some members of the crowd were armed. And I don't see proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he wanted to lead the crowd in illegal activity. He wanted to lead the crowd. The crowd not under his leadership committed crimes.

[bernard11]

He wanted to lead an armed crowd to the Capitol.

He specifically wanted them to be armed, it was incidental.

What will it take for the cultists to stop making insane excuses.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"What will it take for the cultists to stop making insane excuses."

Facts from impartial investigations. But Pelosi and Company ensured we don't have that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Republicans had a chance for a 50-50 panel and said no. Republicans had the opportunity to have proportionate representation on this committee and said no. The partiality of this committee is as much the Republicans fault as Pelosi.

And the other side as voiced by Bernard and Sarcastro and not guilty are still hanging on this week’s star witness even though it appears she was totally full of shit. Note how the media ran with her smoking gun!!!!! without any semblance af verification.

There’s nobody for most of us out here to believe so I/we just mostly tune it out.

[Michael P]

Pelosi refused to seat Republicans on the commission, without any protection against future unilateral vetoes of minority Representatives on other House bodies. Should House Republicans have just bent over and taken that?

[Sarcastr0]

Pelosi was quite willing to seat Republicans. Just not bad faith Jan 06 supporters like Jim Jordan.

[Kazinski]

Jim Jordan is no more biased than Adam Schiff, and without Schiff's documented history of lies.

[Sarcastr0]

He has no such history, the right just doesn't understand a clear joke. One clue is the wacky voice.

[Michael P]

Adam Schiff is clearly a joke? Tell that to Nancy Pelosi.

[David Nieporent]

Should House Republicans have just bent over and taken that?

I mean, are you asking about it from the perspective of people who care about the country or from the perspective of people who are trying to carry water for Trump?

What House Republicans (i.e., McCarthy) should have done is not proposed saboteurs to the committee. If he was unsure what that entailed, and/or if he was trying to save face, he should have privately consulted with Pelosi before making his formal announcement, so that this situation wouldn't have arisen.

But of course McCarthy's entire purpose was to lead to this exact result: he deliberately picked completely unqualified people¹ who he knew would be unacceptable to Pelosi, ensuring she would reject them, providing him a pretext to refuse to participate at all, in order to give bad faith people cover to ignore what the committee is finding.
​
​
​
¹To be clear, I am not suggesting that any particular background is required for committee membership. The mere fact that neither Banks nor Jordan has any relevant expertise is not automatically disqualifying. What I am suggesting was that there wasn't any compelling reason to affirmatively pick either one, no crying need for their input. There were almost 200 other choices better than them.

[bernard11]

No bevis. She was not "totally full of shit." You're wrong.

The right has made a giant issue out of one minor part of her testimony, with so far no evidence that it was inaccurate.

No one has refuted anything else, that his supporters were armed and he knew it, and wanted them to keep their arms for the march, that he wanted to go to the Capitol, that Meadows didn't give a shit about what was happening, not even the ketchup story.

IOW, you're not paying attention.

[Bob from Ohio]

She also testified that she note some note when she didn't. A WH lawyer [same guy that rebuked Eastman] wrote it, and is on record saying it.

She identified his hand writing as hers!

[David Nieporent]

A WH lawyer [same guy that rebuked Eastman] wrote it, and is on record saying it.

And she's on record as saying otherwise!

On what basis are you concluding that she's the one of the two of them lying (or mistaken)?

[bevis the lumberjack]

How many inaccuracies does she have to have testified to before her credibility is shot? Why isn’t anyone in the media investigating her claims rather than just accepting - hell, trumpeting - them?

And you can’t dismiss me as a cultist like you do others because I’ve made my distaste for the guy very plain. I think he’s poison. I think he has shown himself to be unworthy of being president again with all of his behavior since the election.

But ultimately bullshit is bullshit, even if it would harm someone that I detest.

[bernard11]

How many inaccuracies does she have to have testified to before her credibility is shot?

How many do you think she has testified to? I see none.

[David Nieporent]

How many inaccuracies does she have to have testified to before her credibility is shot?

That's a judgment each person will have to make for him- or herself, but typically it would depend on the nature and significance of any inaccuracies, as well as the explanation for them.

Why isn’t anyone in the media investigating her claims rather than just accepting - hell, trumpeting - them?

They are. How do you think you know of these possible but utterly unconfirmed inaccuracies?

[Michael P]

Which one minor part do you think the right is making an issue out of "with so far no evidence that it was inaccurate"?

The testimony about Trump lunging at the wheel and assaulting Secret Service agents, which those in the car are willing to testify is false? The testimony that she heard that story from a Secret Service agents who claims he never told her that? There testimony that this happened in "The Beast" (the presidential limo), which Trump did not use on that drive? Or the bit that Bob mentioned about the handwritten note?

That's a lot of evidence that you claim doesn't exist.

[bernard11]

The testimony about Trump lunging at the wheel and assaulting Secret Service agents, which those in the car are willing to testify is false?

Once again:

She testified that she was told that story, not that she witnessed the incident.

When those who "are willing to testify" actually do so we'll talk about credibility. Until then, they are bullshitting. Not evidence at all.

[Michael P]

Speaking of bullshit, you have a ridiculously bullshit idea of when to accept hearsay evidence. Tell us more about the pee tapes and Christine Blasey Ford.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not a court case, so your straw-grasping is not really going to do it here.

[Michael P]

When your ally here claims that the point of the testimony is that she was only claiming to have been told a story, not that the story is actually true, who is grasping at straws?

(Maybe he'll read the rest of the definition of hearsay to understand what the big deal about it is.)

[Sarcastr0]

Non-lawyer doesn't understand the nuances of hearsay: news at 11.

[David Nieporent]

The testimony about Trump lunging at the wheel and assaulting Secret Service agents,

That was not in fact her testimony. You should strive to be accurate if you're going to try to accuse someone else of inaccuracies. There's a transcript; go and read it.

which those in the car are willing to testify is false?

"Willing to testify"? That and $10 will get you a one-month subscription to the cheapest tier of Netflix. Call me if they actually do testify.

Also, she didn't testify that any of this happened; she testified that Ornato told her that it happened. So the only thing that matters is what Ornato (not anyone else) actually testifies — not "is willing to testify" — that he told her. And then you'll just have to decide which one of them has more reason to lie.

[bernard11]

You're a ridiculous troll.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
Why isn't he indicted yet? That, not theater until Election Day is what the country needs.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Personally, I think Ohio Bob is right. I think the Biden Administration figures the only way they have a shot at reelection is if they are running against Trump again. I wish Biden would lose in the primaries, but I doubt that will happen. That would require a party with some guts.

[Voize of Reazon]

I agree that the usually reliable reason politicians do anything is to get re-elected, but I don't agree it applies here. It certainly doesn't explain Liz Cheney.

But even if it were true, the best presidential scenario for Democrats only requires that Trump remain viable and keep his core support, he doesn't have to win the nomination.

If DeSantis (or, even worse for Democrats, Haley) were to challenge him for the nomination and win, is there any universe where Trump would graciously concede and throw his support behind his opponent? He will want to argue, and fight, and launch hopeless legal challenges, and eventually instruct his followers to write him in, or to abstain entirely from voting in the "rigged election", all to the benefit of the Democratic candidate.

[Kazinski]

An armed crowd is not a few people in the crowd with guns, probably a much smaller percentage than the average number of people carrying guns shopping in a Walmart in Dallas. But you wouldn't refer to them as an armed crowd of Walmart shoppers, well most people wouldn't.

But once again was anybody else who was there saying their were large numbers of armed people in the crowd?

Nope, it's June 30th, a year and a half later and these unsupported, unwitnessed allegations are just coming out, a few weeks after the initial hearings fizzled.

It's also just 6 weeks before Liz Cheney's career ends with the Wyoming primary. You can smell the desperation.

[Sarcastr0]

This is quite a new goalpost you got there.

No, it doesn't take a lot of guns in the crowd for things to get pretty bad.

[Kazinski]

Sure, but I thought this was supposed to be an armed insurrection. You can't seriously claim a conspiracy to forment an armed insurrection with a group as well armed as the average Saturday crowd at a Wal-Mart.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Weren't there enough people in the crowd unable to pass through the metal detectors that Trump himself expressed concern that it was making his audience look smaller?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I don't see any additional liability for his knowledge that some members of the crowd were armed. "

Law school might cure that.

[Kazinski]

The witness has been totally discredited by the secret service, they say that they are willing to testify under oath that several of the things she gave hearsay testimony about categorically didn't happen, and they certainly can't confirm any of her other testimony.

She was even wrong about what vehicle Trump was in while the events she was relating supposedly happened. And no other testimony has identified more than just a handful of people in the crowd who were armed that day, which by the way is a constitutional right.

Meadows is also denying he asked for a pardon.

She's as reliable as Hillary's Russian dossier, and she might have even had the same ghostwriter.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

She’s been “totally discredited” about the things she heard happened with the Secret Service ? What about the things she has direct knowledge of?

It’s odd that you would think someone claiming they can refute hearsay somehow extends to discrediting non-hearsay testimony.

[Moderation4ever]

But Cassidy Hutchinson has not been discredited. She reported what she had been told by Anthony Ornato in the presence of Engel. She is discredited only if these men testify the conversation did not happen. It has also been reported that Mr. Ornato likes to talk and then often denies what he said. So let him deny his conversation with Ms. Hutchinson under oath.

[Don Nico]

"So let him deny his conversation with Ms. Hutchinson under oath."
Yup. That is exactly right.
And the back and forth blah-blah can end

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear, that would not actually end anything. If Ornato did contradict her under oath, it would not "discredit" her unless people decided that Ornato was telling the truth and she was lying.

(We keep seeing this pattern with Trumpkins: an accusation is leveled against their cult leader, someone else denies the accusation, and the Trumpkins pretend this proves the accuser was lying. But all it means is that one of them is. (Or, of course, mistaken. Not every contradiction is a lie.))

[bernard11]

So let him deny his conversation with Ms. Hutchinson under oath.

Maybe there would be some other interesting questions to ask him as well. My bet is he will refuse to answer them, if he appears at all. Quite possibly he will use that as an excuse to refuse.

And again, I ask, suppose he comes and testifies. Why do you then automatically conclude that Hutchinson, and not Ornato, is lying?

[Don Nico]

He said he would testify under oath.
You should believe him until proven otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

He said he would testify under oath.
You should believe him until proven otherwise.

Weird you're not applying that principle to the person who actually testified under oath.

[Don Nico]

Weird that you claimed that I said something that I did not say.
No wonder you get dumped on so much.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You don't think that we should believe the person who actually has testified under oath, but you do think we should believe someone who claims they are willing to testify?

Did you get hit in the head recently?

[bernard11]

Believe what? That he is willing to testify?

I'll believe that when he testifies.

Believe that the conversation didn't happen? Why believe him rather than Hutchinson?

This whole tic is ridiculous. If Ornato shows up and says teh conversation didn't happen, while Hutchinson says it did, you automatically assume Ornato is being truthful.

Why?

[Don Nico]

If the two testify opposite things under oath then by the principle of non-contradiction one has committed perjury.
Why are you so invested in this?
Unless Garland indicts, it is meaningless theater and if he does indict it is likely inadmissible.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it's a bit of a dodge to argue facts don't matter unless there's a legal upshot.

I like to know what happens.

[bernard11]

OK, Don.

But you are claiming, with no evidence whatsoever, that it would be Hutchinson.

Not a good look.

[Voize of Reazon]

If the two testify opposite things under oath then by the principle of non-contradiction one has committed perjury.

No, you can only conclude that at least one of them is wrong. Being wrong, even under oath, doesn't necessarily constitute perjury.

[Josh R]

She testified that Ornato told her what happened (with Engel present). She would only be discredited if Ornato and Engel would testify under oath that Ornato did not say the things she claimed he said. If Ornato did say those things, but they didn't happen, that would not discredit her.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Is there any suggestion that other people were present during the conversation? Are the secret service people denying that any confrontation between Trump and the SS in the car occurred or are they just claiming that Hutchinson's description of the later conversation among them is not totally accurate? Or, are they denying that the conversation took place?

[bernard11]

She would only be discredited if Ornato and Engel would testify under oath that Ornato did not say the things she claimed he said.

Why would that discredit her, and not Ornato?

[Kazinski]

Well it would certainly mean she had no useful information to give to the committee. And they would have to completely discount all the information she provided.

[bernard11]

That's ridiculous, Kazinski. Absolutely irrational.

What you are saying is that if Ornato comes in and denies the conversation took place, all Hutchinson's testimony is worthless. Even if Ornato is lying.

Really??? That's completely idiotic.

[not guilty]

The motivated reasoning here is dense.

[bernard11]

The witness has been totally discredited by the secret service,

That's nonsense. Compete fucking nonsense, Kazinski.

[Kazinski]

NBCNEWS:
"Hutchinson’s account Tuesday about a dramatic physical altercation between Trump and his top security official on Jan. 6 has come under intense scrutiny after sources told NBC News that two witnesses were prepared to testify under oath that it never happened."

By witnesses they mean the people who were actually there, which of course Hutchinson was not.

[Don Nico]

Call the Secret Service agents. They say they are ready to testify. What is all the irrelevant argument about?

[bernard11]

Meadows is also denying he asked for a pardon.

Meadows is a liar.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"which by the way is a constitutional right."
It wasn't on Jan 6, 2021.

[Kazinski]

Always was.

DC has a may issue law that has been stayed since it was passed.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Always was."

You're wrong. DC has laws against being armed while out and about and those laws have been enforced and people have been punished for violating those laws. Those laws were in effect, and constitutional, on 1/6/2021.

[Bored Lawyer]

The attempt to have the Georgia governor and Secty of State alter the election results always seemd to me a better case against him. But you need an AG in Georgia willing to take the heat to press the case.

[not guilty]

I believe that we have a prosecutor in Atlanta who is willing to take the heat.

[David Nieporent]

Nah. Because you'll get as the defense that Trump sincerely believed the bullshit he was spinning about all the fraud in Georgia, and therefore he was just asking them to investigate and find it, rather than to fabricate election results. Does anyone with knowledge of the facts really believe that? No. But it just takes one person on the jury who's willing to pretend to believe that.

In contrast, telling people to attack the Capitol to stop Mike Pence from certifying Biden's win can't be explained away.

[Randal]

Whatever we do here on the Conspiracy, let's not talk about the January 6 bombshells! Maybe if we ignore the whole thing, it'll go away before anyone realizes that our friends are all implicated.

[AmosArch]

you mean all the fake stories that the media tried to run with like trump lunging for the steering wheel that proved what a circus this is? No wonder even the Dems are pulling back on the publicity campaign. They've accidentally made themselves look even more ridiculous.

[Sarcastr0]

The chip on your shoulder has gotten so big you no longer interface with reality, seems like.
Declaring it's all lies based on nothing more than your certainty it's all lies is a closed system.

[AmosArch]

google it yourself, the story is falling apart, sorry your fantasy of trump hulking it out on ss agents is not true just because you want it to be.

[Sarcastr0]

If it's so clearly falling apart, maybe link some examples.

Because the stuff I've seen is hilariously weak. 'Trump is too fat to lunge.' 'It was more of an attempted lunge, really.' and the like.

And that doesn't mention the already abandoned 'hearsay hearsay hearsay.'

Really seems they got nothing. But luckily for them nothing is all you need!

[Michael P]

https://www.businessinsider.com/secret-service-agents-prepared-testify-trump-contradict-cassidy-hutchinson-reports-2022-6

Secret Service agents are willing to testify that former President Donald Trump did not try to lunge at them or take control of the vehicle to direct the car to the Capitol as agents were driving on January 6, 2021, CBS News and NBC News reported.

Exactly how do you get "attempted lunge" out of "did not attempt"?

Also, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tony-ornato-did-not-brief-cassidy-hutchinson-that-trump-tried-to-lunge-at-secret-service-agent-sources/ar-AAYZy4S

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Exactly how do you get "attempted lunge" out of "did not attempt"?"

