Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

I don’t know why it took so long, the CFPB was declared unconstitutional by 5th Circuit panel because its funding mechanism freed them from congressional appropriations.

“We agree that, for the most part, the Plaintiffs’ claims miss their mark. But one arrow has found its target: Congress’s decision to abdicate its appropriations power under the Constitution, i.e., to cede its power of the purse to the Bureau, violates the Constitution’s structural separation ofpowers. We thus reverse the judgment of the district court, render judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, and vacate the Bureau’s 2017 Payday Lending Rule.”

“Drawing on the British experience, the Framers “carefully separate[d] the ‘purse’ from the ‘sword’ by assigning to Congress and Congress alone the power of the purse.” Tex. Educ. Agency v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 992 F.3d 350, 362 (5th Cir. 2021). 8 The Framers’ reasoning was twofold. First, they viewed Congress’s exclusive “power over the purse” as an indispensable check on “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government.” The Federalist No. 58 (J. Madison). Indeed, “the separation of purse and sword was the Federalists’ strongest rejoinder to Anti-Federalist fears of a tyrannical president.” Josh Chafetz, Congress’s Constitution, Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers 57 (2017).”
https://aboutblaw.com/5mY

Its pretty undemocratic to try to take a temporary congressional majority and forever insulate a powerful agency from both congressional and executive oversight.

Imagine if Trump was able to create a new border control agency with a head that couldn’t be removed that was funded in perpetuity by the Federal Reserve or customs duties. I would have vigorously opposed that too.

[Martinned]

Its pretty undemocratic to try to take a temporary congressional majority and forever insulate a powerful agency from both congressional and executive oversight.

Yes, it's truly terrible that later Congressional majorities can't repeal laws passed by earlier Congresses, add new oversight mechanisms, or otherwise touch in any way an agency once it is created!

[Krayt]

We The People don't find "politics" something that we need to remove from our self-seeking overlords, because they feel it is an impedement to the wielding of power.

We love democracy, until we don't. We love it so much we want to stick a knife in its side and twist.

[Kazinski]

Well one of those oversight mechanisms mandated by the constitution is that Congress appropriates spending, not just that CFPB just tell the Federal Reserve how much it wants.

I doubt you do things that way in the Netherlands either.

[Martinned]

In the Netherlands parliament tells the executive branch what it wants, including by passing appropriate legislation. This is not unduly difficult, they pass upwards of 200 statutes per year (including budgets), and many more motions on top. If, for whatever reason, parliament sets up an alternative funding mechanism for some agency, that doesn't mean that the agency is then beyond its control somehow.

[Bob from Ohio]

"parliament tells the executive branch what it wants"

The executive branch is just a parliament committee in effect. The chair of that parliament committee is the the head of the executive branch.

In the US, the congress and executive often come from different parties.

[Martinned]

I am aware. But Kazinski asked how things worked in the Netherlands, so I explained it.

[Kazinski]

No I didn't actually ask, I said I doubt their are bureaucratic agencies without any direct oversight telling other departments what their budget should be, and getting it, without any parliamentary approval.

[Sarcastr0]

Check out the PTO sometime.

Sinister!

[Michael P]

Do you think the USPTO's head official does not serve at the pleasure of the President? Or that its funding is not part of budget bills passed by Congress, even when that spending comes from fees that it collects?

[Sarcastr0]

1. For cause officers are allowed under current SCOTUS precedent.
2. PTO is self-financed just like CFPB. Are you concerned about spending authorization, rather than appropriation?

[Michael P]

You were the one who said the USPTO was "sinister". Make your own case.

[OtisAH]

Lawl! Too stupid to live alone…

[Krayt]

The post office delivers mail. It does not issue massive fines to itself for people having the temerity to disobey it.

The purpose was to keep other politicians' hands off it during regular loss of power cycles.

We love democracy! Until we don't.

[Voize]

That would be USPS. PTO = Patent and Trademark Office.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we are not a pure democracy.

It's one of the badass parts of our constitutional system - a pretty impressive melding of populist control and elite control.

[Kazinski]

Not sinister, but definitely disfunctional.

[Kazinski]

Why this case matters just beyond the CFPB is because the same rationale can be used to strike the Student loan forgiveness program, and there might be at least one case heard in the 5th circuit.

[David Nieporent]

The argument about the funding mechanism may be correct; I am not opining on it at this time. But the remedy ordered by the court is wrong.

[darkknight9]

Single(simple) mindedness
I admire folks that are committed to their cause (and not just keyboard commentators) and do things like donate, volunteer their time, protest, etc.
But do people exist that have actual ability to go beyond one issue, beyond single issue voting and are able to 'do' something for more than one thought/issue/policy/etc.? Honestly it seems like the possible hierarchy of thought today outside the mundane routines of life exists of
-folks that don't go beyond the mundane
-folks that only pay lip service to convenient soundbytes or headlines.
-people that are firmly in the loud ugly habit of "my side, my side, your side sucks" for either political party
-folks that elevate past the soundbyte to assist their one cause
-and people that advocate for other minor causes while gatekeeping people from their single most important issue.
You can find folks everywhere who will talk about various issues, especially if they get to bitch and complain about them. But are there actual individuals or groups of folks that are above just having luncheons for a political party or an outdoor gathering for (insert issue here)? And not some group of fancy schmancy uber rich people who throw money at someone to split up their donations for them.
I guess a more important question would be with the proliferation of images, information, opinions, etc does the US have a pandemic of people who simply can't pay attention to more than one thing at once? If its not in their field of vision when they are concentrating on it, its just lost to them?
And if so, how much trouble in the short term might we all be in with a shortage of Adderal and its generics in the US today?
Today's rambling late, late night wander-thoughts are brought to you by worry over appointments tomorrow and some damn fool putting the porchetta on way too late for dinner and having to stay up and not burn the apt building down.

[Krayt]

people that are firmly in the loud ugly habit of “my side, my side, your side sucks” for either political party

Hey! My side, my side! Both those sides suck!

[darkknight9]

I think this calls for a classic!
https://frinkiac.com/meme/S08E12/185968.jpg?b64lines=WU9VUiAgSURFQVMgQVJFIElOVFJJR1VJTkcgVE8KTUUsIEFORCBJIFdJU0ggVE8gIFNVQlNDUklCRSAKVE8gWU9VUiAgTkVXU0xFVFRFUg==

[darkknight9]

The porchetta was fantastic by the way. 🙂

[apedad]

Lafarge Pleads Guilty to Conspiring to Provide Material Support to Foreign Terrorist Organizations

A global building materials manufacturer and its subsidiary pleaded guilty today to a one-count criminal information charging them with conspiring to provide material support and resources in Northern Syria from 2013 to 2014 to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and the al-Nusrah Front (ANF), both U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations. Immediately following the defendants’ guilty pleas this morning, U.S. District Judge William F. Kuntz II sentenced the defendants to terms of probation and to pay financial penalties, including criminal fines and forfeiture, totaling $777.78 million.

According to court documents, Lafarge S.A., headquartered in Paris, France, and Lafarge Cement Syria (LCS) S.A., headquartered in Damascus, Syria, schemed to pay ISIS and ANF in exchange for permission to operate a cement plant in Syria from 2013 to 2014, which enabled LCS to obtain approximately $70.3 million in revenue.

Lafarge and its subsidiary pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations and admitted to negotiating with and paying armed groups and terrorists, negotiating revenue-sharing agreements with ISIS to seek economic advantage, and concealing their payments, falsified records, and backdated contracts.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lafarge-pleads-guilty-conspiring-provide-material-support-foreign-terrorist-organizations

It would be interesting to read the details of how the US has jurisdiction.

We have anti-terrorism laws but I wonder why Lafarge just doesn't ignore the ruling.

$777M is huge.

[OtisAH]

My guess on jurisdiction is that “global building materials manufacturer” Lafarge does business in the United States. And my guess is if they want to continue doing business in the United States they cannot ignore the order.

[John F. Carr]

Remember Meng Wanzhou? The U.S. wanted a Chinese woman because her global company violated U.S. law.

[Davedave]

"I wonder why Lafarge just doesn’t ignore the ruling."

Firstly, because the bosses of the company aren't terrorist-supporting scum, and actually want to try and do something to make up for having let a subsidiary be hijacked by terrorists.

Secondly, because they'd like to do business in places other than North Korea. If they ignore the sanctions they can't do business in pretty much every country on the planet - only the handful of rogue states don't take such things seriously.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

"Now, every other country goes into these places, and they do what they have to do. It's a horrible law and it should be changed. I mean, we're like the policeman for the world. It's ridiculous."

[ragebot]

Since 1979 I have lived in the same condo in Tallahassee which is in Leon County in Florida. Over the years it has changed from a place for FSU employees close to the school to a more of a kiddie condo for students who’s parents have the ability to buy a condo where their kid stays and rent out the other two bedrooms to other students.

Yesterday I arrived home and met one of my neighbors checking the mail at the mailbox for the building. He showed me his mail which consisted of his unrequested mail in ballot as well as mail in ballots for the previous five renters; two coupes and a single male who lived in the three bedroom place, none of those five have lived there in almost two years. Speaking to my brother later that day I mentioned it and my brother said ‘big deal, your neighbor gets to vote five times’ (yes I realize he could really vote six times). While I realize there are some safeguards in place it does raise the question why some supervisors of elections seem intent to make voting fraud as easy as they can.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I recall that my brother moved out of state shortly after graduating from college. For years after, when I'd go to vote, I'd see his name still in the poll book right below mine, I'd tell them he'd moved. Two years after it would still be there.