Who knows? Sarcastro didn't provide any links for any of his supposed statements. Don't expect him to though. He'll say he doesn't have to. But you need to.

[Michael P]

I got a good laugh the other week when he asserted that he backed up his claims more often than many or most others here.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yep

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, there are people here who can't handle disagreement and call it intentional lying.

It bespeaks a weak worldview that can't handle good-faith disagreement.

It also makes you foolish as you attempt to replicate demands for sources to your hot-takes with just asking for sources for obvious stuff. You just got laughed at for demanding I post the transcript, and then kept on doubling down.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s in the testimony AL. It’s not hard to find a transcript.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Still no links. Surprise.

[Michael P]

So are the claims that Trump tried to seize control of a vehicle that he wasn't in, that Ornato briefed her about it, and that she hand-wrote someone else's note.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's in the perjured testimony. Why are you refusing to take that into account? The story is just too good to accept that it's a lie?

[bernard11]

He hasn't denied shit.

Someone said he denies it. And so what if he did. Why isn't it possible he's a liar?

Let him testify under oath.

[bernard11]

Yeah, it's in the perjured testimony. Why are you refusing to take that into account?

Perjured?

What a jackass you are.

[Michael P]

bernard, why don't you tell us what you think happened?

1) Hutchinson's testimony is substantially correct, except for mis-identifying the vehicle Trump was in, and both Ornato's witness is lying and two Secret Service agents are purportedly willing to lie under oath.

2) Hutchinson's testimony is correct that Ornato briefed her as described, but the event in the briefing never actually happened. In this case, what was Ornato's motivation to lie about Trump's behavior?

3) Hutchinson's testimony is incorrect, and Ornato and the other agents are telling the truth.

4) Something else (please describe the details).

Given that other people involved have given testimony under oath, but somehow the commission has been unable to substantiate Hutchinson's testimony, my money is on #3.

[Moderation4ever]

They want a link to the transcript, here it is.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108396692/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Whereas you provide links when it suits you, but lie about their content.

Hello kettle.

[Sarcastr0]

Unsourced unnamed agents.

Truly the sworn testimony is falling apart.

You don’t have much, and from this weak sauce I think you know it.

[Michael P]

"But one source close to the Secret Service told CBS News that both the driver of the car and Robert Engel — a Secret Service agent who was then the head of Trump's security detail — are prepared to testify under oath that Trump did not lunge at the car's steering wheel and that Trump did not verbally or physically assault them."

Unsourced and unnamed, huh?

Fucking Gaslight0.

[bernard11]

Yes. Unsourced and unnamed.

The agents, one of whom is a known pro-Trump liar, didn't even bother to call the reporter and talk to him himself.

Let them go on record, testifying under oath.

And what doe sit matter. It was a story Hutchinson said she heard. She did not claim to have witnessed it.

The Trump cultism is absurd.

[Michael P]

... said she heard from somebody who denied telling her anything if the sort.

Yes, your cultism is absurd.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hearsay evidence is the best evidence!

[bernard11]

He hasn't denied it under oath.

And he himself is a known liar.

[Michael P]

So your hypothesis is that he lied by telling her a story about Trump that didn't happen, in a vehicle that Trump wasn't in? To what end would he have done that?

[bernard11]

To what end would she have manufactured the whole thing?

Are you going to pull a Bellmore and claim that she's secretly a part of antifa?

[Michael P]

She told us what her motivation would be: she aspired to "civic significance". Having failed to achieve that during her time as an aide, she aimed for notoriety instead of virtue.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"are prepared to testify under oath that Trump did not lunge at the car's steering wheel and that Trump did not verbally or physically assault them."

But what you people are claiming that she testified to is not what she testified to. She did not testify as to Trump's behavior in the car. She testified to a conversation that she had with Ornato and Engel. Ornato and Engel have offered to testify as to Trump's behavior, maybe. Have they offered to testify that the conversation did not occur? Or, are they offering to testify that their recollections of the conversation differ from hers? Are they offering to testify that she perjured herself?

It is interesting to note that the world's leading expert on due process is vociferously labeling Huthinson a felon based on nothing more than rumor and innuendo. Way to go, Brett.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Unsourced unnamed agents."

Lol. I'm so old I remember when unnamed SCOTUS sources trumped on-the record statements about mask-wearing.

But that was when the unnamed sources fit Sarcastro's narrative.

[Sarcastr0]

I remember when a lot of you said anonymous sources could not be trusted.

It was like 2 weeks ago.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Do you remember me saying anything different?

[Sarcastr0]

So then what do you think about this recent testimony, contested only by anonymous sources?

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0 is gaslighting again about the definition of "anonymous".

[bevis the lumberjack]

How about “the guy he lunged at says it didn’t happen”? Does that count?

[bernard11]

Some of the most damning evidence in the Jan 6 hearings involves a witness recounting what somebody else said.

No, ReaderY. It's not "Some of the most damning evidence." Not close.

The RW has blown it way out of proportion, because it thinks it can gin up a BS refutation. They do this with the help of lots of gullible idiots like A.L. and others.

[bernard11]

No, bevis. It doesn't count. Don't be gullible.

Someone said the guy says that. The guy himself has not yet even called a reporter and said it on the record. More important, he hasn't said it under oath.

And of interest, he has a bit of a reputation for maybe denying he said things he actually said.

And finally, at best it's a question of who is telling the truth here, about what amounts to a very small part of Hutchinson's testimony.

[bevis the lumberjack]

So there’s Good Hearsay and Bad Hearsay and we should pay attention to Good and reflexively dismiss Bad. Got it.

[Sarcastr0]

The fact that you're sure she lied under oath is quite a look.

The main evidence we have thus far is her testimony. Under oath.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose she could be delusional, but we're already pretty sure she was saying things that weren't true. Under oath.

[bernard11]

You were sure before she even started her testimony, so your opinion about its veracity is worthless.

[Sarcastr0]

You're sure, Brett, just like you're sure Hillary is a felon.

But Trump is innocent until proven guilty.

FFS look at yourself, at these knots of double standards you tie yourself in.

[bernard11]

WTF are you talking about?

She testified, under oath, as to what she was told. IANAL, but that doesn't sound like hearsay to me. She was recounting a conversation in which she participated.

OTOH, all the claims about the agents are through third parties. Sneer all you want, but the fact that they won't even talk to reporter on the record suggests their denials may not be as sound as you think.

And again, for the umpteenth time, I ask the question neither you nor Brett, nor anyone else has answered.

Suppose they deny the incident, under oath. Why do you so quickly and automatically assume that proves Hutchinson lied?

You're giving the game away with that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

She testified, under oath, as to what she was told. IANAL, but that doesn't sound like hearsay to me.

That is literally the definition of hearsay.

[Michael P]

Hearsay, n.- Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.

Emphasis added.

[bernard11]

She didn't testify that those things happened.

She testified that she was told they happened.

She didn't say, "Trump grabbed the wheel." She said, "Ornato told me Trump grabbed the wheel."

What's the BFD about hearsay?

[not guilty]

It depends on what the testimony is being offered to prove. Ms. Hutchinson's testimony is hearsay if offered for the proposition that the events Mr. Ornato described to her took place. It is non-hearsay personal knowledge for the proposition that Mr. Ornato described these events to her.

[David Nieporent]

How about “the guy he lunged at says it didn’t happen”? Does that count?

Well, no, it wouldn't, because that wasn't her testimony. Her testimony was that Ornato told her that. If Ornato did in fact tell her that, then she's not lying even if it didn't happen.

But note further that the guy Trump lunged at did not say that. Rather, some other person claimed that he would say that, if he ever got around to testifying about it.

[David Nieporent]

Because the stuff I've seen is hilariously weak. 'Trump is too fat to lunge.' 'It was more of an attempted lunge, really.' and the like.

Also, here's the thing: she never testified that he lunged for the wheel (or that anyone told her he did). She testified that Ornato told her Trump reached for the wheel.

[apedad]

AA, you're right, the steering wheel thing is a stupid story.

Doesn't mean the entire 1/6 this is fake though.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There have been enough errors and lies to call the entire thing into question. Especially given the partisan commission.

Remember how a protestor supposedly killed a Capitol police officer? That got walked entirely back too.

[bernard11]

"errors and lies." Where? in the Federalist?

You're laughable.

"Partisan commission." Republicans had plenty of opportunity for something different. Even Trump says McCarthy fucked up, as did McConnell.

[Michael P]

Errors and lies in Hutchinson's testimony.

The fact that Republicans could have done something different, to partially save Congress from itself, doesn't change the indisputable fact that the commission is blatantly partisan.

[Armchair Lawyer]

" Where? in the Federalist"

Eventually even the Washington Post has to realize it's made a mistake when the official autopsy reports come out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/brian-sicknick-death-strokes/2021/04/19/36d2d310-617e-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html

[bernard11]

It was a story she said she heard.

[Armchair Lawyer]

From who? When? Where?

I suppose we don't know. Could've been anyone. Maybe Sarcastro was spinning an unsourced story for her.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair — Try watching the hearings. They are on You Tube. She was forthright.

[Brett Bellmore]

So? She was forthrightly committing perjury.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You seem desperate.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Desperate". Sheesh. Stephen, I don't do "desperate", this barely gets me to "mildly bemused".

What does "forthright" even mean when somebody is delivering up contradicted hearsay? They had the right expression on their face and quaver in their voice?

I think Trump is in no particular danger here, if anybody is desperate it's the Democrats. What I'm bemused about is that they're fighting the last war here: They're desperate to prevent a Trump/Biden rematch, when they're actually headed towards DeSantis/Harris.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Forthright. Sure. So was Oliver North. So was Clapper. Oh so very forthright.

[Josh R]

Tony Ornato (with Engel present) on January 6.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Woah, she said she heard it?

That's the gold standard of evidence. Trump is going to prison for sure!

Similarly, the gold standard for intent is "people familiar with his thinking".

The walls are closing in!

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Woah, she said she heard it?"

Yes, which is evidence that she heard it and nothing more. The question becomes, why did Ornato say what she heard him say.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The question becomes, "why didn't the J6 commission investigators bother to get any of those Secret Service agents under oath before her public testimony". That wasn't the first time they heard it.

Did you ever think of that?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Did you ever think of that?"

No, and why should I have?

Are you complaining because the committee is adding "color" commentary? If that is your complaint, blame the Republicans who refused to participate.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Look it's a bombshell!"
"the bombshell seems to be in error"
"Maybe we should walk it back?"
"Nah...."

"Maybe we should've not had a partisan commission"
"Nah, that's the point"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Whatever we do here on the Conspiracy, let's not talk about the January 6 bombshells! Maybe if we ignore the whole thing, it'll go away before anyone realizes that our friends are all implicated. "

Un-American right-wing bigots would prefer to talk about just about anything else.

If a vile racial slur can be tucked into the "anything else" (particularly with plausible deniability), so much the better!

[AmosArch]

With all the fodder for the ADHD perpetual twitter outrage crowd out there we haven't really heard much about Ukraine recently. Wonder how thats going.

[Sarcastr0]

There's plenty of coverage if you want to look.

Is there something you think we all need to know about it, or do you just want to complain we haven't been laser focused for the past 4 months?

[Don Nico]

How about Putin sending nukes to Belarus?
How about Putin sending strategic bombers against Ukraine?
How about the US trying to launch economic war on Russia based on a speculative idea of Yellen?
How about Eastern Ukraine being a vast pile of rubble, while the Biden neocons think that Ukraine can "win" in the conflict?

[Sarcastr0]

Biden neocons?!

Fuck off.

[Don Nico]

Fuck off? Really, S0?
You seem to actually know little about the pedigree of the policy makers in the administration.
I suggest that you actually read, try to understand, and even fact check the recent article by Jeffery Sachs instead of spouting out vulgarities based on your ignorance:
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/m6rb2a5tskpcxzesjk8hhzf96zh7w7

[Sarcastr0]

Isn't Sachs an apologist for China?

I know the kind of leftist who thinks everything is about the US being evil and imperialist - I didn't think you'd buy into those kind of useful idiots.

NATO is not at fault for this. Russia is not coming to the table with Ukraine with any cognizable asks, and that's their own fault.

[Don Nico]

There you go again. I have read a lot of his material, many things I agree with many I don't. Yet I have seen no evidence for your obvious Red baiting. I'm surprised at you.

Moreover, you have had no response whatsoever to his description of the neocon influence in the defense and foreign policy realms. Instead, you want to blindly assert the wisdom of this administration's failing policy with respect to the war in Ukraine.

You say NATO has no blame. Yet try looking at a sequence of maps of NATO over the past 30 years and you'll see many reasons for Russian paranoia.

As for Russia having not recognizable asks, the same can be said for Zelenskyy and friends. All the while Mr Biden has done nothing to help except to say that regime change is his personal opinion not the opinion of POTUS.

[bernard11]

As for Russia having not recognizable asks, the same can be said for Zelenskyy and friends

Huh? How about, "Get out of here and leave us alone?"

[Don Nico]

Sure, that will go a long way.
Bernard, the ground truth is very far beyond that point.
I'd say get real, but it is Mr Biden and Mr Johnson who need to get real.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's no "table" unless Russia can demonstrate why it would honor anything it agreed to, and I don't know how they do that.

[John F. Carr]

Russia is winning slowly and at great cost. There is no dramatic news.

I like the UK theory that the missile that blew up a shopping mall was meant for a nearby factory. The missile was an old design originally meant to use radar to find a carrier battle group, which is a highly contrasting target.

[Armchair Lawyer]

To an extent. Russians just withdrew from Snake Island.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61987663

[John F. Carr]

Said to be a gesture of goodwill, but in fact because the island is in range of Western artillery based on the mainland.

[Brett Bellmore]

They could be slowly losing at great cost, instead, if we weren't deliberately starving them of effective munitions.

[Brett Bellmore]

The most defensible explanation for what's going on, (Really only sort of defensible, from an amoral realpolitik standpoint.) is that we're trying to prolong the Ukraine war as much as possible, no matter the cost to Ukrainians, because it's bleeding Russia dry, and we ourselves are going to be safer if Russia is bled dry, ideally gradually enough that Putin doesn't abruptly decide to go nuclear.

That explanation is bad enough, all the alternative ones I can come up with are worse.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Thank god nobody here thinks your explanations or theories are accurate, necessary, or important.

[Don Nico]

The phrase is that we will fight Putin to the last Ukrainian

[Sarcastr0]

This is not a proxy war, Don. For one thing, it's not just the US. For another, there is no victory for the US.

This is some RT line you're being fed. You'll blame NATO for provoking Putin next.

[Don Nico]

Not a proxy war?
Do you honestly believe that when POTUS talks about regime change. When he takes a highly suspect theoory by Yellen to effectively wage economic war on Russia.
Grow up and open your eyes.
"This is some RT line you're being fed."
That is your usual BS line when you don't agree. because you haven't been paying attentions for many years.
Is Putin evil? Yes.
Is he a war criminal? Likely yes under any definition?
Has Mr. Biden made this into a war against Russia for the purpose of regime change? You bet your ass.

[Sarcastr0]

I think what's going on in Eastern Europe does not revolve around the US.

Has Mr. Biden made this into a war against Russia for the purpose of regime change? You bet your ass.
No one thinks this is going to get Putin out of office.

[Don Nico]

"No one thinks this is going to get Putin out of office."
No one but Old White Joe.

[Sarcastr0]

You really are swallowing some RT bullcrap on this one.

[Don Nico]

S),
You really are disconnected fom reality about this issue. I have no idea what RT (whatever that means) nonsense you are talking about.
First you say that Sachs is a Chinese communist apologist and then you say it is rightwing bullshit.
This sounds like the GaslightO routine.

I don't know how many Europeans you speak to on a daily basis by the the ones I speak to are scared and rather annoyed that the US is ratcheting up tensions when they are the ones threatened.
Your ideas of American exceptionalism are long out of date.

Your nonsense is why I don't bother listening to US news services.

[Sarcastr0]

Both the fringes of the American right and the left are into some America-blaming nonsense about this war.