For all I know it's still there next to mine, several decades later, and I've been living in another state for well over a decade myself.

The Motor Voter act was a legislative compromise: Easier registration in return for a promise that voter rolls would be routinely purged of obsolete entries. Only one side of the compromise ever got implemented. And people wonder why Congress seems dysfunctional.

Zero trust environments usually are dysfunctional.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts you have to return a state census form in the mail to maintain voter status. If they haven't received a form in the past few years they put you on the inactive voter list. When I was inactivated they sent me to the naughty voter table where I had to swear that I really did exist.

[Bored Lawyer]

"where I had to swear that I really did exist."

You could have cited Renee Descartes on that one.

[Nige]

Or he could go to jail for five counts of voter fraud, though if a he was a Republican who voted twice for Trump in Florida, he'd get sent to a civics class, but if he was black and in a Democrat area of Florida, he'd get arrested for voting once after being told by officials it was legal for him to vote.

[Don Nico]

A partisan snark. How typical of you.

[Nige]

Partisan snark? On The Volokh? Well I never!

[Martinned]

It's almost as if it is better to actually make voting at the polling station easier, instead of merely mitigating the problems caused by not having enough polling stations. (See also: how hard and costly does it need to be to get government-issued ID?)

[ragebot]

One thing I have noticed about what I will call not enough polling stations is the worst problems seem to be in places where the dems are in control. Big cities seem to be the worst offenders and often have issues that seem to be the result of not just poor planning but deliberate actions on the part of government officials. Not to mention some are planned actions. FAMU is a HBCU in Tallahassee and along with FSU had a march to a down town polling station where something like 1,000 students all showed up at the same time to vote. Not saying this is not legal; just that it obviously would create problems.

[Moderation4ever]

It good to remember that the planning for an election, particularly in a large urban area is very complex. Getting polling places is not as simple as you might think. The city is looking to secure a space for a single days use, a space that is accessible, that is within a designed political area. That space then needs to be staffed. Going from a small city of 10K to an urban area of 200K add a great deal of complexity.

[Martinned]

And yet countries all over the world seem to manage it. I've voted in the Netherlands and the UK, and never queued for more than 5 mins or so.

The whole reason why the 2021 Berlin voting fiasco is so remarkable is that this sort of thing almost ever happens outside of the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_German_federal_election#Irregularities_in_Berlin

[Brett Bellmore]

As I point out above, it also adds a great deal of budget, so don't expect that excuse to be widely accepted.

[Moderation4ever]

They have larger budgets, but do they have adequate budgets. In 2020 many cities got grants from the Zuckerman Foundation to supplement their election costs. Everyone was in a huff that a private foundation did this, but few asked why did cities need this extra money. I would ask how much did the Zuckerman money add to the city's election funds and why did the state legislature provide those extra funds instead?

[Martinned]

Where I've voted it's often been in a school, which the government already owns anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who says they "needed" it, for normal election administration? Typically it was spent on under the radar GOTV drives.

[Martinned]

Why would GOTV drives need to be "under the radar"? Unless you think people voting is some kind of anti-Republican conspiracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Under the radar" in the sense that GOTV drives are partisan activities that are normally subject to campaign finance reporting. But by making donations to select elections offices and having them run the drive, they avoided the reporting.

[Randal]

Brett... oh, dear Brett, no wonder you're so cranky! Have you ever seen Synecdoche, New York? It's about how as you get older, you isolate yourself more and more to your little patch of comfortable fantasy, and everything else -- the world at large -- starts to feel like a crazy, incomprehensible war zone.

You've made this entire thread up in your head. No, GOTV drives are not partisan activities. They aren't subject to campaign finance reporting. Liberal municipalities aren't trying to sabotage their own voters. Urban elections are more expensive, even per-capita, than rural ones. State legislatures set statewide election policies. Cities don't "blow off" their budgets... whatever that means. 🙂

[bernard11]

Unless you think people voting is some kind of anti-Republican conspiracy.

That is, in fact, exactly what Brett and his ilk think.

[ragebot]

As a rule lots of polling places are in a church which is seldom used on weekdays so it is not so hard to find a place. Churches also tend to have lots of parking as well. I have also voted at city/county libraries as well.

[Moderation4ever]

Residential homes also have large community rooms that they will donated for the election. It is a twofer for them as they are doing a civic service and their residents can walk down to vote. It is worth mentioning that many voting sites like churches and residential homes did not allow their facilities to be used in 2019 and 2020 because of concern about COVID.

[Martinned]

Yes. It's almost as if the people who decide where polling stations go don't want Democratic voters to vote...

[Michael P]

Choosing polling places is normally a function of the county government. Why aren't they responsive enough?

[Martinned]

Cui bono?

[Kazinski]

You aren't suggesting that democratic officials in large jurisdictions purposely sabotage voting are you?

I do remember the completely unsupported allegation that the Democratic official who designed the butterfly ballot that cost Al Gore the 2000 election must have been a Republican plant, but of course it was just incompetence not intent.

[Martinned]

No, I'm suggesting that Republicans do, and that Michael P just hasn't quite worked out the mechanism yet.

[Michael P]

Republicans don't run these counties.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, I’m suggesting that Republicans do, and that Michael P just hasn’t quite worked out the mechanism yet.

Then you're even more of a drooling idiot than I thought, given that the counties you're complaining about are run by Democrats.

[Kazinski]

No it's just that Democratic officials are notoriously incompetent.

A great example is Democratic Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who might have just sabotaged her own campaign for governor by sending out 6000 Federal only ballots to Arizona residents eligible to vote in the state races.

I'm sure she wants every vote counted, but sending out the wrong ballots to 6000 voters is hardly the way to do it.

[ragebot]

The problem with your claim is that issues with long voting times are concentrated in places run by Democrats so I doubt they are trying to keep dems from voting.

[Don Nico]

Okay, you made that claim several times already.
Now present some hard evidence.
And when you do so, explain how the URMs in big cities run by Dems are kept away from voting.

[bernard11]

Big cities seem to be the worst offenders

Um. That's where there are lots of people trying to vote. So you need lots of polling places, etc.

A suburban area where voters stroll in every few minutes isn't going to have a problem.

As far as deliberate actions, restrictions on early voting are not exactly something Democrats are big on, though the Republicans just love them, lie they love making it illegal to give voters in line water.

[Don Nico]

Um, those are the places run by large Dem majorities. Whose side are you on bernard?

[Moderation4ever]

My first question did your neighbor get an actual ballot or just a form to request a ballot? These are different. An actual ballot is not just sent out it needs to be requested in Florida. Florida also has an internet tool, and you can track ballots, so you could see if the actual ballot was sent out.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" did your neighbor get an actual ballot or just a form to request a ballot? "

That was my first thought, too.

But then, I remembered, I have decades of experience in legal operations with respect to elections, so I doubt my observations are what the readers of a white, male, disaffected right-wing blog are looking for.

[ragebot]

I have never requested a mail in ballot and since Obama's second election I have been mailed one. Not a request for a mail in ballot but an actual ballot. In the Biden election I was asked by the poll worker if I had been mailed a ballot and why I did not use it to which I replied I did not like the fact that I was mailed on with out my requesting it. Thing is Leon County is home to two large universities and a big community college with a very liberal voting population (pre the latest redistricting) and the local news paper is the Tallahassee Democrat.

[Moderation4ever]

Florida requires that you request a ballot, or at least their web site states this, so something is wrong. Have you investigated the problem?

[OtisAH]

More likely than not, what he received was a ballot request he never bothered to open or read. He just saw who it was from and hit the internet running…

[ragebot]

More likely than not OtisAH is a turdy macturd face who is making up a post because he did not like what I posted.

[OtisAH]

Hah, obviously I nailed it!

[ragebot]

Yes. Reading comprehension is your friend. As I noted in the last election for prez I questioned a poll worker about why I was sent a mail in ballot I did not request and got some cock and bull story about because of COVID-19 all registered voters were sent mail in ballots. During this cycle I called the supervisor of elections office and was told that anyone who had ever been sent a mail in ballot would continue to get them. Something about not being a bug but a feature.

[loki13]

"During this cycle I called the supervisor of elections office and was told that anyone who had ever been sent a mail in ballot would continue to get them."

What day did you call? With whom did you speak? Since you called the Supervisor of Elections Office, you have a record of this phone call happening, right? Phone records?

Have you reported this to the state-level Election Integrity Force? Have you gone in-person to the Supervisor of Election (I gave you the address)? Why did all of these ballots (5!) come at the same time, and just now, when Leon County mailed out the ballots of people already registered for mail-ins (as these would be ... the week of October 3?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That sounds strange. Perhaps Florida has an unusually bad/cheapo system (no income tax and all), but in general a voter must request a mailed ballot (often after receiving a mailed request form).

[bernard11]

Here's a Brett-worthy conspiracy theory.

DeSantis is deliberately screwing up mail-in voting to prove how bad it is, so he can eliminate it. Now, I don't actually think he's doing that, but I wouldn't put it past him, given his approach to those ex-felons who were told they could vote.

Amazing asshole.

[OtisAH]

This shit again. Of course.

Receiving a ballot, or a ballot application, is not “voting” or “voter fraud.” And your neighbor can try to commit vote fraud and vote five times but he will be caught.

[Ben_]

Or he won't.

[Davedave]

He will, when the other voters whose ballots he's stolen try and vote. There will be a police investigation, it'll turn out there were postal votes from an address they don't live at but he does, and that's it, caught red-handed.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible proving.

People get caught for individual voter fraud all the time.

'But what about all the hypothetical people who don't get caught' is fallacious.

[jb]

Florida in particular is vigorously looking for instances of voter fraud. I'm sure DeSantis would love to find some people actually misusing mail-in voting to help prove how terrible of a problem it is.

[shawn_dude]

Desantis just relaxed voting rules for all but one of the counties heavily impacted by hurricane Ian. Guess which county he didn't extend the courtesy to?

If you guess Orange county (Orlando), the only Democratic-leaning county impacted, you'd be right.

[ragebot]

Bottom line that all the libturds keep ignoring is that mass mailing out of mail in ballots makes voter fraud easier.

[Sarcastr0]

Talking about libtards surely makes your anecdote unimpeachable.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Well, that and the apparent lack of awareness that most boards of elections will not mail a ballot unless that particular ballot has been requested.

[shawn_dude]

Here in San Francisco, ballots are mailed to all registered voters. No request necessary. Hate the fog but love the convenience. And it's nice to get something in the mail that isn't an ad for a change.

[loki13]

"Yesterday I arrived home and met one of my neighbors checking the mail at the mailbox for the building. He showed me his mail which consisted of his unrequested mail in ballot as well as mail in ballots for the previous five renters;"

Just out of curiosity ... you sure those weren't the sample ballots that get sent out to registered voters? Because Florida doesn't do that (send unrequested mail-in ballots). You have to specifically request a mail-in ballot for a given election cycle. It's a pretty massive deal.

Which is to say ... if your story is true, you need to go immediately to the Supervisor of Elections for Leon County. 2990-1 Apalachee Parkway. NOW. Seriously. That's not funny. You need to report this.

And if your story ... isn't true, or is mistaken, then do everyone a favor and maybe stop spreading lies about the election on the internet.

PS- Why not become an election worker and see how things actually work? You might learn something.

[ragebot]

Just out of curiosity did you read my post about how during the 2020 election cycle there was a huge push to send out mail in ballots due to COVID-19 issues; not just in Florida but in many other places as well. It seems that in my case once you are sent a mail in ballot you continue to be sent one kinda like once you donate to a law school they continue to keep begging for money.

There were nation wide examples of places trying to get more voters to use mail in ballots instead of showing up on election day.

Maybe more to the point is my still unanswered question of why some peeps want to make voter fraud easier. Not to mention the question of why the US is the only first world nation that seems hell bent on increasing mail in voting. See the post about how Europe never seems to have the problems the US has with voting.

[Sarcastr0]

Congrats on turning your pretty interesting anecdote into a convenient anecdote for your partisan agenda.

Really an impressively fast loss of credibility there.

[loki13]

Out of curiosity, what the heck are you doing? This information is all readily available. There is NO Covid extension in Florida, or in Leon County. You are making this up. And now you are saying this is happening "nationwide."

Look, you made a very specific claim about something that happened to you personally. If it did, you need to go IN PERSON and report it NOW. I gave you the address. Because this is a massive issue. A huge problem. This isn't just "wah wah wah internet wah." It's like someone who says, "Yeah, I saw someone get murdered yesterday. But no, I didn't report it to anyone. Because ... um ... murders happen everywhere, in big cities... Detroit, erm, Libtards...."

Maybe you saw the sample ballots that get mailed out and got confused. Maybe you heard a make-believe story and thought it would be more interesting if you personalized by claiming it happened to you (while not knowing your own state's laws). I don't know.

But either (a) report it, or (b) STOP LYING. Pretty simple. There is no (c) deflect.

[Ridgeway]

Yeah. Plus, from what I have heard from people across the political spectrum, is that FL's mail-in voting system works really well. In a rare example of actual introspection and good government, Jeb Bush and others were embarrassed by what happened in 2000, and mirabile dictu, devised and implemented a solution that actually worked.

[Michael P]

Not very long ago, commenters here insisted that FBI deals with people like Whitey Bulger were a thing of the past: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-10-04/fbi-agent-bribes-organized-crime

[apedad]

You know there are bad people in all kinds of authoritative positions like bad:

Priests
Teachers
Politicians
Cops
Boy Scout Den Leaders
Babysitters
Union Bosses
etc. etc. etc.

And there will always be bad people.

To me, the story you linked to is a success story because the bad actor is guilty and, ". . . faces up to 15 years in prison."

[Michael P]

The point is that some people here denied that the FBI still does what they've done for decades, and that anyone like that could exist in today's FBI. They denied what you treat as very plain and unremarkable fact.

[Sarcastr0]

You should probably link to whoever told you that, then.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Were these people made of a combustible, organic material, by any chance?

[Sarcastr0]

I actually doubt they are strawmen. Michael seems to have some specific exchange he's remembering, that motivated this post. Not just a

Whether it actually existed, or existed in the way he remembers, I'm not so sure.

[Randal]

I feel like a grossly negligent misattribution is still a strawman. It has the same motivation, mechanism, and result.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Consider my breath bated, then.

[Michael P]

It was David Nieporent. (It took a bit to figure out how to search the archives reasonably.)

[Michael P]

The assistant principals in this story are a case of leftism run amok, letting armed people into their school building because those administrators thought police might be a threat to the criminals: https://fox8.com/news/i-team/how-armed-teens-got-into-cleveland-school-i-team/

[Ed Grinberg]

Dennis Prager talks about how he would ask kids: If your dog and a stranger were drowning, and you could only save one of them, whom would you choose? (Most kids chose their dog. Prager's point is that morality is not innate, you need a moral guide, such as the Bible, to teach kids moral lessons, such as that a human life is more precious than that of an animal.)
Between the bad guy and his (potential) victims, a "liberal" will choose the bad guy every time. There's something wrong with these people...

[Nige]

Maybe his kids were just badly raised.

[bernard11]

WTF?

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Dennis Prager has been spewing the exact same religious nonsense for (what seems like) 50 years.

I don't need God; Donald Trump is my moral guide.

[apedad]

Sheesh Ed. . . . kids would probably say they would save their teddy bear over a stranger.

This isn't a "moral" question, this is a "closeness" question.

There was an experiment (decades ago), where people were asked: (Car speeding down the road)

Would you save a bug or a rodent?
Would you save a rodent or a puppy?
Would you save a puppy or a human?

The answers showed we normally would choose the entity closest to our domain/kingdom/phylum/class/order/family/genus/species.

It's not a morality question.

[shawn_dude]

How many puppies do you know that grow up to be a hateful bigot like Dennis Prager? The kid was right. Save the dog and keep a little more joy in the world.

[not guilty]

¨The assistant principals in this story are a case of leftism run amok, letting armed people into their school building because those administrators thought police might be a threat to the criminals¨.

What the assistant principals reportedly did is questionable, but where do you get that they thought police might be a threat to the criminals? Nothing in the linked article suggests what they were (or were not) thinking.

[Bob from Ohio]

From this:

"because it was unsafe to be outside because I saw police officers.”

[Nige]

Fair enough.

[apedad]

White House announces new surveillance guardrails to meet EU Privacy Shield expectations

President Biden today (10/7/22), signed an executive order that outlines the steps the United States will take to uphold its commitments under a new European Union-U.S. Data Privacy Framework that the White House announced alongside the European Commission in March.

The framework strengthens existing privacy and civil liberties safeguards around U.S. intelligence collection activities, requiring such activities to be conducted “only in pursuit of defined national security objectives,” according to a White House fact sheet.

Whether it will hold up to scrutiny by EU Court of Justice is unclear.

“At first sight it seems that the core issues were not solved and it will be back to the [Court of Justice of the European Union] sooner or later,” said Max Schrems, the activist whose previous cases before the court against Facebook led to the invalidation of the past two data sharing agreements.

https://www.cyberscoop.com/white-house-announces-new-surveillance-guardrails-to-meet-eu-privacy-shield-expectations/

In our global economy, it makes sense to have solid agreements with our international partners to ensure privacy is maintained as much as possible.

We're not quite there yet but are (slowly), moving in the right direction.

[apedad]

More info on US-EU (UK) data sharing if you're interested in this sort of thing.

US-UK Data Sharing Program Goes Into Effect

A partnership to combat online and digital crime between the U.S. and United Kingdom goes into effect today, marking another international bilateral agreement authorized by the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data, or CLOUD Act.

The “landmark” agreement, according to a press release issued by the Department of Justice, will enable law enforcement in both countries to use critical data to combat crime, while recognizing civil rights and privacy standards.