It's not an American war. But for those obsessed with America being wrong, everything is about America being wrong.

You're not one of those people, but you seem to be reading them regarding Ukraine being a US operation to oust Putin. Which is basically pure fiction by some people with very distorted worldviews.

[bernard11]

OK, Don.

So what happens if NATO stops arming Ukraine?

Peace descends? I don't think so.

Putin wants to conquer the country. Why wouldn't he do that, with all the consequences for Ukraine and its citizens that entails.

And do you really believe that the Ukrainians don't know their own interests - that they are only fighting because Biden is telling them to?

Your analysis makes no sense to me.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
You set up a pathetic strawman.
But to answer your question, the Zelensky government would collapse and Russia will definitely NOT use nuclear devices.
"Your analysis makes no sense to me."
Your makes no sense because it is no analysis.
I never tried to advance a complete analysis.
I just said that the US is driving NATO to make matters worse and that endangers the EU far more than the US.
Funny how you now believe all the BS coming out of DC.
Funny how you try to ignore every one of Mr Biden's foolish claims about the need for regime change in Europe.
Funny how you have swallowed the sensibility of the Yellen plan.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico: Between Sullivan, Rice and Blinken - are any of them competent?

[Don Nico]

I don't know but given their histories in this business they should be doing a lot better than keeping us on the path that we are on. We certainly have made no headway with improving relations with either Russia or China.

[Ed Grinberg]

That explanation is bad enough, all the alternative ones I can come up with are worse.

Here're a couple of alternative explanations I can come up with:
- Biden is in Putin's pocket (and/or Putin has "receipts" on Joe & Hunter's "business" dealings).
- Biden won't engage Russia over Ukraine for the same reason Obama refused to engage during the (long!) attack on Benghazi. He's a coward.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, conspiracy theory Brett refuses to accept that the obvious, overt explanation is the correct one, and that there must be a hidden one ing which people act in bad faith.

We are "trying to prolong the Ukraine war" only in the sense that we are trying to make sure Russia doesn't win, while at the same time trying to avoid WW3. We are not hoping Ukraine "bleeds Russia dry." We are hoping Russia retreats as soon as possible.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Not surprising that the three month's old video does not support your assertion that we are "deliberately starving them of effective munitions." Everybody knows that in the early days (the video is from five weeks into the Russion invasion) weapons deliveries by the US and NATO allies were less than the Ukrainians were asking for. Of course, neither you, nor the puerilely gullible Bartarimo (who is actually the one making the "slow walking" claim in the video) want to actually evaluate what the Republican Senator is stating, which is that he's "being told" (by whom?) and what's being "whispered."

[bernard11]

Hey. Brett is happy to rely on old, unsubstantiated BS when it supports his deranged opinions.

[defaultdotxbe]

Depends on your definition of "winning." They seem to be at a stalemate since Russia withdrew its northern incursion.

Of course I said at the very beginning that "winning" for Putin would be taking the Donbas and establishing a land corridor to Crimea, which has certainly been accomplished.

[Brett Bellmore]

But he needs that to be stable, not merely something he can maintain at ruinous ongoing expense.

[apedad]

I just googled "Ukraine invasion 6/29/2022" and got 2,510,000,000 Results.

Maybe you're just stupid.

[Michael P]

Do you believe 2.5 billion pages on Russia's invasion of Ukraine were published in the last 24-ish hours? Or might your search have pulled in more results than you intended?

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably the latter: Google's search algorithm has been seriously broken for some years now, thanks to their determination to avoid excluding from the results something somebody might actually be looking for, and accidentally wrote a search string that would exclude.

Made the searches better for idiots, and much, much worse for anybody who knows what they're looking for and how to construct a proper search string. Honestly, I wish they'd offer a "Google classic" toggle, where you could get useful results again.

[David Nieporent]

That google won't show you anything that substantiates any of your conspiracy theories shows that it's working, not that it's broken.

[defaultdotxbe]

I just did the same search and got 510,000,000 results. Are you sure you didn't just imagine that "2" in your number?

Of the first page of results only 2 are actual new stories, the rest are just running "daily updates" pages from a dozen different websites.

[FivebySixThree]

its easy to ignore real oppression and suffering when you make up your own. far too many in the US have no understanding what either are and will never experience it either.

always ask the self oppressed if they are worse off in any way than their grand parents.

[Sarcastr0]

the self oppressed

False consciousness FTW.

[Ed Grinberg]

...real oppression and suffering...

How's this for "real oppression":
Tucker Carlson: Why are they so angry?
As for real suffering, there's plenty of economic suffering in the U.S. right now (arguably engineered by the current administration). And, if these people get away with using oppression (see above) to remain in power, do you think they'll use their ill-gotten power to reduce the people's suffering, or to (selectively) impose much greater suffering? Hmmm...

[Martinned]

"arguably" is doing a lot of work there...

[not guilty]

On June 22, FBI agents seized John Eastman's cell phone pursuant to a search warrant issued by a United States Magistrate in New Mexico. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22071050-john-eastman-court-filing The warrant was issued apparently at the behest of the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General.

On that same day, federal agents executed a search warrant at the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former DOJ official whom Donald Trump wanted to promote to Acting Attorney General during January of 2021, also in connection with an OIG investigation. Are Eastman and Trump acting in cahoots?

The issuance of a warrant for Eastman's phone evinces the magistrate judge's finding of probable cause to believe that the phone contains current evidence of criminal activity. I wonder what will happen next.

[John F. Carr]

Are we sure the warrant is for evidence of crimes? OIG also investigates administrative misconduct; there is a page of reports on that subject: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/type/investigation

We could have one group looking to see who was involved in the fake elector conspiracy and another group (OIG) looking at misuse of the Justice Department for political ends.

[David Nieporent]

Are we sure the warrant is for evidence of crimes? OIG also investigates administrative misconduct; there is a page of reports on that subject: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/type/investigation

We're sure, because that's the definition of a warrant. OIG can investigate to its heart's content, but a judge can't issue a warrant for an OIG investigation into administrative misconduct.

[ThePublius]

The whole thing smells. I watched a video of the agents detaining Eastman and taking his phone. They treated him like a common criminal. They didn't produce the warrant at Eastman's request until after they took his phone off him. The attachment with the things to be searched for was missing. An illegal search and seizure, in my opinion.

[bernard11]

He is a common criminal - worse, actually.

[Michael P]

Your are confusing him with gun and drug felon Hunter Biden.

[ThePublius]

How so?

[bernard11]

Sedition.

[ThePublius]

Oh, maybe I missed that. Has he been charged with sedition?

[bernard11]

No. He's a suspect, under investigation. Part of which apparently involves this warrant.

Isn't that how common criminals are treated?

[ThePublius]

He's not a common criminal. That's ridiculous.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Why should the authorities treat the very uncommon criminal John Eastman differenty from a less common criminal? Whatever procedures are followed when executing a search warrant for articles in possession of a normal suspected criminal are the procedures that should have been followed when serving a warrant on an uncommon serial jackass.

" The attachment with the things to be searched for was missing. An illegal search and seizure, in my opinion."

Illegal because the paperwork was missing an attachment? Is that a fatal legal flaw when executing a warrant? Or are you claiming that the warrant itself was faulty for some reason?

[ThePublius]

"Illegal because the paperwork was missing an attachment? Is that a fatal legal flaw when executing a warrant? Or are you claiming that the warrant itself was faulty for some reason?"

It's an illegal search because one must be presented with a warrant which states the things the authorities are searching for, which wasn't done! What's so har about that?

[not guilty]

Attachment B-1 -- referenced in the body of the warrant -- particularized the items to be seized.

[David Nieporent]

Why should the authorities treat the very uncommon criminal John Eastman differenty from a less common criminal?

What ThePublius means is that Eastman is white. Trumpkins think the full force of law enforcement should come down on blacks and hispanics and immigrants.

[bernard11]

OK. So he's a criminal suspect.

[Noscitur a sociis]

They treated him like a common criminal.

What kind of criminal should they have treated him like?

The attachment with the things to be searched for was missing.

The Ninth Circuit dealt with this exact issue a couple of weeks ago. It's not the Tenth, but it doesn't seem promising for Prof.(?) Eastman.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The case is US v. Manaku, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/06/14/20-10069.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

A disgusting ruling: A rule that carries no consequences when violated is no rule at all. The exact reason suppression of evidence is a thing.

[not guilty]

"They didn't produce the warrant at Eastman's request until after they took his phone off him. The attachment with the things to be searched for was missing. An illegal search and seizure, in my opinion."

Not true. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure imposes a requirement that the executing officer must present a copy of the warrant before conducting his search. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 98-99 (2006). The attachment particularizing the things to be seized was referenced in the warrant and appears in Eastman's filing, labeled Attachment B-1.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Literally nothing will happen to the criminal Federals engaged in this partisan oppression.

Which is terrifying because we all know they are going to target every Trump supporter next.

There is only one thing more evil and vile than a Democrat and that's a Democrat with institutional power.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty....I am not diving into the politics part. The part that troubles me is the warrant application. If the shoe were on the other foot, I don't think I would feel good about the Republican DOJ obtaining warrants to confiscate smartphones of unofficial (in the sense they were not confirmed by the Senate) Democrat attorney advisors to a sitting POTUS.

Any POTUS has involvement in rather unsavory crap as a part of the job. Just consider who they have to do business with around the world (some very bad people).

The non-partisan way I would say it: I am uneasy with the precedent being established here by the DOJ. I am not sure what the DOJ did is wrong, but I do think it deserves a long look.

[bernard11]

I don't think you can say much without knowing the basis for the warrant.

And Garland has been extremely cautious about all the Trump stuff - to a fault some say - so maybe DOJ deserves the benefit of the doubt here until you know more.

[Brett Bellmore]

If accurately described, the warrant does sound to be over-broad.

"Eastman said he did not see a search warrant until after his phone was seized. The warrant allowed for the seizure of “any electronic or digital device” and “all information in such devices,” according to Eastman’s court motion on Monday."

I have to say I find the all too common practice of not allowing the target of a warrant to read it before the search and seizure rather dubious. The presentation of the warrant is what tells you the action is lawful, after all, and originally I believe you'd have actually been entitled to treat the officer conducting the search as a criminal if he didn't bother showing you the warrant.

[Estragon]

Did you actually read Eastman’s motion or just a summary? I’m almost certain based on this comment I know the answer

[Brett Bellmore]

I provided a literal link to what I read. You don't like, "If accurately described"?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"I believe you'd have actually been entitled to treat the officer conducting the search as a criminal if he didn't bother showing you the warrant."

If you are suggesting that Eastman could have legally resisted in some physical way, you're nuts. If someone with a gun and a badge who you know is a law enforcement officer uses necessary force to complete the task at hand and you resist, you are going to lose every time. You have no right of self defense against a law enforcement officer using reasonable physical force against you.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm suggesting that, around the time of the founding, if an officer of the law had shown up at your home to break in and take your property, without presenting a warrant, yes, you could treat him as anybody else would be treated.

Not today, of course, because the government has opened up a vast gulf between the rights of mere citizens, and the government's own functionaries. You might say the pigs have become more equal than the other animals...

But, yes, back then, the purpose of presenting the warrant was that the person you were going to search would be on legal notice that you were actually entitled to do the search, and that they had to let you. And absent that, they could treat you as they would anybody else accosting you and attempting to forcibly take your property.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Pardon me for thinking that we were exchanging about relevant issues, not some fantasies about what policing might have been like before there were police forces.

"absent that, they could treat you as they would anybody else accosting you and attempting to forcibly take your property."

Perhaps you could provide some reference which you purport to support that assertion but would probably not support it at all.

[not guilty]

Brett, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure imposes a requirement that the executing officer must present a copy of the warrant before conducting his search. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 98-99 (2006).

[StellaLink_the dog]

Yes, but that is a citation less than 200 years old so it doesn't reflect a true understanding of constitutional law.

[Blackstone]

The fourth amendment requires the object of the search to be stated when asking a magistrate for a warrant. The person executing the warrant has no duty to tell the person being subjected to the search anything at all. IOW he don't need no stinking badge. Now, all you have to do to be aware of this is read the amendment. Since you got this wrong, when I apply your analysis of Ms. Hutchinson to your own petard, I must dismiss everything you say. Sounds about right.

[Commenter_XY]

They have it (benefit of the doubt) = I am uneasy with the precedent being established here by the DOJ. I am not sure what the DOJ did is wrong, but I do think it deserves a long look.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"If the shoe were on the other foot, I don't think I would feel good about the Republican DOJ obtaining warrants to confiscate smartphones of unofficial (in the sense they were not confirmed by the Senate) Democrat attorney advisors to a sitting POTUS. "

Trump is not a "sitting POTUS" though I don't know if that's important to your argument.

As to seizing (i before e) a cellphone of a private attorney who may or may not have been a president's attorney: if there were credible allegations (i.e. with probable cause) that the attorney had been engaged in a criminal enterprise with either the president or other parties and probable cause that evidence could be found on the cell phone, then hell yes -- sieze that puppy. Regardeless of political affiliation.

[not guilty]

It is noteworthy that, per Attachment B-1, the investigating team will not review the contents of the phone until further court order. This precaution is appropriate.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"It is noteworthy ..."
Yes. When I read that it seemed to me that precautions were being taken to insure that privileged information would be protected. -- or at least that the issuance of the warrant contemplated the idea that it would be protected. If there is probable cause that evidence of a crime is all mixed up in the same container with informatiion which is privileged, it seems obvious that there must be a method to filter out that which is privileged. Eastman seems to think otherwise which, of course, makes me more certain of my conviction.

And Eastman. What's up with that cracker? And Flynn and Powell. If you read the resumes you'd think these were sane, intelligent, well educated people. What went wrong? Is it drugs?

[David Nieporent]

"Unsavory"? Unsavory is making nice with the Saudi government because they're a significant regional partner. Trying to overthrow the government is not unsavory; it's treasonous. At least in the colloquial sense of the word.

[AmosArch]

The whole nomenclature of liberals vs conservatives is stupid. How did we get stuck with this? Does anybody truly fight for or against something just because its different from how its been before or because its the same? Okay maybe alot of people do but isn't that a bit counterproductive?

Take this most recent brohaha over abortion. Technically aren't the so called liberals the conservatives in this fight? They want to conserve Roe v Wade. Sure they were liberals fighting for Roe v Wade a few decades before but why draw the line here? If you go even further back prohibitions against infanticide and abortion are kind of a recent thing. So wouldn't that make the so called conservatives the true progressives in this area?

Take American style gun rights. An individual right to self defense and a weapon that cannot be easily revoked or used only at pleasure and purpose of authorities is in a way sort of a novel concept in a world where the king/state automatically monopolized force. Are the people trying to take us back to the time where the rulers have all the power and monopoly on force really the liberals, pushing for the 'new' way of doing things in this case?

[John F. Carr]

In the past few decades the people have sorted themselves into two groups, each with strongly correlated political views. It's not like the 1970s and 1980s when conservatives in the South had to run as Democrats to win and the moral majority had not yet installed anti-abortion as a plank of the Republican platform.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" In the past few decades the people have sorted themselves into two groups "

This is true.

It's reason vs. superstition

science vs. dogma

tolerance vs. bigotry

education vs. ignorance

inclusiveness vs. insularity

progress vs. backwardness

modern, successful communities vs. can't-keep-up rural and southern stretches

strong teaching and research institutions vs. backwater religious schooling

modernity vs. illusory "good old days"

[David Nieporent]

the moral majority had not yet installed anti-abortion as a plank of the Republican platform.

It's been a plank in every platform since Roe was decided. Here's 1976:

The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.

It was much more sensitive then that it is now; it didn't treat the other side as evil, and acknowledged that there was legitimate disagreement on the issue. But it was unequivocally pro-life.

[Brett Bellmore]

The 'liberals' got that name out of a deliberate strategy on the part of the left of stealing their opponents' name because it had a better reputation. Look up the Fabian society, whose emblem is a wolf wearing a sheep's skin. The people we call 'liberals' today are actually the intellectual descendants of Fabian socialists.