“The Data Access Agreement fosters more timely and efficient access to electronic data required in fast-moving investigations, through the use of orders covered by the agreement,” the DOJ press release states. “This will greatly enhance the ability of the United States and the United Kingdom to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute serious crime, including terrorism, transnational organized crime and child exploitation, among others.”

https://www.nextgov.com/technology-news/2022/10/us-uk-data-sharing-program-goes-effect/377978/

[Michael P]

Every country and every framework has vague and practically almost useless privacy guardrails like "only in pursuit of defined national security objectives". These guardrails are much more likely to be enforced, or used as a negotiating cudgel or a barrier, against the United States than against other countries. It's one of the few ways that countries that underspend on security can stick it to the world's policeman.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, of course, they have back door agreements to each do the domestic spying that the others are prohibited from doing; The US spies in England for the English government, the English government spies in the US for ours, so that both can claim to be obeying laws prohibiting domestic spying.

[Martinned]

England has laws that prohibit domestic spying? Then what is MI5 for?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, even England has laws restricting domestic spying.

[Martinned]

O, it definitely has lots of laws regulating domestic spying. And foreign spying too. It does not, however, has laws "prohibiting domestic spying".

[Martinned]

The Venn diagram of what the US will agree to and what the ECJ will agree to has very little overlap, if any. So my prior is that this will run into litigation problems just like its predecessors.

[Don Nico]

" requiring such activities to be conducted “only in pursuit of defined national security objectives,”
Now that is a hole as large as a major interstate highway.

[apedad]

How Wi-Fi spy drones snooped on financial firm

In a Twitter thread, (Greg Linares, a security researcher), said the hacking incident was discovered when the financial firm spotted unusual activity on its internal Atlassian Confluence page that originated from within the company's network.

The company's security team responded and found that the user whose MAC address was used to gain partial access to the company Wi-Fi network was also logged in at home several miles away. That is to say, the user was active off-site but someone within Wi-Fi range of the building was trying to wirelessly use that user's MAC address, which is a red flag. The team then took steps to trace the Wi-Fi signal and used a Fluke system to identify the Wi-Fi device.

"This led the team to the roof, where a 'modified DJI Matrice 600' and a 'modified DJI Phantom' series were discovered," Linares explained.

The Phantom drone was in fine condition and had a modified Wi-Fi Pineapple device, used for network penetration testing, according to Linares. The Matrice drone was carrying a case that contained a Raspberry Pi, several batteries, a GPD mini laptop, a 4G modem, and another Wi-Fi device. It had landed near the building's heating and ventilation system and appeared to be damaged but still operable.

https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/12/drone-roof-attack/

Criminals are smart, energetic, resourceful, etc.

Too bad they don't use their talents for good stuff.

[Ben_]

"Criminals are smart, energetic, resourceful, etc."

This is almost always false. Criminals are generally dumb and lazy. There are a few exceptions.

Meanwhile, made up stories are common. State-sponsored computer hacking is also not rare.

[Commenter_XY]

Jesus, every data center in the country just got a wake-up call. Ugh!

[Ben_]

Anyone in charge of network security already knows Wi-Fi networks are vulnerable from outside the building.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

WiFi coverage on the roof. I can't even get it in my office!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Moving beyond the binary debate between originalism and living-breathing-mutating-constitutionalism, what alternative to originalism would respect the Art. V. Amendment process and leave constitutional changes to that process, rather than interpretation?

(Talk nowadays is about the classical legal tradition - or is that fake or theocratic?)

[Sarcastr0]

This is some extreme begging the question. Even plenty of originalists allow constitutional law to change over the centuries via the reliance on precedent - check out Conspirator Will Baude's scholarship.

"classical legal tradition" is indeed fake and theocratic.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

All I can say is I’ve seen commenters advocate their interpretation method on the grounds that the amendment procedure is flawed, and that interpretation (especially by judges) has to make up for the flaws.

And I think I was implicitly acknowledging some difficulties with originalism, otherwise why would I want to explore alternatives?

“Even plenty of originalists allow constitutional law to change over the centuries via the reliance on precedent”

All right, but the criticism was that change didn’t occur quickly enough. Change through centuries wouldn’t meet their urgent desires.

[Sarcastr0]

There are functional, formal, and realist arguments against the idea that our Constitutional landscape is changeble only by amendment. You came in from a formal point of view, so I met you there.
From a functional point of view, a cabined but more agile model has it's benefits, and if you care to look (not many do) non-originalist methods do not lack for internal limits based on the Constitution (I always point to Breyer's purposivist approach, but there is also modern language and plenty of other scholarship).
From a realist point of view, originalism has proven no better than any other in limiting judicial motivated reasoning, it just makes people more assholeish about it.

I know you are a classical legal tradition person, rather than an originalist. So of course you think originalism has flaws. The problem is, your preferred system is literally the worst system out there - utterly constitutionally unmoored and outcome-oriented pointing to theocratic ideas we are well past.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Could you give some examples of the "theocratic" ideas?

The common good *includes* stable laws (sometimes imperfect) whose meaning can't be twisted out of recognition - not even to make the laws better. It's when the ambiguities come in that we look to the common good.

And depending on the regime, judicial review may not even be allowed. A country can operate under a common-good legal system without having judicial review.

And can you point to a way in which the classical legal tradition is "outcome oriented" in a way that living constitutionalism isn't?

[Sarcastr0]

Every theory of jurisprudence starts with the text, or precedent based on the text. Check out even the most out-there Kennedy or Douglas opinions.

depending on the regime, judicial review may not even be allowed
That...is not a feature.

Classical legal tradition instantiates a moral framework; a vision for an optimal society, and then points the resolving of ambiguities towards that outcome.

Of course, so does Juche.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Liberalism is a viewpoint, and so is Nazism.”

There ya go, a meaningless but sinister-sounding equivalence!

While I'm certainly not one of those obnoxious commenters who follows you down the thread demanding answers to his questions, it's interesting that you didn't answer these:

"Could you give some examples of the “theocratic” ideas?"

"...can you point to a way in which the classical legal tradition is “outcome oriented” in a way that living constitutionalism isn’t?"

[Sarcastr0]

The judiciary is already having issues with the perception that it is too ideological. Formally instantiating liberalism, or Nazism, or 'common good' would be very bad.

1. Could you give some examples of the “theocratic” ideas
Natural law and 'just rule' goes to Thomas Aquinas. Don't pretend this is a secular morality being instantiated - it's a Catholic moral framework:
Vermeule: Subjects will come to thank the ruler whose legal strictures, possibly experienced at first as coercive, encourage subjects to form more authentic desires for the individual and common goods, better habits, and beliefs that better track and promote communal well-being.

2. can you point to a way in which the classical legal tradition is “outcome oriented” in a way that living constitutionalism isn’t?
What is the outcome living constitutionalism is intantiating? OTOH, I can point directly at the outcomes natural good constitutionalism seeks.

[Commenter_XY]

Why is that a purely Catholic moral framework, Sarcastr0? Is it only because Justice Thomas is a practicing Catholic that you state that?

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't mention Justice Thomas at all...I mentioned Thomas Aquinas.

Different guy.

[OtisAH]

[Statler-and-Waldorf-laughing.gif]

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0....yes, you are correct. I had Justice Thomas on the brain. LOL. My bad, sorry.

[Sarcastr0]

Classy apology; may I be so gracious the next time I do such!

[David Nieporent]

Different guy

Prove it.

Have you ever seen them together in the same place at the same time?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Vermeule:”

I thought I’d just been criticizing him. Anyway, he points to pagan Roman jurists a lot.

“What is the outcome living constitutionalism is intantiating?”

The progressive version of egalitarianism? Or are you unaware of the water in which you’re swimming?

"Formally instantiating liberalism, or Nazism, or ‘common good’ would be very bad."

An interesting perspective. One of these things is not like the others.

[Sarcastr0]

This betrays an astounding ignorance of what living constitutionalism entails.
It is not some legal realist mercenary plan.
In reality, if you cared to read up on it even a little, it is a bunch of different doctrines, and plenty of them do nothing like instantiating 'the progressive version of egalitarianism.' That's unsupported by anything you have offered.

No, calling me a blind partisan is not proof.

Active Liberty is the closest to a specific doctrine, and it's pretty ideologically anodyne. Current public meaning says nothing about public meaning.

“Formally instantiating liberalism, or Nazism, or ‘common good’ would be very bad.”

An interesting perspective. One of these things is not like the others.
I'm sure you think you are very witty, but the idea that jurisprudence should be procedural and not substantive is not interesting at all - it's the common mainstream!

You would do well to read up on both originalism and living constitutionalism, if you're going to talk about their flaws. Not just some advocate for neo-theocracy telling you what their flaws are.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So you’re going to reject this obscure living-constitutionalist, after all he's just one voice among many, he's not really that important…

“… the Constitution embodies the aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity that brought this nation into being. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority. In all candor we must concede that part of this *egalitarianism* [emphasis added] in America has been more pretension than realized fact. But we are an aspiring people, a people with faith in *progress*. [emphasis added] Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline. The phrasing is broad and the limitations of its provisions are not clearly marked. Its majestic generalities and ennobling pronouncements are both luminous and obscure. This ambiguity of course calls forth interpretation, the interaction of reader and text….

“As augmented by the Bill of Rights and the Civil War Amendments, this text is a sparkling vision of the supremacy of the human dignity of every individual….

“I do not mean to suggest that we have in the last quarter century achieved a comprehensive definition of the constitutional ideal of human dignity. We are still striving toward that goal, and doubtless it will be an eternal quest. For if the interaction of this Justice and the constitutional text over the years confirms any single proposition, it is that the demands of human dignity will never cease to evolve.”

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/sources_document7.html

[Sarcastr0]

Brennan was not exactly a jurisprudential scholar. Practice is not going to be the same as doctrine; don't switch your goalposts.

"In all candor we must concede that part of this *egalitarianism* [emphasis added] in America has been more pretension than realized fact."
That's talking about like not having slavery, dude.

"this text is a sparkling vision of the supremacy of the human dignity of every individual"
Again, this is pretty anodyne. And it talks about the CONSTITUTION AS TEXT, not some ideal above the Constitution.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You profess unawareness of the significance of Brennan’s speech in articulating living constitutionalism.

This is such staggering ignorance, I mean, like omg, I can't even…

“it talks about the CONSTITUTION AS TEXT, not some ideal above the Constitution”

It’s just as much about extraconstitutional ideals as the ideas you criticize. Like, gag me with a spoon.

But thank you for the ALL CAPS, it helped emphasize that you’re REALLY SERIOUS.

[Sarcastr0]

Brennan was important, but it misapprehends the idea of what a Justice is to put an entire legal movement on him.

Scalia managed it; I like Breyer's attempt some. Not any other have.

It is not ignorance to note that you're asking something from Brennan that wasn't his job.

It’s just as much about extraconstitutional ideals as the ideas you criticize. Like, gag me with a spoon.
So, in this quote about fidelity to the Constitution text, was he lying, or just an idiot?
Brennan was neither. If your jurisprudential universe includes calling Brennan a tool, you're not asking questions, you're just an ideologue.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“If your jurisprudential universe includes calling Brennan a tool”

Obviously I said no such thing.

“So, in this quote about fidelity to the Constitution text, was he lying, or just an idiot?”

He was very intelligent *and* sincerely believed himself faithful to the constitutional text.

Don’t all living-constitutionalists believe they’re being faithful to the constitutional text? Can you give examples of any living-constitutionalists who *don’t* believe this?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The progressive version of egalitarianism? Or are you unaware of the water in which you’re swimming?

Yikes. Margrave, have you got any notion what to make of this?:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

What in that would make anyone think the aim contemplated was any particular idea of government at all, instead of an assertion of a right and power to tailor a government at pleasure, and thus also, to change that government later?

I suppose you could argue that this bit of the Declaration was superseded by the Constitution. If so, what do you point to as the superseding language?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oh, I see where Sarcastro went off the rails. You think if someone’s interpretation of the constitutional text is informed by some value outside the text, that’s somehow sinister.

So if anyone consults a dictionary to help figure out the meaning of a constitutional term, that’s not being faithful to the text.

Good luck finding anyone upon the face of the earth who is faithful to the constitutional text in the way you posit.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
It does go through Aquinas and also past Aquinas.
In the West,it actually goes to Plato and Aristotle, if not earliest Greek philosophers. So it is NOT necessarily a Catholic moral framework, although it could be. But rather is is quite a classically Western moral framework.

[Davedave]

"There are functional, formal, and realist arguments against the idea that our Constitutional landscape is changeble only by amendment."

What about the common sense argument, which is that it's blatantly obvious that the constitution needs amending, and only loony right wing nutjobs think otherwise?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"the constitution needs amending"

And who is denying this? The question is whether it should be amended properly, or by "usurpation" (Washington's term).

[Davedave]

The constitution obviously needs _amending_, not _reinterpreting_. That needs primary legislation.

[Moderation4ever]

Is the problem we have in the Constitution or rather in the institutions created by that Constitution? It seems to me that many of the issues arriving at the court, not all, could be addressed by simply having the branches of government do their job. The biggest is the President relying on EOs rather than legislation which the Congress fails to provide, and then followed up by the Courts being asked to rule on the EOs.

[Ben_]

"... many of the issues arriving at the court, not all, could be addressed by simply having the branches of government do their job."

Then stop voting for presidents who have no intention of faithfully executing the laws.

[Moderation4ever]

Or alternatively, start voting for members of the House and Senate that will actually do their job and legislate.

[Brett Bellmore]

"“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”" Milton Friedman.

[Commenter_XY]

He was prescient. We would do well to heed Friedman's advice today = The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either...

I guess today's American society has become so polarized and entrenched that they no longer believe the wrong people will ever do the right thing.

[Sarcastr0]

The Internet is not American society. We're doing a lot better than that.

[Randal]

But they are converging.

[Sarcastr0]

Aye, but not yet. I have some hope the momentum arrests. Or it won't.

That is one of the things I respect about democracy - we get the government we deserve.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I have said the same: We truly deserve the representation we elect.

I especially recall saying that when Phailing Phil Murphy was re-elected to the governorship last year.

[Kazinski]

Not a bad idea.

Perfect example was the eviction moratorium. Pelosi wanted it so bad she told Biden to "get better lawyers" when Biden was told he couldn't extend it via executive order.

But Pelosi never even tried to bring it up for a vote, and if passed by Congress it probably would have been upheld.

[defaultdotxbe]

What if I voted for a member of the House or Senate specifically because they *don't* intend to pass some particular piece of legislation?

Why does every problem require Congress to legislate something, and when they don't, the president to usurp Congress's authority and issue an EO?

[Moderation4ever]

The point is that Congress has a part to play and often they just avoid doing their part. When the President issues an EO the Congress could just use their legislative authority to void the EO, instead they often run to the courts. They often don't do that because they want to avoid being on record.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem for originalism is that it came too late; So much contrary precedent had accumulated before originalists found themselves in a position to do anything, that a lot of them lost their nerve and started looking for excuses to rationalize letting it stand. "Liquidation", for instance. Really, a theory of constitutional adverse possession.

Thus all the mutations.

The only way out I see is to have a constitutional convention, to reset things.

[SRG]

Care to cite some examples of these adverse precedents?

[Brett Bellmore]

Wickard v Filburn, for instance. It's an abomination from an originalist standpoint, but originalists have largely given up on restoring the limits of the interstate commerce clause. They're just trying to stop further expansions at this point.

[Sarcastr0]

Wickard follows from McCulloch.

You're wishcasting other people's intentions and plans again.

[Ridgeway]

One can give Brett a hard time for a lot of his positions, but this is not one of them. Claiming that Wickard is non-controversial (at least on an intellectual level) is ... disingenuous. Almost as disingenuous as the surprise and bewilderment feigned by many on the Left when Roe was overturned. To paraphrase a neighbor of the man who shot Buckwheat, when asked if he was surprised by the shooting: "No. He talked about it all the time."

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not saying it's uncontroversial, I'm saying it's not 'an abomination from an originalist standpoint.'

I'm further saying Brett tellingly misunderstands the project of originalism: "originalists have largely given up on restoring the limits of the interstate commerce clause. They’re just trying to stop further expansions at this point."
Brett believes the Constitution instantiates his own economic priors, and calls that originalism.

This 'originalism as a libertarian agenda' is not originalism. It is a 1980s political project pretending to be a jurisprudential philosophy.

[bernard11]

Wickard has always seemed to me to be pretty obviously correct.

In any case, I don't see what it has to do with originalism. Congress clearly has the power to regulate interstate trade in wheat. DO we have any evidence as to what the framers thought were appropriate or inappropriate means to accomplish that regulation?

Why is one method of control OK and another not?

[defaultdotxbe]

Wickard expanded the powers of Congress from regulating interstate trade of wheat, to regulating wheat. Full stop.

[bernard11]

But you can't regulate interstate trade of wheat in the manner Congress chose - establish a cartel - without regulating wheat.

There are lots o ways to regulate things. I regulate the speed of my car using both the brake and the gas pedal. The issue is what levers and controls Congress can use.

[Ridgeway]

And there is the crux of the issue. It is a big leap from saying "Congress can regulate interstate commerce" to "Congress has essentially unlimited authority to regulate any industry involved in interstate commerce."

Wickard is only "obviously correct" if one accepts the latter proposition, and I would argue that proposition is far from self-evident.

However, as Brett correctly points out, that genie is never going back in the bottle, so arguing about it amounts to a remarkably unfulfilling form of masturbation.

[Martinned]

No, the problem for originalism is that the Constitution inconveniently vests the power to develop the common law in the courts, and contains lots of open norms that are by design not fixed at the time of writing.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, the most obvious examples of vague terms I can think of are “cruel” (8th Am), “excessive” (8th Am), “general welfare,” – you’ll no doubt cite others.

“Cruel,” though, is coupled with “unusual,” which unless you interpret that as “rare,” has a technical common-law meaning.

Which brings up the issue that lots of phrases require some common-law background – “habeas corpus,” “jury,” “cases at common law,” and the like.

[Martinned]

"interstate commerce", "well-regulated militia", "unreasonable search and seizure", "due process", "equal protection", "high crimes and misdemeanors"

[Sarcastr0]

"The Executive Power" "The Judicial Power" "The Legislative Power"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Legislative power - the operative phrase is "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress" [etc]

The placement of the phrase Executive power in Art. II(1) could arguably indicate that it's not an independent grant of power but a description of the person who wields the powers, and has the duties, spelled out in Art. II(2)

Judicial power - Not crystal clear, but not a blank slate either.