That's why actual liberals today have to call themselves "classical liberals" or "libertarians". The term "liberal" got stolen from them.

[bernard11]

All a conspiracy.

You're deranged.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it literally was a conspiracy, by an organization which literally had as its emblem a wolf wearing a sheep skin. Historical fact that you can't wish away by saying "Conspiracy!"

Modern 'liberals' are the ideological descendants of Fabian socialists, who did to the actual liberals what living constitutionalists are currently at work doing to originalism.

[Sarcastr0]

The best conspiracies have an unsubtle emblem.

Modern 'liberals' are the ideological descendants of Fabian socialists
By that outcome-oriented guilt by association modern conservatives are the descendants of American slavers.

It's all very silly - meet people where they live, not based on some historical villain you've decided was totally their ancestor (and whose conspiracy continues to today? What is this, Assassins' Creed?)

[bernard11]

I read your link, Brett.

I didn't see anything about the Fabians conspiring to steal the labl "liberal."

As to the policies they advocated, some seem fine, some not. The imperialism is offputting, among other things.

Your last paragraph is hysterical babbling.

[StellaLink_the dog]

I didn't see anything about the Fabians conspiring to steal the labl "liberal."

It's no longer surprising to me to find that one of Brett's links does not support the point he is asserting. Not unlike many of his fellow deranged fools here, it's true.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose I would have to assume you don't know what a wolf in sheep's clothing refers to.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"I suppose I would have to assume you don't know what a wolf in sheep's clothing refers to."

You may assume any damned fool thing you desire, and you frequently do.

Point 1: The citation you offered does not support your assertion that the Fabians conspired to steal the label "liberal."

Point 2: You have offered neither evidence nor argument supporting your assertion that "Modern 'liberals' are the ideological descendants of Fabian socialists."

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, it literally was a conspiracy, by an organization which literally had as its emblem a wolf wearing a sheep skin.

What does the Fabian Society have to do with the United States?

[Ben_]

That’s a good reason to stop using those labels.

Remember when liberals wanted to help poor and working class people (with money other people earned)? Now they want to punish poor and working class people for climate sins. And every poor and working class person who wanted to earn a living in 2020-2021 was called a Grandma killer.

[Sarcastr0]

And also wanted a bigger stimulus to help those folks. But then evil libs are a land of contrasts!

[Ed Grinberg]

The whole nomenclature of liberals vs conservatives is stupid. How did we get stuck with this?

I'll give you a better one:
(I copied the following from Wikipedia article "red states and blue states," under the heading "color representation swap from original meaning." Since then, the article has been changed.)
The modern association of colors in American politics lies contrary to the long-standing conventions of political color in most other countries whereby red symbols (such as the red flag or red star) are associated with left-wing politics and right-wing movements often choose blue as a contrasting color. Indeed, until the 1980s, Democrats were often represented by red and Republicans by blue. ... [NBC] journalist Tim Russert coined these terms [i.e., referred to Democrat states as "blue" and Republican states as "red"] during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election. That was not the first election during which the news media used colored maps to depict voter preferences in the various states, but it was the first time a standard color scheme took hold; the colors were often reversed or different colors used before the 1996 election.

[apedad]

Man eating Big Mac at Texas checkpoint was suspicious. Feds say he was smuggling meth

A man took his first bite of what appeared to be a McDonald’s Big Mac while at a Texas Border Patrol checkpoint — and at least one agent found that odd, according to federal authorities. That’s because the nearest McDonald’s was more than 60 miles south of the Falfurrias Border Patrol Station. “It was unusual that someone would wait until the exact moment they got to the checkpoint to start eating,” officials said in a criminal complaint.

The “hungry Texan” was found to be smuggling meth that July 2020 day, authorities say, and now he is headed to prison. Yen-Tsun Huang, a Taiwan citizen who was living in Austin, was sentenced to 7.5 years in federal prison followed by three years of supervised release, according to a June 27 news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Texas.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article262970208.html

This is an example of JDLR; Just Doesn’t Look Right.

It’s a sense that law enforcement and military personnel develop to identify something in the surrounding area which seems out of place.

One instance I had of JDLR was when I was in Namibia in 1997 during a USAF mission.

We were driving through Windhoek (capital), and I noticed a pair of Namibian soldiers standing on a corner; then another pair at the next corner, then another, and it kept going – and only along our route.

We were in a van and I said, “Something’s going on,” and the van suddenly became quiet.

When we turned into the street where our hotel was, there were hundreds of soldiers surrounding our hotel.

Long story, short; an African president who had been exiled from the Rep. of Congo (not the Dem. Rep. of Congo), was also in our hotel.

[Bored Lawyer]

Do you think JDLR suffices to stop someone? (I know this was a checkpoint, I just mean in general.)

[apedad]

Nope!

I hate those stop-n-frisk approaches too.

[Ridgeway]

Isnt that what Terry was all about?

[apedad]

A Terry Stop requires law enforcement to have reasonable suspicion that would justify the stop.

Police must have "specific and articulable facts" that indicate the specific person to be stopped is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.

So it's not to be used an excuse to shake down "shady-looking" characters; although we all know this tactic has been abused.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Reasonable suspicion: "Police must have "specific and articulable facts" that indicate the specific person to be stopped is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity."

One might infer from Terry, et al, that police might need suspicion about an actual crime rather than JDLR and that "articulable" should mean that the police could actually articulate what the facts are and how those facts relate to some crime or another. But, it seems that in practice, police are never actually required to articulate anything, ever.

So, Terry has two sides. One is that police can conduct investigations when they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. The opposite is that they can't detain and investigate in cases of JDLR. But today, more than 50 years after Terry, it seems, when police violate the reasonable suspicion standard, and everybody knows they have, police get qualified immunity. The stupid cop defense prevails.

[David Nieporent]

Do you think JDLR suffices to stop someone?

Unfortunately, the courts essentially do. Terry was an attempt to rein that in, but was essentially a failure.

[not guilty]

In light of Dobbs, I have a question for those who claim that life begins at the moment of fertilization. What do you contend that states should now do about in vitro fertilization, which typically involves creation of more embryos than will be successfully implanted? By one estimate, as many as 1.4 million embryos remain frozen at U.S. fertility clinics. https://reason.com/2022/06/27/the-supreme-courts-dobbs-decision-threatens-assisted-reproduction/?utm_medium=email

Would destruction of these embryos be criminalized as the taking of a human life? If not, then why not? What penalty should attach?

[ThePublius]

Life doesn't begin or end at any of these points, it's continuous. The question is when does personhood begin, when does this reproduction process produce a person, both in a moral sense, and perhaps more on point here, in a constitutional sense? The latter is one of the big problems we've struggled with over the years. We should draw some line at the federal level, come up with an objective measure of some point in gestation and declare that the demarkation of personhood for constitutional, legal reasons, as the law of the land. No abortions after that point, killing that entity is manslaughter or murder, as the case may be, and so on. An objective measure of a gestating human at "quickening" might be appropriate.

[DaveM]

You write,

"Life doesn't begin or end at any of these points, it's continuous ... An objective measure of a gestating human at "quickening" might be appropriate."

You can't make a contradiction into anything other than what it is. If the first statement is true, then there cannot be ANY point along the lifecycle in which it is more "appropriate" to draw a line. Whether one can objectively identify such a point is quite irrelevant. It's the pointing itself that is the contradiction.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's right: There's no point in the reproductive cycle that isn't alive. Things are varying along other metrics, but that's a constant. Obviously you're drawing a legal bright line on top of a continuous process. Any point you pick is going to be arbitrary.

[ThePublius]

It's no contradiction. Sperm is alive. Eggs are alive. No one would seriously argue that male masturbation is murder, and so on.

I'm just saying, from a legal perspective, choose an objectively measurable point in the reproductive cycle where the entity becomes a person in a legal sense.

[Don Nico]

But neither sperm not eggs nor your red blood cells are human beings in the same sense that a zygote or embryo are.

[DaveM]

IVF is an abominable practice for exactly the reason you describe. The industry rarely likes to draw attention to the reason why there are so many embryos: it's because the success rate of fertilization is worse than a coin-toss, even among the young and healthy.

So you have to create millions of human embryos literally with the knowledge that you will discard most of them. How many embryos will you have to kill to finally luck into one that lives?

"Pro-life" it isn't. It's a truly diabolical practice.

[John F. Carr]

Natural reproduction discards over a third of fertilized eggs. Some fail to grow to a blastocyst, some fail to implant in the uterus, some miscarry.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Natural reproduction discards over a third of fertilized eggs. Some fail to grow to a blastocyst, some fail to implant in the uterus, some miscarry."

We all die eventually, so what?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"We all die eventually, so what?"

If we should not care about these precious babies, why the fanaticism among the Save the Zygote crowd?

[Brett Bellmore]

The failure rate in IVF, once you account for the fact that people don't resort to it unless they already have some reproductive problems, isn't really any worse than for natural fertilization.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be clear, the usual reason for producing so many fertilized eggs in IVF is that the whole procedure is kind of expensive, and doing more than one at a time is cheap once you're doing it, so if the family decides to have another kid they can get another one defrosted and implanted much cheaper than the first.

[StellaLink_the dog]

You seem to be rather cavalier about the fates of those unborn babies.

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem to be rather unclear about my not being the cardboard cutout you'd like me to be.

[StellaLink_the dog]

If I have unjustifiably mixed you up with the Save the Zygote loonies I offer in my defense that you all wear the same shoes.

[Moderation4ever]

I would note that the practice of fertilizing a number of eggs is more common in the US. Because IVF is not as well addressed by our healthcare systems it is better to error on the side of too many embryos. I have heard that Europeans have better access to IVF services and so make less embryos and then just go back repeating the procedure if the first try fails.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a cost saving measure for subsequent attempts. Maybe the subsidized system in Europe is less motivated to save on expense.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you are correct. However, if a person objects to the creation of a large number of embryos that face destruction, then a more expensive procedure is necessitated.

[Brett Bellmore]

We looked at this after my prostate surgery, as we didn't want to have only one child. Couldn't afford it, but if I could have, I don't think I'd have wanted to undergo repeated testicular biopsies. Once would have been enough, thanks. The procedure for the women to obtain the eggs is somewhat intrusive, too, I believe.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" IVF is an abominable practice "

Do you expect this to be persuasive with anyone whose jaw doesn't drag along the ground?

[Don Nico]

You have a fair question.
One that needs settling in legislation.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"One that needs settling in legislation."

Why? Let's just wait for some crank DA in Texas to arrest someone and then let Ginni decide?

[not guilty]

My comment posed questions for those who claim that human life begins at the moment of fertilization. Would destruction of these embryos be criminalized as the taking of a human life? If not, then why not? What penalty should attach?

No one yet has addressed these questions in any responsive way.

[DaveM]

The intentional taking -- or "discarding" -- of an innocent human life without cause most certainly would be considered a crime in a just and good society. It needs no other justification than the most basic application of the principle of fairness.

Every single person goes through the stage of embryonic development. Every. Single. One. You were at one point in an embryonic stage. I was, too. If you had the legal privilege of having your life preserved at that time, then other people deserve the same. That's simple fairness.

As a practical matter, we do not live in a just society at the moment, and our laws sadly reflect that fact. So at the moment, the battle over the basic principle of fairness regarding life is being fought far, far upstream of the law. We need to convince first, and then people will want to make the laws fair all on their own.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I am now convinced that if the Justice Department concludes it more likely than not that Trump committed crimes, he should be prosecuted, even if the Department thinks conviction is unlikely. Reason for that is the record of criminality looks firmly enough established that anyone else would get prosecuted.

A concern is that the Justice Department will reckon likelihood of nullification by a pro-Trump juror into the prosecution decision, and forego prosecution for a reason that would not apply alike to others. Such a decision would leave the nation as wounded as it is now, without means in sight to heal.

Aside from all the usual reasons to prosecute crimes, the benefit of prosecution in Trump's case is that striking public disagreement about facts has muddled the public record, divided the nation dangerously, and now threatens to preclude agreement on a historical record. That has happened in part because of willful blindness on both sides, and especially because few partisan observers now agree that its opponents get information from reliable sources.

Trump's supporters seem to be boycotting the hearings. Trump's opponents are too readily convinced by a congressional process without usual legal safeguards; they suppress critical judgments about testimony they welcome.

The hearings have shown that the American people are somewhat attentive, and that information can move the political needle— possibly move it back in the direction of more-general public agreement (or at least acceptance), which would be a blessing. Problem is, too many Americans deliberately avoid information from sources which they think biased, and have thus tuned out.

A trial for Trump is the appropriate remedy. Everyone, for the first time since Trump began campaigning, would be riveted to the same information source. Trump would unambiguously be seen to get full due process. Nullification would still loom as a possibility, but even if it happened, despite evidence of Trump's guilt, the record would be clear enough to promote agreement among the public on one set of facts.

That could go a long way toward making a post-Trump aftermath less dangerous to the nation. The current state of the record, overflowing with apparent evidence of guilt, but short of critical safeguards, would make a decision to forego a trial the maximally dangerous choice for the nation.

[DaveM]

I don't think this will ever be allowed to happen. An actual trial, conducted to the same adversarial standards we use to adjudicate criminal charges? That completely doesn't work to the advantage of the party in power. The party in power is much better served with a political show where they don't have to contend with any standards other than what the public will allow.

This is entirely non-partisan, by the way. If the R's were the party in power and Hillary Clinton was in the cross-hairs, one shouldn't imagine for even a second that they'd want a normal, open process either.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

People like Stephen genuinely believe the J6 Commission is on the up & up.

[Moderation4ever]

Well, a trial would settle that would it not?

[Bored Lawyer]

Not according to SL. He stated that conviction is unlikely.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not quite what I said.

[Bored Lawyer]

"even if the Department thinks conviction is unlikely."

Yeah, it's what you said. Do you really think that no one can just scroll up and read what you wrote?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You might be able to read the words, but you clearly don’t comprehend them.

Try again, idiot.

This time pay attention to the conditional.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nah. I think the bi-partisan J6 Commission is on a mission. It is their 100% Republican slate of witnesses which I think is on the up & up.

[Bob from Ohio]

"even if the Department thinks conviction is unlikely"

Sure, conduct the most controversial and risky prosecution in US history when you doubt you can win!

Solid commentary!

[Bored Lawyer]

"I am now convinced that if the Justice Department concludes it more likely than not that Trump committed crimes, he should be prosecuted, even if the Department thinks conviction is unlikely. Reason for that is the record of criminality looks firmly enough established that anyone else would get prosecuted."

To paraphrase James Comey, no prosecutor would EVER press a case like this, and I don't think the ethical rules allow it. If you don't think you can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you should not bring the case.

[Don Nico]

"I don't think the ethical rules allow it."
On what basis? Really? because you think jury nullification would prevent a conviction?
Let the judge declare a hung jury and set a retrial.
Do so into perpetuity if need be.
America deserves an up or down verdict

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bored Lawyer — What if you think you can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but you would not get a conviction anyway? That is the situation I worry may daunt the Justice Department.

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't know the ethical parameters of that. But it is a waste of time, IMO. Criminal trials are brought to get convictions, not to showcase evidence.

[Bored Lawyer]

And BTW, the case would likely be prosecuted in DC. So how many die-hard Trump supporters would you find in the jury pool, anyway?

(Interesting question. Should such a case be brought to trial, would it be allowed to ask potential jurors whom they voted for in the last presidential election?)

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Interesting question. Should such a case be brought to trial, would it be allowed to ask potential jurors whom they voted for in the last presidential election?"
To me it would obviously not be permitted. Seems that nobody ever should be required to divulge who they voted for. And if it were permitted, what would it tell you? Surely you can't assume that someone couldn't properly perform as a juror just because of voting for DillDon.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The principles of federal prosecution set out in Justice Manual § 9-27.220 indicate that this is not a barrier to prosecution:

Where the law and the facts create a sound, prosecutable case, the the likelihood of an acquittal due to unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his/her cause is not a factor prohibiting prosecution. For example, in a civil rights case or a case involving an extremely popular political figure, it might be clear that the evidence of guilt—viewed objectively by an unbiased factfinder—would be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, yet the prosecutor might reasonably doubt, based on the circumstances, that the jury would convict. In such a case, despite his/her negative assessment of the likelihood of a guilty verdict (based on factors extraneous to an objective view of the law and the facts), the prosecutor may properly conclude that it is necessary and appropriate to commence or recommend prosecution and allow the criminal process to operate in accordance with the principles set forth here.