[Martinned]

And yet that phrase "legislative power" has been enough for GOP justices to invent a whole "non-delegation doctrine" on top of...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sure, but the phrase “shall be vested in a Congress” is part of that debate.

Now, Vermeule and his adulators have a near-Confucian reverence for the bureaucratic classes, so I doubt their alternative approach would involve a lot of nondelegation doctrine stuff.

In fact, a I understand it, Vermeule has a low opinion of the amendment process as opposed to his interpretive method. His message of the classical legal tradition may be OK, but he was just the deliveryman, bringing the classical legal tradition back to the public. The deliveryman shouldn't stand around expounding on the significance of the package.

[Martinned]

What the non-delegation doctrine amounts to is saying that "the legislative power" does not include the power to delegate rule-making power to executive branch agencies, or at least not without some limitations that they've invented but that they claim are implicit in the constitution. Everything else is just retoric.

[Sarcastr0]

But what *is* the legislative power Congress gets?

That’s as big a textual ambiguity as they come.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's vague in points, but not open-ended (or intended as such, if you're relying on original intent). If it had no vague parts we wouldn't need theories of legal interpretation.

[Martinned]

I agree that it's not vague. Congress can make whatever laws it likes that fit within the conferred powers and are not forbidden by the bill of rights. But the magic of legal advocacy is the ability to make almost anything vague if it suits the client.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In fact, a I understand it, Vermeule has a low opinion of the amendment process as opposed to his interpretive method. "

That's common among people who know the changes they want aren't popular enough to succeed as amendments.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Commerce…among the several states,” “interstate commerce” is just a paraphrase, maybe misleading.

“well-regulated militia” – until recently, not much judicial “development” of the phrase, and that development was contested.

“unreasonable search and seizure” – that’s coupled with safeguards for the issuance of warrants, strongly implying that warrantless searches are generally unreasonable – why be so careful about limiting the warrant process if warrants are the exception not the rule?

“due process” – the vague word is “due,” since “process” suggests a trial or hearing of some sort, so any substantive rights which don’t involve fair hearings aren’t covered.

“equal protection” – I’ll give you that one, with reservations (e. g., since it validates the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it can’t be given a less broad reading than that Act).

“high crimes and misdemeanors” – the Art. III courts weren’t given the power to “develop" the meaning of this phrase. The federal courts stay out as reiterated by the Supreme Court itself. Any development is to be done by the Senate in its capacity as a trial body. Is the Senate a “court”? Maybe so, but not an Art. III court applying the old common-law procedure.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In 18th century British legal tradition, insofar as it was a continuation of 17th — 16th century legal tradition, "high crimes and misdemeanors," were unlike other crimes and misdemeanors not because of any characteristics inherent in the crimes, but rather because of a distinction regarding who the crimes were committed against. Ordinary crimes and misdemeanors were offenses against ordinary people, against officials, etc. Thus a distinction between high treason and petty treason: "Treason (i.e. disloyalty) against one's monarch was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason."

[Davedave]

Er...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High,_middle_and_low_justice

[Voize]

Blackstone wrote about high and petit treason in those terms, but that did not exhaust the subject for him. He also wrote

Misprisions, which are merely positive, are generally denominated contempts or high misdemeanors; of which [t]he first and principal is the mal-administration of such high officers, as are in public trust and employment.

So, high due to the position of the misdemeanant rather than that of the victim.

[dwb68]

Election betting odds for a Republican Senate are now 58%, a dramatic reversal over the last several weeks. Even Mark Kelly in Az looks in jeopardy now.

https://electionbettingodds.com/Senate2022.html

The individual Senate polls have not caught up to this, while the generic ballot polls have had a breakout.

Of course what I would like to see is Democrats abandon the silly cultural and pronoun issues, socialism, Modern Monetary Theory, and return to standard economics and fiscal sanity.

I would also like a lottery ticket lol. Unfortunately, the lesson Dems will learn is that they were not far left enough.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Mark Kelly was always vulnerable

[dwb68]

I thought so too, but the state election dynamics only reflected it recently. Unseating an incumbent is hard.

[apedad]

Of course what I would like to see is Republicans abandon the silly cultural and pronoun issues, socialism, Modern Monetary Theory, and return to standard economics and fiscal sanity.

FTFY.

[Noorondoor]

It's the Democrats forcing the perverted cultural issues on the populace, not the Republicans. The Democrats are the ones who think a transgender homosexual pedophile is a hero.

[Nige]

You think it's okay to threaten women, you wouldn't know heroism if Superman saved you from a speeding train.

[Davedave]

It wouldn't be heroism - the train wouldn't have been in any danger.

[dwb68]

There is supporting minorities, then there is cheering as a former man destroys women's swimming.

Biology is a thing. Sexual dimorphism has been around for billions of years. Gotta wonder why Democrats are science deniers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not a former man, a current man. The "former" concedes too much.

[OtisAH]

Brett has a tramp-stamp that reads “Ni shagu nazad!”

[Brett Bellmore]

The guy hasn't even had his junk cut off yet, that's how dedicated to being a 'woman' he is. Dates women, too.

Basically he transitioned to competing in women's events, and that's about it.

[Martinned]

Why are you so obsessed with cutting other people's "junk" off? Shouldn't people be in charge of their own medical decisions?

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally, I wouldn't let a guy compete in women's sports even if he did cut it off. But let's get over the notion that this dude is a woman. he's hardly even pretending to be one, except to the minimal extent necessary under today'syesterday's rules to compete in women's swimming events.

He's a cross dresser, and that's about all.

[Davedave]

Brett has clearly spent an awful lot of time thinking about the distinctions. Wanted to get your search terms right, huh Brett?

[Mr. Bumble]

Says the teenage "girl" with the cute double name.

[Nige]

Hasn't US women's swimming been plagued by sex abuse scandals? I think a trans woman competing is so much less of a threat than that, it doen't even register.

[Ben_]

"Gotta wonder why Democrats are science deniers."

Anything to make life worse for the largest number of people.

[Sarcastr0]

This is an insane take coming from the far left; it is an insane take coming from you.

[Ben_]

It’s easy to point out examples.

Environmental policy that sacrifices quality of life for Americans to (supposedly) benefit the people of the year 2100 is one example.

Gender policies that make life harder for the 99+% of everyone to cater to the delusions of less than 1% is another example.

Criminal friendly policies that hurt everyone except criminals are a third example.

More examples available.

[Sarcastr0]

That's just stuff you don't like. Including, it looks like, due process?

That you have decided the only possibility is that stuff you don't like is intended to maximize human suffering makes you melodramatic and silly; that is all.

[Ben_]

Another example: Covid rules for people who are not at significant risk from Covid. Democrats sacrificed a year for kids and the healthy young population instead of asking 90-year-olds to be careful.

Another example: 87000 new IRS agents.

Another example: unions. Unions are 10% of the workforce. Everyone else pays more for imports, more for transportation, a huge amount more for construction and government, with a lot of additional production losses and issues. But Democrats are happy to stick it to the 90% for the benefit of the privileged few union members.

Over and over, Democrats choose against the masses.

[Nige]

Covid rules had to apply to everyone, because it is a highly transmissable disease.

Making sure evryone pays their share is a abd thing?

That's an argument for more unions.

[Ben_]

Democrats destroyed countless lives, caused inflation and recession, devastated a generation of young people, and everyone got Covid anyway.

[Nige]

Environmental policies ,ake life better for everyone except people profoting from environmental destruction.

'Gender policies' aren't even a thing, let alone the fantasy version you're monstering.

Aren't you a Trump - proven fraudster - supporter?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would settle for Republicans abandoning the racism, the misogyny, the immigrant-hating, the gay-bashing, the childish superstition, the embrace of ignorance, the rejection of science and expertise, etc . . . but I have scant hope along that line. I am content to await the continuing work of the culture war's tide, and the continuing replacement of all of these old-timey, stale-thinking bigots by better Americans.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

An optimist, I see.

[OtisAH]

The “silly cultural and pronoun issues” are what the entire MAGA party is built around.

[Bob from Ohio]

"what I would like to see"

Who cares. You aren't going to vote for them no matter what.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, I probably would not vote Republican no matter what, but that doesn't mean I think it's healthy for the country for the Republican Party to be a cult of personality led by arguably the greatest con man ever to occupy the White House, led by a supporting cast of half wits and scoundrels. What's good for the country is for both of our major political parties to be led by sane, responsible grown ups who can then debate policy rather than produce the shit show we've had for the past six years.

[Commenter_XY]

When was the last time we really had that, in your estimation = What’s good for the country is for both of our major political parties to be led by sane, responsible grown ups who can then debate policy rather than produce the shit show we’ve had for the past six years.

I happen to agree. So when did we last have that?

[Krychek_2]

I think that's an ideal to be aspired to rather than something that's ever happened with 100% perfection. So probably never. But I think that as recently as 20 years ago, the parties were better at working together, setting aside partisan bickering, and recognizing that there was a greater good than partisan advantage. Think of how the country and its politicians came together in the weeks after 9/11, for example.