Note, however, that these same principles require the prosecutor to believe that the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not simply that it is "more likely than not that [the suspect] committed crimes".

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't think the ethical rules allow it.

The ethical rules typically prohibit a prosecution that is not supported by probable cause, and Stephen Lathrop did give as a premise that the case was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. However, initiating prosecution based only on a preponderance of the evidence (much less mere probable cause) would violate DOJ's internal standards for prosecution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, I did sort of say that. But I modified it right after with this:

Reason for that is the record of criminality looks firmly enough established that anyone else would get prosecuted.

[Don Nico]

"A concern is that the Justice Department will reckon likelihood of nullification by a pro-Trump juror into the prosecution decision, and forego prosecution for a reason that would not apply alike to others. Such a decision would leave the nation as wounded as it is now, without means in sight to heal. "

That is a bogus reason not to prosecute. It basically says the the magnitude of remaining support for Trump places him above the law.

[bernard11]

I agree it's a bogus reason, but there are plenty of Trump supporters who would do just that. Some of them comment here.

Trump was right with his 5th Avenue remark.

[Don Nico]

So what bernard?
I'd say that is all the more reason to indict the Orange clown on multiple separate counts and NOT combine into a single case.

[Don Nico]

I do agree with your conclusion:
"A trial for Trump is the appropriate remedy. Everyone, for the first time since Trump began campaigning, would be riveted to the same information source. "

[Noscitur a sociis]

Everyone, for the first time since Trump began campaigning, would be riveted to the same information source.

How do you figure? Partisans got their own spin during both impeachment trials and the current committee hearings, and at least in those cases it was possible for people to watch the actual proceedings if they wanted to.

Trump would unambiguously be seen to get full due process.

I you think that either camp would accept an adverse result without complaining that the affair was rigged, I think you haven't been paying very much attention to the last five years.

[David Nieporent]

Right; we already saw that with Sussman, and Stone, and other similar prosecutions: after the result doesn't come out the way Trumpkins want, they start digging into the jurors to come up with some reason why it was unfair.

[not guilty]

The possibility of nullification is part of the process that an accused person is due (although jury argument or instruction as to nullification is not). Here the possibility of a unanimous not guilty verdict of Trump by a District of Columbia jury is likely infinitesimal. If the jury were unable to reach a verdict because of one or more holdouts, a second trial would be permissible.

[David Nieporent]

I am now convinced that if the Justice Department concludes it more likely than not that Trump committed crimes, he should be prosecuted, even if the Department thinks conviction is unlikely.

Problem is, if he's acquitted, that will embolden him and his fascist movement. I want him prosecuted — I was opposed to it before the J6 investigation — but only if there's a decent chance at conviction.

[apedad]

Company says truck with dozens of dead people inside was “cloned,” according to report

At his daily press conference, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador expressed condolences to the families of those who died and said his government will be investigating the deaths of 22 Mexican citizens and helping their families return their bodies home.

“This is bitter proof that we must continue to insist on supporting people so that they do not have to leave their villages to look for a life on the other side of the border,” López Obrador said.

In a tweet, Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei called for tougher criminal penalties for human smugglers: “It is inexcusable that innocent lives continue to be lost to migrant smuggling! My condolences to the families of the deceased in Texas.”

https://www.kwtx.com/2022/06/28/company-says-truck-with-dozens-dead-people-inside-was-cloned-according-report/

It’s good to see the originating countries address this situation since illegal immigration on our southern border is NOT simply a US problem.

If anything, illegal immigration is the symptom and the problem really lies in Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador, etc.

That’s why the “Build the Wall,” people are stupid; it’s addressing the symptom, not the problem.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Illegal immigration has a supply and demand issue. The supply side is on the Mexico/Guatemala side. But the demand issue is on the US side.

One of the issues is, the lack of enforcing the law on the demand side leads to more demand. It means there's much less risk of being deported, so more potential gain, so more illegal immigrants come.

Many of these illegal immigrants are paying tens of thousands of dollars to be brought to the US. If they did that, but then immediately got deported back to Guatemala, many wouldn't do it again. And that would trickle down to the others. It wouldn't be worth it.

[apedad]

So part of us want (need?) immigrants and part of us don't want immigrants.

Sounds like we have a problem.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Some people make a very nice profit off of illegal immigrants. Generally speaking, they work cheaper than Americans. So, the owners of the businesses get to keep the money they don't pay out in extra wages

[apedad]

So some of us ARE the problem.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, look who is making a profit or benefit. And look who is supporting lax immigration enforcement. The two are often the same

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you intentionally conflating illegal aliens with lawful immigrants?

The only people who desire illegal aliens are those who want to exploit them for labor or political power.

[Michael P]

That's not entirely true. As Milton Friedman said:

Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"The only people who desire illegal aliens are those who want to exploit them "

Read the Ryan Lizza article in Esquire that got Devin Nunes choaking on his own panties. In many parts of our country the dairy industry would collapse if it were not for the labor ot undocumented immigrants.

Here's an article about Wisconsin dairy farming and immigrant labor.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Oops. Here's the link
https://www.jsonline.com/in-depth/news/special-reports/dairy-crisis/2019/11/12/wisconsin-dairy-farms-rely-immigrant-workers-undocumented-laborers/2570288001/

[Brett Bellmore]

Or alternatively they could try paying enough that people who live here legally would take the jobs.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Or alternatively they could try paying enough that people who live here legally would take the jobs."

In a tight labor market, what wage would that be? Perhaps you could make that suggestion to Devin Nunes's family.

Then the question becomes, how much are you willing to pay for a pound of butter.

I think we should add economics to the plethora of disciplines about which you opine without education, informed intuition,or understanding.

[F.D. Wolf]

That’s why the “Build the Wall,” people are stupid; it’s addressing the symptom, not the problem.

Brilliant. People who lock their doors at night are likewise stupid because this does not address the underlying causes of criminal break-ins. A physician addresses both the cause and the symptoms of a malady.

Which country is in a best position to address the question, "Why do so many people want to leave Mexico?" Which country should the primary responsibility for addressing that question? The obvious answer is Mexico (or whichever country we are talking about). Nor is the underlying problem difficult to diagnose. In brief, the people of these countries elect corrupt, incompetent officials to rule over them. The solution is to stop doing it. And, frankly, the United States' allowing itself to act as a safety valve for these countries only exacerbates the problem, by allowing them to put off real efforts to fix their problems.

[Bob from Ohio]

"People who lock their doors at night are likewise stupid "

Hardening those cockpit doors is stupid. It only attacking a symptom of terrorism!

[StellaLink_the dog]

So, it seems, many here agree that it is both a supply and demand problem and that the supply side of the problem is exacerbated by economic (and other) conditions in the source countries. So, what does the US do about that? Over the years, aid has been given to these countries to try to change conditions so that fewer people will consider it necessary to come to the US without documentation. What did Trump want to do? Cut off the aid, of course. Undiagnosed Genius, indeed.

[apedad]

Ted Cruz tears into Sesame Street

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10961491/Ted-Cruz-tears-Sesame-Street-vaccinating-Elmo.html

Oh Teddy…

Why do you guys put up with him?

[Michael P]

Elmo represents preschool children. Where is the scientific evidence that the current COVID vaccines help preschool children?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well Big Pharma and their CDC patrons said so, we all know those are the people we should trust most with our lives.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Objection: Assuming facts not in evidence.

[Michael P]

What facts do you think I am assuming? In case you haven't noticed, this is not a courtroom, and so we are not obliged to point to every bit of readily available information before referencing it.

[Don Nico]

There is none because the present vaccine does no longer stops transmission of the dominant variants and there is no evidence that it lessens effects of infections that do occur. The dominant variants are not pathogenic enough for compelling evidence,

[David Nieporent]

That's not true, but it's also the case that they're moving ahead with variant vaccinations, just as they do for the flu.

[Don Nico]

"That's not true,"
I exaggerated a bit but ~20% effectiveness is nearly worthless and if you look up the short article in the NEJM of June 22, you'll see that the authors have found that the present vaccine confers almost no immunity AND that is also true with respect to "natural immunity." All that means that vaccinating under 6 kids with the present vaccine is worthless.
As for whether the present vaccine lessens the severity of B.3, or B.4 infections, there is no compelling data or analysis because those variants are not sufficiently pathogenic.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This isn't the first time Ted Cruz has picked a fight with a cartoon character . . . when he isn't licking the boots of the guy who insulted his wife repeatedly.

No wonder the other senators hate him and Prof. Volokh adores him.

[Bored Lawyer]

So you think that children's programming should be pushing medical advice on children? That was Cruz's very legitimate point. The notion that he was picking a fight with a cartoon character is typical leftist dishonesty.
IOW, par for the course for you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Virus-flouting, antisocial, disaffected right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

Better Americans can't replace these obsolete losers fast enough.

[Bored Lawyer]

What a moron. My whole family was vaccinated. But I want to get my medical advice from doctors, not from a children's television show.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" But I want to get my medical advice from doctors "

Clinger/Trump doctors or real doctors?

[Aunt Teefah]

"So you think that children's programming should be pushing medical advice on children?"

Literally, yes. Encouraging children to do things that are good for their health ("wash your hands after using the restroom", "eat fruit and vegetables", "brush your teeth") have *always* been part of children's programming. You guys are fucking clowns.

[Bored Lawyer]

To quote Sesame Street, "one of these things is not like the other."

One of these things is regulated by the government, requires government approval to be administered to certain age groups, and may only be administered by a medical professional. And is not agreed to by the entire medical community, particularly for young children whose risk of the disease is minimal.

All of which are different from the examples you gave.

So, sorry, either you are immensely stupid for making that analogy, or you are a dishonest clown.

[Aunt Teefah]

And yet, they are all still pushing medical advice on children (i.e. doing the thing you objected to). None of your purported distinctions negate that fact. But hey, if you, Ted Cruz, and every other antivaxx dipshit want to try to cancel Elmo, go for it. I can think of no better use of your time.

[Bored Lawyer]

So I guess my first choice was correct, "immensely stupid."

The idea that "eat your veggies" is medical advice the same way that "get this vaccine is," is laughable.

How about next time Elmo says, "Hey kiddies, got the sniffles? Get some antibiotics. Last time I got the sniffles, I got me some amoxicillin and it cured my right fast."

[Sarcastr0]

They are the same. The fact that you're in a carnivore cult that believes a bunch of nonsense about veggies doesn't mean otherwise.

[Bored Lawyer]

You are babbling, again. Playing stupid on TV.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry that analogy went over your head.

[Bored Lawyer]

I got your analogy. It's inane to the point of babbling.

When tomatoes require FDA approval to be sold, then I will agree that Elmo should not be pushing eating tomatoes. Until then, any person who is neither a moron nor arguing in bad faith understands there is a difference.

[David Nieporent]

Unless your thought is that Elmo is pushing unapproved vaccines on children, your argument makes no sense. Yes, vaccines require approval. And once they've been approved, there's no meaningful difference between the situations.

[Don Nico]

Teefah. Washing your hands is not the same as getting an ineffective vaccine. I am afraid that in this instance, you are "the fucking clown."

[Aunt Teefah]

I never said they were the same, I said they are similar in one respect, that being that both were examples to children's TV encouraging kids to adopt healthy habits. By the way, encouraging kids to not be afraid to go the the doctor and get their shots has also long been standard fare in children's programming. The only difference is that your side has now lost its collective mind to anti-vaccine crankery.

[David Nieporent]

So you think that children's programming should be pushing medical advice on children?

Children's programming pushes all sorts of morals and messages on children. Why should vaccination be different?

[Bored Lawyer]

"Why do you guys put up with him?"

Because the people of Texas vote him in, and no one asks the rest of us.

Why do you guys put up with Elizabeth Warren or AOC?

[Sarcastr0]

I like Warren and AOC. Neither are perfect, but I'll stand by them.

You didn't defend Cruz. You didn't stand by him.

Think about that for a sec.

[Don Nico]

" but I'll stand by them"
Then you are standing with the lunatic fringe of the left.

[Sarcastr0]

Obviously, I disagree.

Plenty of cringey leftists I won't stand with, those two are not them.

[Ben_]

Why do we put up with Sesame Street? Why are you defending government funded propaganda aimed at children?

[Ed Grinberg]

Why are you defending government funded propaganda aimed at children?

He's a typical leftist / statist. What do you expect?!

[dwb68]

"vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Bruen"

- cant read that sentence enough times.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would have been more accurate if it had said, "further proceedings inconsistent with Bruen, whereupon we will repeat this again in greater detail."

[Doug Huffman]

Re-rereading John Scalzi’s *The Ghost Brigades* I found his Acknowledgment of apparently Professor Volokh’s praise.

[apedad]

(Cali) Attorney General Bonta Releases New Firearms Data to Increase Transparency and Information Sharing

California Attorney General today announced new and updated firearms data available through the California Department of Justice (DOJ)’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal. The dashboard is accessible though DOJ’s OpenJustice Data Platform. The announcement will improve transparency and information sharing for firearms-related data and includes broad enhancements to the platform to help the public access data on firearms in California, including information about the issuance of Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permits and Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs).

“Transparency is key to increasing public trust between law enforcement and the communities we serve,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As news of tragic mass shootings continue to dominate the news cycle, leaving many with feelings of fear and uncertainty, we must do everything we can to prevent gun violence. One of my continued priorities is to better provide information needed to help advance efforts that strengthen California’s commonsense gun laws. Today’s announcement puts power and information into the hands of our communities by helping them better understand the role and potential dangers of firearms within our state.”

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-releases-new-firearms-data-increase-transparency-and

I'm surprised Prof. Volokh hasn't blogged about this yet.

Unfortunately, the link to the database is down right now but one report sez the database shows, 'the person’s full name, race, home address, date of birth, and date their permit was issued,' as well as 'the type of permit issued, indicating if the permit holder is a member of law enforcement or a judge.'”

I don't think that's good policy to release race, home address, and date of birth (and yes, it seems spiteful).

[Michael P]

Some California officials are calling the earlier publication of the database a "data breach": https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-doj-data-breach-exposes-personal-information-concealed-carr-rcna35849

Apparently it included people who were also denied a carry permit: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/leak-of-california-concealed-carry-permit-data-is-larger-than-initially-reported/ar-AAZ0FPr

"We're from the government, and we're here to help!"

[apedad]

It's not a data breach or a leak.

It's an actual website.

Again, I don't think it's good policy to release that much PII, but it's NOT a breach or leak.

[Michael P]

It certainly looks like it was intentional, and https://calmatters.org/justice/criminal-justice/2022/06/california-concealed-carry/ claims at least parts were illegal to disclose (under state law, regarding PII of judges). I agree that "data breach" is not accurate, but "leak" might be, and I mentioned the "data breach" description because (a) it was from government officials in the state and (b) it does clearly convey the sense that someone violated a duty of confidentiality.

This was a huge failure by whoever chose to expose that database to the public, and at least one person's career should be ended by it.

[apedad]

IT IS INTENTIONAL AS IN THEY MADE A FREAKING WEBSITE AND THE AG MADE AN OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT .

See the link above.

How thick are you?

[Michael P]

To be clear, I think the improper release of that much PII is what looks intentional. Putting the database on the web site and writing the press release were obviously intentional, but neither of those are explicit that they wanted to release all that PII. It theoretically might have been "mere" gross incompetence and failure to carry out due diligence, but the one-sided history of similar leaks suggests more of a positive intention.

[Brett Bellmore]

Suggests? California's recent history of 'accidental' doxing of political enemies screams it at the top of their lungs.