When Harry Truman first ran for the Senate, someone brought him evidence that his opponent was having an adulterous affair, which in that era would have ended his career. Truman didn't mention it because he didn't think it would be right to. Imagine any politician today not tossing mud at his opponent because he thought it wouldn't be right. And Truman managed to win the election even without it.

[Voize]

Andrew Jackson beat John Quincy Adams in 1828 with a campaign including allegations that when Adams served as ambassador to Russia he had pimped an American girl to the Czar.

[Bob from Ohio]

Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton

The idea that political opponents in the past acted like gentlemen with each other and were big on compromise is so anti-historical.

[Krychek_2]

And I haven't said that utopia ever existed in previous years. What I said, in response to your comment about who cares what the other side thinks, is that the country is better off if both parties are run by sensible people who put the national interest first, which it is. I'm sure that at least some of the time, in your more introspective moments, you yourself probably realize that as much as you like the current Supreme Court, you're getting it at the cost of a party of loons doing significant long term damage. And based on your past comments, you may not care, but please at least acknowledge that that's a reality.

I travel internationally a lot; I've been to 62 countries. It used to be that if I were in Thailand or South Africa or Jordan or Iceland and the subject of politics came up, people in those countries would express their admiration for the American way. Not any more. They're much too polite to say so, but I can sense the pity they feel for us. It's the same sorrow that is felt for someone who was at the top of his game and then squandered it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"party of loons doing significant long term damage"

That's your party. Men can be women, abortion on demand until crowning, spending trillions and causing massive inflation.

"I can sense the pity they feel for us"

Now that is something I really don't care about.

[Sarcastr0]

True mastery of unconsciously embodying the problem Krycheck_2 was describing.

'My party isn't crazy!' ::immediately looks away from his party and towards the opposition::

[Krychek_2]

Nope, my party is not run by election deniers, conspiracy theorists and people who demonstrate repeatedly they don't care about democratic institutions and norms.

[Bob from Ohio]

"my party is not run by election deniers"

Selected, not elected! Diebold! Brian Kemp is not the legitimate governor!

"conspiracy theorists"

Russia got Trump elected! Tony Kennedy resigned because of his son working for Deutsch Bank. Who paid off Kav's debts?

"don’t care about democratic institutions and norms"

Pack the court.

[Bob from Ohio]

"immediately looks away from his party and towards the opposition"

As he and you are doing.

Thinking a man can give birth is crazier than ANYTHING Trump has ever said or done.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok Bob from Ohio, now that was funny = Thinking a man can give birth is crazier than ANYTHING Trump has ever said or done. 🙂

[Nige]

Poor Bob's going to hurt himself straining for equivalences.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Of course what I would like to see is Republicans abandon the silly cultural and pronoun issues, socialism

Convince Democrats to stop pushing/supporting those things and you'll get your wish. Expecting the other side to just roll over and take it isn't the way to go.

[Martinned]

silly cultural and pronoun issues

Only Republicans are talking about this. (And understandably so, because it’s a vote-winner for them.)

socialism

The 1990s called, they want their talking point back. But seriously, I don’t even know what this means.

Modern Monetary Theory

Nobody in politics is talking about this. (In part because nobody in politics knows what MMT entails, just like I suspect you don’t.)

return to standard economics and fiscal sanity

You mean like using fiscal stimulus during recessions, like both Obama and Biden have done?

[dwb68]

Even socialist Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders warned other Democrats that they were focusing too much on cultural issues lmao. Right as he set off to campaign for Democrats. Oh, Obama warned Dems too.

Yeah, it would be nice if socialism was put to bed in the 90s as a failed experiment. Yet, here we are in 2022 and Democrats have embraced it. All the Dems need to do to win is to talk more about redistribution of wealth, amirite?

Also, remember that time Larry Summers (Democrat economist) warned that congressional spending would fuel inflation? I am sure you dont, but you can google it.

[Nige]

How come nobody issues warnings like that to the Republicans? They really are the spoiled brat of US politics. Scolding Democrats about pronouns while Republicans are so far along their pronoun obsession they're trying to make drag shows illegal? 'Democrats, behave! But leave the Republicans alone they're precocious and sensitive!'

[dwb68]

Drag shows don't belong in schools.

Schools need to focus on reading, writing, math, science, art, music, and appropriate exercise. Drag shows do not improve the engineering of carbon capture, reduce the carbon footprint of lithium mining, or teach the coding skills necessary for the next generation of machine learning algorithms that will drive autonomous cars.

[Sarcastr0]

How silly and cultural issue of you.

[Nige]

See? You're very VERY into Republican culture war framing for someone who claims to dislike culture issues so much. Sanders and Obama would be very disappointed in you.

[Voize]

machine learning algorithms that will drive autonomous cars

I for one have no interest in riding in a car driven by a machine that is still learning.

[OtisAH]

Because of the widespread and deeply ingrained belief that holds “That’s how they’re *suppose* to behave but the Dems are suppose to be *better*!”

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Only Republicans are talking about this. (And understandably so, because it’s a vote-winner for them.)

You are, as always, utterly full of shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIQdpqYB7PQ

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/woke-democratic-lawmakers-celebrate-international-pronouns-day

There are many, many others.

[dwb68]

Its amusing to me that people think Republicans are the ones obsessed with pronouns, when the Democrats have the entire force the government agencies trying to erase he/she and teachers get fired for refusing to comply.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one posting obsessively about pronouns here.

[Michael P]

And Democrats are the ones obsessively writing policies about banishing the use of gendered pronouns, the word "parent", and people who use such words.

[Sarcastr0]

'Lok over there! PRONOUN POLICY PEOPLE!'

Says the guy totally not obsessed with pronouns.

[Nige]

See? You have to keep inventing this stuff to drive yourselves ballistic about anything other than real problems.

[Super Scary]

To some commentators here, pointing out the craziness of the left is just as bad (or worse, I guess). Just sit back and let then do what they want, apparently.

[Don Nico]

He may be the only one posting here. But the trust of your comments is disingenuous. The entire pressure concerning pronouns in most organizations comes from the Left and their EDI fixation that mostly sacrifices the E for the D and I

[Nige]

Inasmuch as it's a pressure, it's a social movement, originating with young people, and as these things go doesn't do the slightest bit of harm to anyone. The reactionary anti-pronoun rage, on the other hand, is kind of scary.

[bernard11]

I would like to see the Republicans abandon Trump and his lies, atop nominating idiots like Herschel Walker, Blake Masters, con men like J.D. Vance and Mehmet Oz, realize that refusing to raise the debt ceiling is disastrously stupid - talk about not understanding economics - and also dump the insurrectionists and bigots.

I also second apedad's wishes.

[dwb68]

"I wish the Republicans would nominate more Democrats"
fixed for you.
lol.

[Nige]

So it's either scrape the bottom right out of that barrel or nominate Democrats? Ouch. I suppose you'll want to stick with candidates like the guy who lied about his military record or the other guy caught jerking off in a car near a pre-school. Fair enough.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, dwb68, that's a sick burn on the GOP!

[bernard11]

You mean Herschel Walker is the best they can do?

They couldn't find a single Republican in all of Georgia - remember, Walker is from Texas - who would make a better Senator?

[Bob from Ohio]

"a better Senator"

He's better than Warnock at least.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Only if you have no standards whatsoever.

Your opinion makes perfect sense in that context.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"I wish Republicans would stop nominating stupid blacks, they're supposed to stay on OUR plantation."

Sincerely,

bernard11 and apedad

[Super Scary]

They are a few steps away from calling him "boy"

[Ben_]

That's an interesting list of people you hate.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ah, yes, a perfectly progressive future so we can all live like San Franciscans, except we'll do so in the cold dark.

The Republicans are fucked up, yes it's true. Unfortunately, so are the Democrats.

What does one do in that situation?

[Martinned]

Run/support non-crazy candidates in primaries?

[Bob from Ohio]

"I would like to see "

Who cares. You aren’t going to vote for them no matter what.

[Sarcastr0]

I can want a party to not be crazy, even if I won't vote for them.

dwb68 won't vote Dem either, but he started a conversation about his issue.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

atop nominating idiots like Herschel Walker, Blake Masters...

...Hank Johnson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maizie Hirono, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, ...

Oh, wait...

[Bob from Ohio]

John Fetterman too

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yeah, it's a long list, hence the ellipses.

[Nige]

Of course, none of them are stupid, weird, domestic abusers, Qanon supporters, election lie believers or jerked off near a pre-school.

[Bob from Ohio]

"stupid"

Hank Johnson thinks Guam can be capsized

"weird"

Fetterman wears hoodies and gym shorts, is still supported by his rich parents and chases unarmed black men with a firearm

[Nige]

Yeah, dress isn't 'weird.' Nothing else comes near the bizarros of the Republicans.

[bernard11]

That's what you've got? Hank Johnson?

Pathetic.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That’s what you’ve got? Hank Johnson?

There was a list with several other, dipshit.

Pathetic.

Your reading skills? Yes, they are.

[Nige]

And that's the worst example? Lame.

[Nige]

And Liz Truss is gone. The chaotic implosion of the UK Conservatives is surreally spectacular.

[John F. Carr]

Wow. That was fast. She made a mistake, reversed it quickly, and she's still out.

I did not have enough time to form an opinion about her leadership.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Her mistake occurred when she developed her political positions and relationships, years ago.