I think it's long past the point where a court might find that it is deliberate.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think that's good policy to release race, home address, and date of birth (and yes, it seems spiteful).

Is it illegal? A violation of a constitutional right?

[agree it was done deliberately]

[Brett Bellmore]

It was illegal, yes, under state law.

[apedad]

The only law I can find is this:

(b) A state agency shall not distribute or sell any electronically collected personal information about users to any third party without prior written permission from the user, except as required to investigate possible violations of Section 502 of the Penal Code or as authorized under the Information Practices Act of 1977 (Title 1.8 (commencing with Section 1798) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code). Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prohibit a state agency from distributing electronically collected personal information to another state agency or to a public law enforcement organization in any case where the security of a network operated by a state agency and exposed directly to the internet has been, or is suspected of having been, breached.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=11015.5.&nodeTreePath=3.3.1.1.1&lawCode=GOV

[Don Nico]

Under ARTICLE 1. General [11000 - 11019.11] ( Article 1 added by Stats. 1945, Ch. 111. )
11019.9.

(a) Each state department and state agency shall enact and maintain a permanent privacy policy, in adherence with the Information Practices Act of 1977 (Title 1.8 (commencing with Section 1798) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code). Each state department and state agency shall conspicuously post its privacy policy on its Internet Web site.

(b) The privacy policy required by subdivision (a) shall include, but is not limited to, the following principles:
...
(3) Personal data shall not be disclosed, made available, or otherwise used for purposes other than those specified, except with the consent of the subject of the data, or as authorized by law or regulation.

[Don Nico]

Also, from UC Santa Cruz:
The State of California Information Practices Act of 1977 (Civil Code Section 1798 et seq.) requires that Personal Identity Information (PII) is appropriately protected and that affected individuals must be notified of any reasonable suspicion of a compromise of that protection.

The information released by Bonta is definitely PII

[Michael P]

To the extent that it is a state action that improperly and directly chills the exercise of a constitutional right, it's at least arguably unconstitutional.

[Don Nico]

"it's at least arguably unconstitutional."
I don't see how. Illegal yes, but unconstitutional, no

[Michael P]

The argument is by analogy to the way that government actions are unconstitutional if they intentionally chill the exercise of First Amendment rights. It's not established law with regard to the Second Amendment, but perhaps it should be.

[Ridgeway]

Not just spiteful, but really stupid and counterproductive. They literally give a roadmap to would-be thieves of (a) where to find guns to steal, and (b) where to find unarmed families to burgle or rob.

[Brett Bellmore]

From their perspective that's not actually counterproductive: Criminals with guns are an excuse to take guns away from the law abiding, which is the actual goal. Thus criminals taking guns from the law abiding is a double score, not counterproductive.

[Don Nico]

Bonta is an appointed political hack. His goal was to be spiteful and to release personal identity information (name plus birth date plus race) that would and should normally be protected under law.

[Voize of Reazon]

The California Firearm Violence Research Act authorizes the release of detailed data, including data sufficient to identify individuals, to a research center at UC Davis and potentially other vetted research organizations.

It may be that the intent was to combine the distribution of that data with anonymized statistics available to the public through the Firearms Dashboard Portal.

If the detailed data was exposed to the public as is suggested above, that might have just been a run of the mill screwup. It would explain why the site is still down today.

[dwb68]

I can only LOL at the shenanigans some blue state legislatures are trying with the CCW process. I don't think that they are getting good legal advice.

The opinion favorable cited a long like of first amendment cases, including Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969),
"1. A law subjecting the right of free expression in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it and exercise his First Amendment rights. Pp. 394 U. S. 150-151."

Are you listening? May ignore it. The majority practically dared states to put up burdensome standards so that they could shoot them down.

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, from the hardly lefty Marginal Revolution: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/06/more-guns-more-crime.html

The full title of the paper is “More Guns, More Unintended Consequences: The Effects of Right-to-Carry on Criminal Behavior and Policing in US Cities” and the authors are John J. Donohue, Samuel V. Cai, Matthew V. Bondy, and Philip J. Cook and here is the abstract:

We analyze a sample of 47 major US cities to illuminate the mechanisms that lead Right-to-Carry concealed handgun laws to increase crime. The altered behavior of permit holders, career criminals, and the police combine to generate 29 and 32 percent increases in firearm violent crime and firearm robbery respectively. The increasing firearm violence is facilitated by a massive 35 percent increase in gun theft (p=0.06), with further crime stimulus flowing from diminished police effectiveness, as reflected in a 13 percent decline in violent crime clearance rates (p=0.03). Any crime-inhibiting benefits from increased gun carrying are swamped by the crime-stimulating impacts.

[ThePublius]

I will read this paper, and seek intelligent commentary on it. But I will be shocked if it is so, given what I have read and observed for the last five or so decades.

[bernard11]

I will be shocked if it's not so.

[ThePublius]

Well, Vermont is hardly the murder capital of the U.S., and has no prohibition on carrying, not even a license regimen, and has been so forever. So there's that.

[dwb68]

But, statistics and modeling!!!

Oh wait, we left out the data that does not support out conclusion, just like the last time.

[bernard11]

we left out the data that does not support out conclusion, just like the last time.

You talking about John Lott?

[dwb68]

lol. progs blame the guns because they can't blame themselves or their constituents.

[bernard11]

One not very typical state doesn't prove a damn thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What's a "typical state" and how many would you say there are?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Fifty. It is their aggregate which is typical. Interesting fact. If you rank states by gun deaths, about the worst 10 are red states with lax gun regulations and high gun prevalence. The best 10 are blue states with lower gun prevalence and and stricter gun laws.

[Brett Bellmore]

But then if you look inside those states, the areas with the highest murder rates are cities run by Democrats. And, how's that happen when the murder rate is supposedly dictated by the state law?

[dwb68]

LMAO, another anti gun study with confirmation bias, another day that ends in Y.

I love how they shoehorn the Uvale police response in at the end to support their conclusion that RTC laws decrease police effectiveness. "Uvalde mass shooting of 2022 were examples of police reluctance to confront a teenage killer"

I mean, any good gun prohibitionist propaganda must mention mass shootings and blame RTC laws for them!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Martin paraphrased - “goddamn those civil rights I don’t like”.

Ask those authors to do a study the effects the fourth amendment on policing in the United States. As long as we’re trashing enumerated rights let’s be comprehensive.

[Martinned]

Do you somehow think such studies don't exist? If you're going to have stupid provisions in your constitution, I don't see why you'd object to someone studying exactly *how* stupid.

[Velvet Thunder]

That first sentence is disqualifying. They do not say that they analyzed the data to study the relationship between right-to-carry laws and crime rates. They openly declare that they started with a conclusion - "Right-to-Carry concealed handgun laws increase crime" - and then conducted a study to "illuminate the mechanisms" that support their preordained conclusion.

[Martinned]

That first sentence observes that in previous studies there was a positive correlation found. Facts have a well-known liberal bias, etc. I'm not sure why that would disqualify anyone from anything. Then again, American gun nuts actually prohibited the CDC from studying gun violence, so clearly they're not really interested in facts.

[Stephen Lathrop]

They intensely interested in facts. They want them suppressed.

[Don Nico]

Then BAFTA should have investigated.

[Don Nico]

"CDC from studying gun violence"
not exactly an infectious disease.

[Voize of Reazon]

Despite its name, the CDC has a mission broader than disease.

Under 42 USC §280b it is directed to "conduct [...] research relating to the causes, mechanisms, prevention, diagnosis, treatment of injuries, and rehabilitation from injuries" which they do through the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

The Dickey Amendment in 1996, a rider on an omnibus spending bill, provided that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control". The CDC reasoned that any study of the causes and prevention of gun-related injuries could be interpreted as violating that restriction, so they shut down all gun violence research.

19 years later Jay Dickey co-wrote a Washington Post article where he defended the prohibition of gun control advocacy but not the abandonment of all research, writing

Both of us now believe strongly that federal funding for research into gun-violence prevention should be dramatically increased. But the language accompanying this appropriation should mirror the language already in the law: “No funds shall be used to advocate or promote gun control.” This prohibition can help to reassure supporters of the Second Amendment that the CDC will use the money for important research and not for gun-control advocacy. However, it is also important for all to understand that this wording does not constitute an outright ban on federal gun-violence prevention research. It is critical that the appropriation contain enough money to let science thrive and help us determine what works.

That appropriation finally happened in 2020.

[David Nieporent]

Then again, American gun nuts actually prohibited the CDC from studying gun violence,

Why are you still repeating this lie? The CDC was never prohibited from studying gun violence. It should've been, since gun violence is crime, not disease, and thus outside its purview. But it wasn't.

[Ben_]

At worst — even if this study is somehow not worthless— gun rights are like the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th amendment rights in that regard. They all directly or indirectly enable criminals.

Boring.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I wonder what the universities and other moronic woke institutions are doing with all those women's products in men's restrooms given the shortage.

That right there is proof God exists and he has a sense of humor.

[apedad]

You spend time wondering about women's products?

Um...OK.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What's a "woman"?

[apedad]

Good question but you still wonder about their products.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I love how heteronormative these replies are.

It's your unconscious bias seeping through. We all know natural relationships and natural identities are the best and preferred.

Deep down, even Leftist morons.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What is the FBI doing in response to the terrorist attacks and vandalism on pregnancy clinics and churches across the country?

Senators appear to be saying ....not enough....

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/fbis-response-attacks-pregnancy-clinics-undergoes-scrutiny

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Of course they are doing next to nothing. What political advantage do the Democrats at the DOJ gain by stopping domestic terrorists targeting Christians and Conservatives?

[Ben_]

Giving the terrorists space and hoping for an active defense so they can arrest pro-lifers.

[SRG]

I just came across this case which shows how fucked up, indeed, evil, the criminal justice system is.

Marcus Jones is guilty of no crime, yet languishes in prison because courts can't agree on what the legal remedy is or whether he's exhausted his remedies. It seems his innocence is irrelevant.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-857.html

[Noscitur a sociis]

Marcus Jones is guilty of no crime

Can you elaborate? It seems profoundly obvious to me that he is extremely guilty of the crimes that he was charged with.

[ReaderY]

According to the cert petition he was convicted of possessing a gun while being a felon and lying about his status on the application.

This is a little different from crimes where the undelying conduct is itself inherently wrong. Possessing a gun and applying for a license is not inherently wrong. Only his status as a felon made it a crime.

So if he is correct that the underlying felony conduct simply wasn’t a crime, then he would be innocent.

Of course, he might have done a lot of other things that would make his story far less than sympathetic.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So if he is correct that the underlying felony conduct simply wasn’t a crime, then he would be innocent.

What, pray tell, the fuck are you talking about? He has five prior felonies, and he's not arguing that any of them are invalid.

Here is the actual substantive issue in this case:

Prior to 2019, every court of appeals to consider the issue had held that for purposes of the federal felon in possession law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the government had to prove that the defendant had actually been convicted of a crime punishable

[Noscitur a sociis]

[fucking Reason comment interface]

...of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year, but did not have to prove that the defendant knew about the prior conviction at the time of the gun possession, and that's how the jury in Jones's case was instructed.

In 2019, however, the Supreme Court held that the government <does need to prove that the defendant knew about the condition that disqualified them from gun ownership.

But that holding doesn't do much to help Jones, because he obviously knew that he had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year: he had been convicted of five felonies, he had actually served more than a year in prison, and he testified at trial that he knew he had been convicted of a felony. What's more, because they jury convicted of lying when he said he hadn't been convicted of a felony, they necessarily found beyond a reasonable doubt that he did indeed have the requisite knowledge.

Which is why I ask how someone arrives at the conclusion that "Marcus Jones is guilty of no crime".

[Commenter_XY]

West Virginia v. EPA

If SCOTUS decides in favor of WV, what are the practical implications that would arise from such a ruling?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, Cornell (Which I usually find a reliable source.) describes the issue before the Court as,

"Whether, in 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), an ancillary provision of the Clean Air Act, Congress constitutionally authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant rules — including those capable of reshaping the nation’s electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually any sector of the economy — without any limits on what the agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair impacts and energy requirements."

So I assume a ruling in favor of the state would put a halt to the EPA's efforts to treat CO2 as a pollutant they're allowed to regulate and prohibit the emission of, at least until Congress actually enacts something explicitly authorizing that.

About 45 minutes, we'll know.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This issue would be a great one with which Democrats could thank Joe Manchin for his service when they are in a position to legislate without his vote.

They could call the bill the "Let West Virginians Eat Their Goofy Red Hats Act."

No free swings, clingers.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I guess we find out, because the EPA lost.

[Ridgeway]

I do not think the issue is as broad as that. Mass v EPA decided that CO2 could be regulated as a pollutant, and I do not believe this case seeks to overrule that. Rather, the question is what limits there are on EPA's authority over power generators in the name of reducing CO2 emissions.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I guess you're right. The real issue here is whether they could regulate pollution by one sort of plant by saying, "Leave it idle and run a different sort of powerplant.", rather than, as the law says, just requiring that powerplant to use the best proven technology. So, narrower.

[ReaderY]

That wasn’t what the ruling was about. Tje issue was the EPA’s attempt to revulate power plants as a system rather than each plant individually. If it had imposed rules uniformly on each plant rather than some plants and not others, it might have been able to get its way.

It might be able to come up with rules consistent with the decision that regulate plants individually.

[David Nieporent]

So I assume a ruling in favor of the state would put a halt to the EPA's efforts to treat CO2 as a pollutant they're allowed to regulate

No. Wrong as always. It would forbid the particular remedy they had chosen.

[ReaderY]

The elephant in the White House -

The Jan 6 heatings have significant legal implication. And nobody on this blog is talking about them. What gives?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

#ConservativeCowardice
#Un-American

[Bored Lawyer]

What "legal implications" do they have?

Trump is a scoundrel, which I knew 25 years before these hearings. Until someone is indicted, I don't see the legal implications.

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe the plan is for the committee to eventually issue a conclusion that Trump was subject to Section 3 of the 14th amendment, and barred from holding any federal office. This would provide elections officials hostile to him a colorable excuse to keep him off the ballot, putting him at a disadvantage in any contested state where such officials were Democrats or NeverTrumper Republicans.

They might then put it to a vote of Congress as a whole, for a little more heft. But probably as a resolution, not subject to the presentiment clause, to avoid the claim that it was a bill of attainder.

[Ben_]

Helping to clear the way for 8 years of President DeSantis

[Voize of Reazon]

It isn't in the Democrats' self-interest to eliminate Trump's hold on the Republican party, they would be much better off if he stuck around to continue fragmenting the party from within. The fact that they are pursuing him past that point suggests to me that at least some of them are acting to heal the country, even if they get hurt in the process. Same goes for Liz Cheney.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, I think they've just become obsessive about him, he's their Orange Whale.

There's this whole dynamic going on with the left, and, yeah, to some extent on the right: The worse the foe you're fighting, the worse the tactics you can employ and still feel righteous. So there's an incentive to see the people you're opposing as monsters.

And then when you're aware you've done something questionable in fighting them, reassessing that becomes impossible. They MUST be monsters, or else you're in the wrong, and that is just inadmissible.

So you've got this positive feedback look operating: The worse they think Trump is, the more they can break the rules to fight him. But, the more they break the rules to fight him, the worse they have to think him to have a clean conscience. So the more they have to break the rules to fight him. It just goes around and around.

If they could have just have taken him down with the phony Steele dossier, it would have stopped there. If the FBI wiretapping had found something on him, it would have stopped there. If they could have taken him down over firing Comey, it would have stopped there. If they'd convicted him over the Ukraine call, it would have stopped there.

But every time they go after him, he skates free, so they escalate again, and see him as worse in order to justify the escalation.

Now they've broken a 230 year old precedent that the minority gets to pick their own committee members. What's next? Packing the Court? Using Section 3 to keep Republicans off the ballot? Assassinating Supreme court Justices?

The only thing certain is that they'll keep escalating, and every time around the loop they'll do worse, and insist Trump is worse.

[ReaderY]

Some of the most damning evidence in the Jan 6 hearings involves a witness recounting what somebody else said.

To what extent could this type of evidence be used in court? Is it all inadmissable hearsay? Does any of it come under any arguable exceptions to the hearsay rule?

[Brett Bellmore]

A witness recounting what somebody else said, where that somebody else denies they said it, concerning events everybody involved denies happened.

I'm pretty sure that this sort of 'evidence' could never be used in court, even attempting it might get somebody sanctioned.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Legislative hearings (not yet completed) and trials: How do they work?

[Moderation4ever]

While most of us take the idea of "hearsay" being excluded for evidence quite simply, it does appear to have exceptions. Most notably is the fact that it can be admissible if the other party had a reason not to admit what happened on direct cross examination. So as long as the directly involved party testifies and accept cross examination, the hearsay is rejected. If not, the hearsay can be accepted. The dilemma created here is a requirement to testify for a party that may wish not to testify.

[wreckinball]

Very Christine Blasey Ford like

[David Nieporent]

WTF are you talking about? Ford's story had plenty of issues, but she was recounting firsthand events that (allegedly) happened to her.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY — If it's Hutchinson recounting something she heard Trump say, is that hearsay? If it's Hutchinson recounting something a Secret Service agent told her, about what Trump did, I suppose that is hearsay. But I don't think that limo stuff, shocking though it is, has much to do with any criminal case. That Trump wanted folks with guns to go to the Capitol seems more relevant. Looks like there is no trouble proving that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If it's Hutchinson recounting something she heard Trump say, is that hearsay?"

Ah, yeah. "the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law." Literally, you say you heard it.

[Josh R]

It's not hearsay in support of the claim "Trump said Melania stormed the Capitol." It's hearsay in support of the claim "Melania stormed the Capitol."

[Bored Lawyer]

That's correct. Hearsay depends a lot on what you are trying to prove. Lots of lawyers and judges miss that.

[Bob from Ohio]

Brett, in a trial where Trump is a party, such a statement is admissible as from a "party opponent", an exception to the hearsay rule.

But if its secondhand [Trump told X who told me] is generally not allowed since X can be called to testify.

[Moderation4ever]

Better explanation than I would have but same idea, there are exceptions.

[Bored Lawyer]

As I learned it there are two levels -- (1) is it hearsay at all and (2) if it is, is there an exception. (1) depends on how you are trying to use the statement. (2) depends on a laundry list of exception set out in the federal rules.

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) defines hearsay:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Acc. to the Advisory Committee Notes: "If the significance of an offered statement lies solely in the fact that it was made, no issue is raised as to the truth of anything asserted, and the statement is not hearsay."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You’re so fucking ignorant Brett that I’m amazed your brain hasn’t suffocated you out of protest.

You’re getting basic high school civics wrong. You’re a goddamn moron.

[David Nieporent]

No, you complete moron, Brett. Hutchinson recounting what she heard Trump say is not hearsay. FRE 801(d). Please please please learn to stay in your lane, however small and limited it is. You know so so so little about anything, and yet you think you know so so much.

[bernard11]

Some of the most damning evidence in the Jan 6 hearings involves a witness recounting what somebody else said.

No, ReaderY. It's not "Some of the most damning evidence." Not close.

The RW has blown it way out of proportion, because it thinks it can gin up a BS refutation. They do this with the help of lots of gullible idiots like A.L. and others.

[ReaderY]

It’s rather sad how in the current climate, even a fairly mild-mannered attempt to open a general discussion question gets perceived, and slammed, as a hyper-partisan argument.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The current climate at this blog is pure partisan polemics.

The target audience is merely reacting predictably to the proprietor's daily lathering of his rubes.

[not guilty]

"To what extent could this type of evidence be used in court? Is it all inadmissable hearsay? Does any of it come under any arguable exceptions to the hearsay rule?"

Hearsay is an out of court declaration, offered in court to prove the matter asserted. A declaration of the accused, offered by the prosecution, is non-hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2). An example would be Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony that she overheard Trump's remark that the armed protestors were not there to hurt him, offered at a prosecution of Trump.

A declaration by a co-conspirator of the accused, made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, is non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Where facts regarding the existence or non-existence of a conspiracy are disputed, the offering party must prove the existence of the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 104(a) requires that the trial court determine the existence vel non of such conspiracy as a preliminary question concerning the admissibility of evidence. A co-conspirator's statements could themselves be probative of the existence of a conspiracy and the participation of both the defendant and the declarant in the conspiracy. A trial court may therefore examine the hearsay statements sought to be admitted as bearing on whether a conspiracy exists. Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987).

An utterance other than a declarative statement is not hearsay. For example, evidence of Trump directing the Secret Service to remove security magnetometers to let in people with weapons is non-hearsay.

A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) is hearsay, but it is admissible under Rule 803(3). Several other exceptions apply to admission of hearsay pursuant to Rules 803 and 804.

[David Nieporent]

To what extent could this type of evidence be used in court? Is it all inadmissable hearsay? Does any of it come under any arguable exceptions to the hearsay rule?

Almost all of it is not hearsay, as they're the statements of a party.

[Moderation4ever]

In another blow to representative democracy the Wisconsin Supreme yesterday decided that a member of a state board can remain on that board until their successor is confirmed by the Wisconsin Legislature. Because the Wisconsin Legislature is controlled by Republicans, they have chosen not to confirm the Democratic Governor's board appointments. This allows Republican to maintain seats on boards past their term and which they are not entitled to have. Another brick in the wall to authoritarianism.

https://madison.com/news/state-regional/wisconsin-court-conservative-holdover-can-stay-on-dnr-board/article_1806e5aa-5927-5bce-9ff9-6b972268fb2d.html

[Ben_]

Where court-approved actions by a majority of representatives of voters are called a "blow to representative democracy".

[Kazinski]

Seems like a problem with Wisconsin's law, a longstanding problem, the decision follows a precedent from 1964.

Seems to give the legislature a way to keep control of state boards when there is an opposing governor. But that doesn't seem anti-democratic, it seems like a democratic choice Wisconsin made.

[Moderation4ever]

What about the chose Wisconsin citizens made to pick a new governor? Wisconsin citizens chose Tony Evers as Governor and the legislature said no will just keep the power. This has been a Republican tactic of late. In Florida and North Dakota the people passed referendums and the Republican in charge just ignore them.

[Ben_]

What about the Wisconsin citizens who chose representatives?

Go ahead and complain about the propriety of some procedures. Pretending that democratically elected representatives delaying an action is "another blow to representative democracy" is exceedingly lame.

Not implementing referendums isn't against representative democracy either.

Your lame hyperbole made it so people didn’t listen to your concerns. Congrats.

[Ben_]

I read the article.

If you like "representative democracy" so much, why aren’t you pushing for hunting and chemical rules to be set in laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor? Instead you’re complaining about control of an unelected board — presumably because you think the unelected board will implement rules that the representative legislature would never pass.

[Nisiiko]

My open thoughts are that Kavanagh is proving to be a disaster. Remind me, why did the GOP go out of their way to protect his nomination?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because the tactic being used against him was so despicable, and they didn't know in advance he'd be something of a squish.

[John F. Carr]

And because replacing him would be a sign of weakness and would only encourage Democrats to throw more mud next time.

In a nicer town Clinton could have said "we made mistakes in Benghazi" and Republicans would have asked what resources she needed to do better in the future.

[ReaderY]

That’s the way things are done in countries that survive.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

America will survive. I expect it to thrive. We will continue to shrug off the stale, ugly conservatives who are a stain and drain on our society.

By replacement, mostly.

[Nisiiko]

Yeah, because a country filled with Somalis and Aztecs from Mexico will surely "thrive."

[David Nieporent]

Liberals complain that conservative justices are partisans who fully enact the wishes of the GOP. Conservatives whine that conservative justices aren't partisan enough because they don't always fully enact the wishes of the GOP.

Kavanaugh's job is not to rule how you'd like, Brett. Particularly since you know so little about the law or constitution.

[Joe41 2]

It looks like all the pending gun cases at the supreme Court got GVR back to the circuits.

Given its history, I think we can can expect the 9th circuit to delay upholding gun control challenges as long as possible in the hopes that supreme Court composition changes. This will create a circuit split with the other circuits that aren't as second amendment hostile.

[M L]

Why would the administration want to reverse the brilliant Remain in Mexico policy that was worked out with neighboring foreign nations?

The same reason that there was any need for the policy in the first place. It's because there are open borders zealots, intentionally sabotaging the immigration system, the border system, and the refugee/asylum system, for some bizarre agenda.

[Nisiiko]

They fill America with illiterate third worlders, against the will of the people, and then they use those illiterate third worlders and their equally retarded progeny gaining citizenship as an argument that "Americans want progressive policies, and you can't stop it."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like the Republicans with gullible religious kooks and deplorable West Virginia, Mississippi, Idaho, and South Carolina residents.

(Did I omit Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Wyoming, Alabama, Iowa, Nebraska, Louisiana, rural Texas, and a few other other knuckle-draggers? Sorry.)

[Sarcastr0]

Kick-ass telepathy. You and Brett should compare notes.

[Nisiiko]

You are a despicable liar.

[Don Nico]

Why no comments on Biden's call for a legislative fix to Dobbs?
It was the obvious solution. Yes, it involves the suspension of the filibuster. Certainly the unrestricted availability of abortifactent pills is withing Congressional Commerce Clause authority.
Segment that from abortion medical procedures in the bill if one is worried about severability.

[Bob from Ohio]

"suspension of the filibuster"

If you get 60 votes, you can modify the rule. They did this for the debt ceiling this year.

Why is this a good idea for pro-abortion people though? They now have to keep control of the senate and house and president forever. Which they won't of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

Once they get rid of the filibuster, they've gotten rid of it for everything, including Court packing.

Court packing lets them get away with passing unconstitutional laws.

Unconstitutional laws of the sort that would let them keep control of the Senate and House and Presidency forever.

[Nisiiko]

And then they could legalize 30 million illegal 85 IQ immigrants form the third world, give them immediate citizenship, and give them financial incentives to move to red states, and it's all over.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Majority support — especially in America’s educated, advanced, reasoning communities — is what is positioned to provide control of America’s political authorities. Republicans have been hanging on despite unpopular, low-quality ideas for some time, but that is destined to end. I hope the American mainstream hastens conservative irrelevance by diminishing the roles of voter suppression, gerrymandering, and structural amplification of backwater voices in our political system.

The Republican conduct during the current “dead clinger bounce” period seems likely to incline Democrats to treat Republicans harshly when democrats have the power to do so. I see little reason to delay the consequences of the victory of better ideas in the culture war.

[bernard11]

Bret,

It;s the Republicans who are trying to entrench themselves forever. Plain as day.

You are confessing.

[Nisiiko]

No, it's Democrats who are trying to entrench themselves by replacing the white population with illiterate third worlders.

The Democrats knew they couldn't win with their destructive ideas as long as the population was white, so they consciously decided, in 1965, to replace whites with mestizos, Africans, and other low IQ peasants.

[not guilty]

With 60 votes to cut off debate, a filibuster is defeated. Modification of the filibuster rule can be done by majority vote, as Senator Reid did in 2013 regarding confirmation of federal inferior court judges, and Senator McConnell did in 2017 regarding Supreme Court justices.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do know how "the nuclear option" works, right?

It takes a 2/3 vote to actually change the Senate's rules, as recorded in the rule book.

In the "nuclear" option, the Senate majority leader raises a point of order that is contrary to the rules. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on the rules as written. The majority leader then appeals this ruling, and it is overturned by a majority vote of those present.

The rules don't actually change, as such, they still read the way they did previously. The Senate has just voted to act as though they meant something different from what they actually say.

Quite the metaphor for the rot at the heart of our present federal government, when you get down to it. Why go through the formal procedure for changing the law, when you can just decide to lie about what the law means?

[Bored Lawyer]

Under current Commerce Clause jurisprudence, it is hard to see why such a law would not be Constitutional. Or the opposite, a nationwide ban on abortion, which the Republicans will push when they get into power.

Seems like federalism is an orphan.

One could argue that (a) abortion is murder; (b) murder traditionally is a matter for the states (with narrow exceptions) so (c) the matter of abortion should be left to the states. But I doubt either side will agree to that.

[Reason-able]

Eugene,

Could you please comment on what exactly you think Josh Blackman brings to the Volokh Conspiracy? To this long-time reader, many of his posts come across as pompous navel-gazing, and others read as outcome-oriented advocacy. Worse, they frequently contain unacknowledged factual errors. I fail to see what value Josh provides to what is otherwise a serious discussion of legal issues.

In ~12 years of reading The Volokh Conspiracy, this is the first time I have felt compelled to comment. Make of that what you wish.

[ Commenters: Yes, I can (and sometimes do) ignore JB's posts, but that is irrelevant - I'm interested in Eugene's thoughts. ]

[Papa Joe Hickbelly]

I concur. His posts seem to boil down to shameless plugs and advertising his work. I will say though, his posts are so outrageous and fringe that he probably brings readership.

[John F. Carr]

Did he used to be better? One of the local political writers used to be good at writing about waste, corruption, patronage, and all that but now he devotes most of his time taking mindless partisan shots at Sleepy Joe and other members of the evil party.

[MoreCurious]

I think I've identified the problem with your question. You wrote -- with a straight face I assume -- that the Volokh Conspiracy provides "serious discussion of legal issues." I have not found that to be true, at least not for many years. It is inevitable and entirely predictable that every discussion will quickly degenerate into name-calling and lunacy. It doesn't matter who the wrote the original post -- Blackman, Volokh, Kerr, etc. By the second or third response to the post, no chance remains that there will be room for informed adults to engage in rational conversation and debate. Heck, some responders are so out or touch with reality that they continually respond to their own inane posts, even though no one else ever does.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Kerr’s infrequent contributions provide serious legal content. The other Conspirators offer a steady, predictable, repetitive stream of partisan polemics in support of stale, ugly, unpopular political positions. The Conspiracy attracts the fans and generates the comments it deserves and desires. These clingers abandoned the modern American mainstream years ago. They are disaffected culture war losers flashing middle fingers at their betters, punctuated regularly by vile racial slurs.

[Sarcastr0]

On the one hand, the Conspiracy is not it's comments section.

On the other, the posts are getting more partisan too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If the Conspirators stoke an ugly comments section, the bigotry is part of the Conspiracy.

The bigotry around here is part of the Conspiracy.

[David Nieporent]

[ Commenters: Yes, I can (and sometimes do) ignore JB's posts, but that is irrelevant - I'm interested in Eugene's thoughts. ]

The problem with the response "just ignore his posts" — I know that wasn't what you were saying, but it's what lots of people say — is that his posts dominate the blog. They push other posts down — or entirely off — the front page, and once that happens those posts might as well have been trees falling in an empty forest.

[Papa Joe Hickbelly]

What's with Justice Thomas saying the vaccine is made with cells of aborted children?

[Bob from Ohio]

He didn't. He said the petitioners claimed it.

[Papa Joe Hickbelly]

Just read the quote. Why do you think he omitted that the religious objection was based upon petitioners' allegations as opposed to "facts?"

"Petitioners are 16 healthcare workers who served New York communities throughout the COVID–19 pandemic. They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children."

[Bob from Ohio]

"because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children" is why "THEY object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines"

[Ted Levy]

"EUGENE VOLOKH is the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA. Naturally, his posts here (like the opinions of the other bloggers) are his own, and not endorsed by any educational institution."

[CocoN8]

Here's a crazy, kooky, off-the-wall theory that I offer only half in jest:

What if the Supreme Court leaker was Alito himself? That he leaked the draft opinion to blunt the inevitable rage. Immediately after the leak, there was some rage, but it was blunted somewhat by the fact that the rage was directed against a draft opinion. But after the actual decision, the rage was still muted, probably because much of that rage had burned itself out; the idea that Roe was overturned was already old news and thus more difficult to get worked up about.

More serious question, though: would the protests and rage in the wake of Dobbs been worse had the leak not occurred? Had Dobbs come out of the blue, would the shock of it have been more intense? Or is it futile for me to be dealing in counterfactuals?

[ThePublius]

I think this is what happened. I think all 9 justices collaborated on leaking it, to soften the impact.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, right-wing
blog has operated for

ZERO (0) DAYS *

without using a vile racial slur
and has operated for

TWO (2) YEARS *

without imposing viewpoint-driven,
partisan, hypocritical censorship.

* so far as can be determined; it could be worse
** not counting ongoing censorship dictates regarding certain words and certain speakers

Carry on, libertarianish often libertarians!

[Estragon]

“The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

This statement, by the armed and fabulous representative from Colorado, is being presented as a bit fringe.

Question:

Does this view have six votes at SCOTUS?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Please don't refer to that uneducated bitch as "the" Representative from Colorado.

[Bob from Ohio]

"the armed and fabulous representative"

Only one from Colorado, so he's right.

"bitch"

Charming.

And not sexist at all.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I put the over-under on intersections with traffic lights in your town (not including the bypass entrance/exit) at 3.5.

I make the over-under on the number of smart, ambitious young people who have stayed in your town past high school graduation during the most recent decade at 1.5.

Lauren Boebert -- uneducated, bigoted, antisocial, superstitious, half-literate, obsolete -- would be a perfect fit for can't-keep-up Ohio.

[Sarcastr0]

Agreed - I don't like that word at all.

But what about what she said? Any thoughts on that?

[Bob from Ohio]

Its nonsense but she's just a backbencher. Plenty of dumb congress-critters in both parties.

Basically, congressional nutpicking.

[bernard11]

Not any the Bellmore standard.

Let any Democrat anywhere say something stupid and it's immediately ascribed to "the Left" and determined to be part of a plot against the republic.

Sauce for the goose.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Does this view have six votes at SCOTUS?"

Has anyone asked the handmaiden lately?

In a conservative "safe space" for the faithful, ideally.

[ReaderY]

The new oder assigning justices to circuit does not assign Justice Jackson to any circuit. Is this normal for a new associate Justice? Or is it unusual?

[wreckinball]

But she’s a black woman! Yea

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your repeated use of vile racial slurs has attracted precisely the audience you sought, Prof. Volokh, at this white, male, conservative blog with a vanishingly thin academic veneer.

Your pride in this regard damns you.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Here is some of that left wing violence that never supposedly happens. I've even included a link so that the usual deniers can see for themselves.

Over 100 pro-life centers have been vandalized and firebombed since the draft decision was leaked. Funny how the media hasn't called on every politician to denounce this violence though or even bother to cover it?

Question - do you left wingers actually think this kind of "direct action" works? What good do you think is going to come of this? Do you not think that the normal people don't take note of this? Or are you fine with violent rhetoric that causes this and people to go out for the expressed purpose of assassinating a sitting Justice?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10970171/Man-31-smashes-door-Catholic-church-sprays-graffiti-walls-Roe-v-Wade.html

[not guilty]

I have repeatedly urged prosecution of those who employ violence or vandalism against anti-abortion facilities. (To call them "pro-life" is inaccurate.) This should include investigation of whether a federal RICO prosecution of any organized group is appropriate. (Arson can be a predicate felony.)

Advocacy of violence in the abstract is First Amendment protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). That does not mean that such advocacy is prudent or tactically useful.

Acts of violence such as arson, bombing, vandalism and targeted assassination are historically the province of anti-abortion extremists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence Abortion rights advocates should not borrow these odious tactics, even though a majority of SCOTUS has embraced Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war. We are better than that.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is a big steaming heap of whataboutism.....

[not guilty]

Not at all. I am not attempting to excuse or deflect attention from anyone's bad conduct by bringing up others' bad acts. Indeed, I am harshly critical of those on my side of the abortion rights issue who resort to violence.

[Sarcastr0]

Jimmy doesn't know what whattaboutism actually is.

Shocking.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is some good gaslighting....

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Apparently you don't understand that term either.

[ReaderY]

I couldn’t help bu notice that while your comment refers to 100 incidents of pro-life centers vandalized and firebombed since Dobbs, your link describes a single incident in which a lone individual did some petty vandalism to a Catholic church. No firebombing.

Would you happen to have any evidence for your claim? Might I suggest that if you actually had a better link to offer, you would have shown it?

That doesn’t prove what you are saying is false. It’s just that your evidence doesn’t come anywhere near to showing it’s true.

[Jimmy the Dane]

It is easily veritable by doing a simple internet search. Just look up the list of victims of "Jane's Revenge" and other such compilations.

[wreckinball]

Ha ha Hutchinson is the new Christine Blasey Ford. What a farce ,

[not guilty]

What motive does Ms. Hutchinson have to lie? Her testimony seemed credible to me.

[wreckinball]

You’ll believe anything because of the target

[ThePublius]

He told me that someone told him.... Yea, credible.

How does a passenger in a Presidential limousine or SUV get their hands onto the wheel? Do you think Trump also could have gotten his hands around the throat of a Secret Service agent and we wouldn't have heard about it 'til now?

Wow, how gullible can you be?

[Sarcastr0]

Funny how neither of you answered the motive question.

[ThePublius]

It was a rhetorical question. In fact, young people in the Democrat/progressive sphere have many reasons to lie, not least of which is notoriety, fame, book deals, acceptance by the Dem/prog leadership, hatred of Trump, and on and on.

Why are there no Republican-selected members on the committee?
Why is there no cross-examination?
Why weren't the SS agents then called to corroborate or contradict her testimony?

Because it's a show trial, that's why.

[Sarcastr0]

She’s not a Democrat or a progressive. She was part of the Trump admin ffs.

There’s no cross because McCarthy fucked up.

[David Nieporent]

Why are there no Republican-selected members on the committee?

Because McCarthy wouldn't allow them to participate. Precisely to allow people like you to make this bad faith argument.

Why is there no cross-examination?

Because it's not an adversarial proceeding; it's a hearing.

Why weren't the SS agents then called to corroborate or contradict her testimony?

Why would they be? Even if one thinks it important to do that about this relatively minor point, nobody knew until after she testified that someone might try to dispute it, so no corroboration would've been thought necessary.

Because it's a show trial, that's why.

A show trial is a type of trial. This is not a trial. This is a hearing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Would you support requirement of testimony under oath by all of the relevant persons?

Why not, clinger?

[not guilty]

The misogynists are coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches. The so-called "National Right to Life Committee" is promoting a Post-Roe Model Abortion Law. https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/NRLC-Post-Roe-Model-Abortion-Law-FINAL-1.pdf

Suffice it to say the proposed legislation is radical and extreme.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"misogynist" - another word the left has abused so much it has no actual meaning. Here is a prime example of that.

"Hey something I don't like! That is ()-ist!"

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "misogynist"
What is it that's being "aborted"? It's a human being. A tiny, unborn human being. Half of these "aborted" human beings are female. (In places like China, more than half.) Anti-abortion advocates are trying to save the lives of these unborn girls. "Misogynists" indeed...

[ThePublius]

Anything I don't agree with is radical and extreme.

[bernard11]

Let's hear the excuses for witness-tampering.

[ThePublius]

Why do you believe any of this crap? It's clearly made-up B.S. Always anonymous sources, keeping Hutchinson's identity secret 'til the last minute 'cause they feared for her safety, etc., etc. Such nonsense. You are a fool to swallow all of this.

I suppose you believe Blasey-Ford was credible, too?

[bernard11]

You're insane, Publius. Either that or you;re a complete gullible fool.

There is no reason to think it's "made-up B.S." Trump has tried this shit before.

[ThePublius]

O.K., bernard, let's mark this on the calendar and come back 6 months, maybe a year from now, and see how this played out.

Here's what the article says:
"The committee's vice chairwoman, GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, said at Tuesday's hearing that two witnesses -- whom she did not name -- told the committee they had heard from people connected to former President Donald Trump's world who may have been trying to intimidate them. Sources tell CNN Hutchinson is one of those witnesses."

Could it be any more vague that this? Where's the direct testimony, evidence, etc., of witness tampering? Holy cow.

"...whom she did not name -- told the committee they had heard from people...(who) may have been trying to intimidate them."

Take that to a prosecutor. Ha, ha, ha!

[bernard11]

She cited witness statements and clearly said the committee is going to provide more detail later on.

So yeah, I'm willing to wait a bit to hear more detail. Of course nothing will be enough for cultists like you.

Anyway, her claims are as strong as all the stories about how the Secret Service agents say they deny Hutchinson's claims, maybe, and you have no trouble opening wide and swallowing that.

[Krayt]

It's ironic Volokh is running a series on the slippery slope, when a monster slippery slope is sliding away right in front of our eyes.

"If they return abortion legality to the states, can gay marriage or even gay sex be far behind?"

Conservatives: No, this is totally different.

Day after it happens: Line up the anti-gay laws and let's get this asshat party started!

[wreckinball]

Biggest joke

Hutchinson or Blasey Ford?

[ThePublius]

Yes! I especially liked how Hutchinson hugged members of the committee, including McCain. Is that how honest witnesses behave?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These assholes are your following, Conspirators.

This is why mainstream academia increasingly wants nothing to do with you or your stale, bigoted, unpopular right-wing thinking.

How you spend your time until replacement is your call, of course.

[not guilty]

Who is McCain?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Another example of left wing violence that is getting a pass from the corporate media. Imagine if "Proud Boys" went into a neighborhood and deflated tires because of whatever cause??? Yeah I think you know how well that would go for them.

https://nypost.com/2022/07/01/climate-activists-deflate-tires-on-40-suvs-in-nyc/

Do you lefties think stuff like this is effective? Do you think people don't notice that you act like you are "above the law"? Do you think people didn't notice that you tried to burn down a federal courthouse for like 3 months straight and the law went largely unenforced while at the same time some tourists are being held without bail or trial in DC for what was actually a mostly peaceful protest? How do you think this is going to end?

[not guilty]

Once again, who is being held without bail and without a trial setting in D.C.? I have asked you that before, and you have run away from the question like a scalded dog.

If there is any such defendant, he may have a good claim for dismissal for deprivation of a speedy trial (perhaps depending on when he was arrested). He would likely prefer that dismissal to standing trial.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.cdc.gov/meningococcal/outbreaks/FL2022.html

Maybe these people could have a special float at the next Pride Parade?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What a surprise it's in a Democrat district.

[Bored Lawyer]

How about we reform the issue for everyone of all races and political persuasions.

16 months to get to trial is outrageous, and to my mind a violation of the right to a speedy trial.

Perhaps we need a new Speedy Trial Act, and one for the states as well.

[DaivdBehar]

Horrifying case of the scumbag lawyer profession attacking victims for protecting themselves instead of calling the worthless police. Santa Clara prosecutors and prison officials should be made to pay damages from personal assets.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

> First, sexual intimacy greatly trumps getting a slight prick (no pun intended!) as far as autonomy goes.

Why is sexual pleasure more important than public health?

>Second, blow jobs themselves are not very dangerous while vaccinations are a tried and true narrowly tailored way to serve a government interest.

What about high-risk homosexual sodomy? Is that dangerous to anyone?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Meningococcal disease outbreak among men who have sex with men

In response to an ongoing outbreak of serogroup C meningococcal disease in Florida, CDC is encouraging gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men to:"

Are you stupid? Why shouldn't Florida require homosexuals to be vaccinated?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You just keep asserting that is if it's true.

Why does private sexual pleasure outweigh public health?

Why does someone have bodily autonomy to get off, but not have bodily autonomy when it comes to prophylactic medication?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Also from my source:

"Meningococcal disease outbreak among men who have sex with men

In response to an ongoing outbreak of serogroup C meningococcal disease in Florida, CDC is encouraging gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men to:"

Why shouldn't Florida require homosexuals to be vaccinated?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Under a democrat run DOJ as well.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are those people engaging in specific behaviors known to spread deadly diseases?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Oh I see, and that's why you chose to ignore my entire line of questioning!

Makes perfect sense, if you don't think about it too much.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Homosexuals are literally spreading a deadly disease.

Can they be forcibly vaccinated?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

>"Meningococcal disease outbreak among men who have sex with men

In response to an ongoing outbreak of serogroup C meningococcal disease in Florida, CDC is encouraging gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men to:"

Can the State mandate active homosexuals vaccinate?

Yes or no.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

>A person’s sex life is more important of a liberty interest than not getting a shot (though again I get YMMV).

Why?

[Brett Bellmore]

Why, legally?

[Brett Bellmore]

Understand, I'm not arguing that sodomy SHOULD be a crime. I've no interest in it myself, but between consenting adults I figure I have no say in the matter.

But the government sticks its nose into an absurd range of things I figure I should have no say in, so that hardly distinguishes sodomy from a host of other things.

So I'm actually approaching this from the opposite perspective: I don't see why sticking your tab in the wrong slot shouldn't be protected, but that doesn't distinguish it from a lot of OTHER things that, in fact, aren't protected.

That's been a complaint of mine about this "medical/bodily autonomy" crap pro-aborts keep appealing to. If it were actually taken seriously, that would be this absolutely awesome legal revolution that would cause laws to fall left and right. I could get really excited about the courts taking something like that seriously.

But it only ever gets applied to abortion and birth control, and so I know it's just an excuse.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

These people believe it's a fundamental liberty to engage in high-risk unprotected sodomy and a fundamental liberty to bash the brains in of an unborn child, but NOT a fundamental liberty to refuse a medical treatment.

Because reasons.

[Stephen Lathrop]

BCD — Because airborne contagion and death are an evil which only collective action can guard against. Sexual contagion is an evil anyone can avoid at will.

[Brett Bellmore]

People accumulate a lot of mutations over their lives, even in the germ line cells, the one cell bottleneck during reproduction helps weed them out.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's arbitrary because they're varying continuously, and you're resolving it to a binary decision.

These fine distinctions are the sort of thing you can resolve in legislative compromises, they're not the sort of thing constitutional law is well suited for.

[Martinned]

Require some serious standard damages for people who were held in pre-trial detention and then acquitted. That tends to inspire some critical thinking about bail conditions and speedy trials.

[DaivdBehar]

Queenie. Horrible case of ethnic cleansing of blacks by Hispanics. Were the Castros illegales?

[Bored Lawyer]

No, you need a rule that if you don't get a trial within a specific time, and there are no special circumstances or a waiver by the defendant, the Govt. cannot try you. Period.

[David Nieporent]

That tends to inspire some critical thinking about bail conditions and speedy trials.

Don't be silly. The people paying those damages aren't the people making those decisions.

[Papa Joe Hickbelly]

Since my lawsuit against the people investigating from me is pending, my trial should be delayed. Because the delay is too long, my case should be dismissed.

[Brett Bellmore]

You really think that changes as the head crests in the birth canal? That's the arbitrary point currently being used in several states.

Again, it's a continuous process, not a binary one. You don't, bam, get there suddenly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Something moving toward consciousness, or a brain, or intelligence but hasn’t got there has not gained personhood if those are the criteria defining that."

You think someone with temporary, short-term loss of consciousness is not a person?

[Bored Lawyer]

Thanks for your input. Did you catch the part about waiver?
No, you are just interested in empty snark.

[DaivdBehar]

The vile attackers were Hispanic. Where are you from? What are you doing here? Sounds like ethnic cleansing. Trump protected blacks from ethnic cleansing by illegales.

[Brett Bellmore]

My point is that there isn't any "line" of consciousness. It's a gradual transition.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Did I say that?"

Yes.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Probably RINO or closet dem.

[Nisiiko]

No.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"the one cell bottleneck during reproduction helps weed them out."

But every one is a precious baby. Why are we doing nothing to try to save them?

[Noscitur a sociis]

This fucking guy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the blog that Eugene Volokh wants, precipitates, and seems to like.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Yeah, but credit where due. Given the context his crack is actually funny. Jimmy can actually be funny. Who knew?

[Brett Bellmore]

If/when we get the technology to take a fertilized egg apart at the molecular level, and fix every flaw in the process of putting it back together, we could reduce the spontaneous miscarriage rate to approximately zero. Not short of that.