Choosing the wrong side of history has consequences.

She's also the type of overmatched dope who announces 'I will not backtrack' the day before she backtracks and 'I am not a quitter' the day before she quits.

[Davedave]

"Her mistake occurred when she developed her political positions and relationships, years ago."

LOL, Artie. This is Liz Truss we're talking about. She started off on the other side. She has entirely reversed her politics for personal gain. If she hadn't changed from 'when she developed her political positions' she'd still be a Labour activist.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Like, er, Boris...

"Opportunist" seems to about capture it.

[Nige]

Her leadership was cartoonishly awful.

[Davedave]

She didn't just make a mistake, she destroyed her credibility. We want grownups to run the country, not people who believe in fairytales.

The fallout from this will be pretty significant - the Tory MPs wanted Sunak, because any other option was obviously insane. But they couldn't quite get enough votes together to stop the Tory party members getting to pick between the final two. The Tory party members then demonstrated they are every bit as self-serving, racist, and demented as stereotype has it, and picked Truss ahead of 'the darkie'. The system is going to change, and the members are no longer going to get a say.

[shawn_dude]

The difference between a competent leader and a head of lettuce is that the competent leader vets these sorts of decisions well before releasing them into the wild, and whey they do release, they are adept at selling them to their constituencies.

But hey, what was the lettuce to know about this given that it seemed so easy for Trump to do the same thing while raising taxes on the coastal middle classes at the same time.

[Martinned]

That's the key difference between the UK and the US. In the UK, a phenomenal screw-up on the Tory side results in a massive swing in polling numbers. Unlike Trump, the Tories don't have a very hard floor in the polls.

[Bob from Ohio]

"massive swing in polling numbers"

Two years until the next required election. Stupid to worry about polls.

UK's problem is they've abandoned the traditional role of the PM, first among equals but forms policy after cabinet consultations and discussions, in lieu of a semi-US presidential system of policy formed by PM alone. Related, too large of a cabinet. Minister for Leveling Up!

[Martinned]

Look at that, we agree! I guess agreement between us is possible, as long as we're not talking about the US...

[Aunt Teefah]

> enters office
> immediately kills the queen and sabotages UK economy
> leaves

Good work, Agent Truss. #TrussThePlan

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Compare and contrast the treatment the Democrat Justice System gave a decorated war hero and veteran, Michael Flynn and the Russian foreign agent Election saboteur Dancheko got, both for lying to the FBI.

One got his life ruined, the other made millions in pay from the FBI.

[Moderation4ever]

Michael Flynn destroyed his own life nobody helped him. He is like many who when in the public eye forget the values that brought them there and then succumbs to temptation.

[Ed Grinberg]

The FBI (the entire Department of Justice? the entire federal justice system?) is utterly corrupt.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There really is no saving the Federal Class. No redemption. Only burning it to the ground is left.

[Davedave]

Another Nazi-traitor comment from BCD. Forgotten to take your meds again?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Apparently the only "non-treasonous" position to have now-a-days is to have boot of the State firmly in your lips.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The State can do anything, even kill children, and you will still worship it.

[apedad]

"Only burning it to the ground is left."

Not more oversight à la Church Committee? https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/investigations/church-committee.htm

Not more reporting requirements, e.g. Intelligence Oversight, tied to the budget?

Just straight to burn it all down.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, watching the collective behaviors of the chairs of the house intelligence committee (let alone committee members), do you believe a ‘Church’ style committee is even possible today? I do not.

If that cannot happen (for whatever reason), why isn’t ‘burn it down to the ground’ a logical option for consideration?

PS: I would love to see a truly bipartisan Church committee redux, to expose and address the abuses that are very evident.

[shawn_dude]

Isn't this Bannon's proposed solution for the US Constitution as well?

[Randal]

Really, you're still on team Flynn? You haven't noticed him doing sedition lately?

[Roman Moroni]

Apparently George Floyd’s family is suing Ye (Kanye West) for $250 million based on his comments on the Drink Champs interview. I didn’t really follow the merits of the Alex Jones lawsuit, but is this similar? Does it have any chance of success, and what kind of precedent does it set for unpopular opinions expressed publicly in the future? They say George Floyd’s daughter somehow suffered damages because of Ye’s statements, even within a couple days of him making them.

Even if the lawsuit is ultimately unsuccessful it already seems to have a chilling effect. The Drink Champs interview was quickly demonetized on YouTube and I believe has been taken down everywhere because everyone else could be worried about getting sued.

[Martinned]

unpopular opinions

You spelled "inaccurate and defamatory statements of fact" wrong.

[Ed Grinberg]

Here are some highly accurate statements of fact:

- George Floyd had a history of violent crimes
- Minneapolis police attempted to arrest George Floyd for passing fake currency
- George Floyd resisted arrest
- George Floyd died from a drug overdose

Now sue me.

[Martinned]

Do we need to have a conversation about standing?

[not guilty]

I don´t see a standing problem regarding an emotional distress claim. (Defamation of a dead person is not actionable.) Emotional distress is an injury in fact, attributable to West´s comments, which is remediable in damages.

The obstacle I see is First Amendment protection. If the unhinged rants of Fred Phelps and his relatives are protected, I fail to see how Kanye West´s statements are beyond the pale.

[Davedave]

You can't defame anyone, Ed. You're not credible, influential, or listened to by anyone.

[Bob from Ohio]

"defamatory"

You can't defame a dead man.

The suit is for an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[Martinned]

True, I stand corrected on that point.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"You can’t defame a dead man."

Civilly speaking, you can't.

But watch out for the criminal law:

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 2 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 16-11-40 - Criminal defamation
O.C.G.A. 16-11-40 (2010)
16-11-40. Criminal defamation

(a) A person commits the offense of criminal defamation when, without a privilege to do so and with intent to defame another, living or dead, he communicates false matter which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead or which exposes one who is alive to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, and which tends to provoke a breach of the peace.

(b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-11/article-2/16-11-40/

[Roman Moroni]

I agree with you that Ye is absolutely wrong about all of it. But I don’t honestly believe that HE believes he’s wrong. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think he’s not knowingly lying or meeting what I thought was the legal threshold for defamation.

And I don’t think his words are causing George Floyd’s daughter financial harm or making her unsafe in any way.

I do believe this is his opinion. And I’m not sure when an opinion becomes something else. Is his opinion beyond the legal threshold of speech because you and I think there’s just too much evidence to the contrary for anyone to POSSIBLY hold that opinion in good faith? I know that isn’t the case because lots of people hold all kinds of crazy, and yes hurtful, opinions without a shred of compelling evidence, but I have to believe that even though it makes no sense to me, they really do hold those opinions and I think it would be dangerous to punish them for it.

[Davedave]

"Does it have any chance of success, and what kind of precedent does it set for unpopular opinions expressed publicly in the future?"

Of course it's going to be successful, the Nazi nutcase will either settle or go bankrupt. It wasn't a statement of opinion, it was a statement of untrue 'facts'. There is no possible defence, since the allegations were clear, and obviously baseless.

[John F. Carr]

The lawsuit is for "harassment, misappropriation, defamation and infliction of emotional distress". My understanding dead people can't sue for defamation. I understand the emotional distress claim is because his daughter is upset at hearing that he died from drugs and police brutality instead of from police brutality and drugs.

[Martinned]

The latest news is that Boris Johnson is taking soundings about a leadership run "in the national interest".

[Nige]

Him or Sunak? Pity the nation.

[Martinned]

Or Mordaunt. Without Boris she'd be the frontrunner.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wasn’t Mordred bad for the country the last time he tried to take over?

[Nige]

They've gone from the once and future king to that is not dead which can eternal lie.

[Martinned]

True, that didn't end so well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordred

Penny Mordaunt, on the other hand, is the current Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council (which is why she was in charge during the Accession Council). She's held a range of ministerial posts since 2014, including 2.5 months as Secretary of State for Defence in 2019.

I couldn't tell you whether she'd make a good PM, but if Lord Frost of all people criticised her for "master[ing] the detail that was necessary when we were in [Brexit] negotiations", that doesn't bode well.

Basically you should think of her as the Truss continuity candidate, and Sunak as the pro-Brexit version of David Cameron.

[bernard11]

Very good, Azilia.

[Davedave]

Boris is always trying to get himself in the papers - but since there is no financial benefit to him, he won't make a leadership bid.

[Martinned]

I would feel more confident of that if William Hill didn't have him on 10/3, behind only Sunak and Mordaunt.

[Bob from Ohio]

Kemi Badenoch would be the inspired choice.

[Martinned]

OK, so I guess the scope for agreement isn't that large after all. Badenoch is the person you go for if you want more culture war and less substance than either Johnson or Truss.

[Davedave]

"Badenoch is the person you go for if you want more culture war and less substance than either Johnson or Truss."

That's a view that smacks of racism and misogyny, really - certainly a lot of the criticism of her is rather racist. Badenoch is no lightweight. As much as I disagree with her, she is not a loony or a fake. She's intelligent and sticks to her principles, such as they are.

[Martinned]

Wait, back up, I criticised her political views and her style of doing politics, and you accuse me of being a racist? Are you nuts?

[Davedave]

I'm not accusing you of being racist, I'm saying you've been persuaded of something that obviously isn't true by the sometimes-clearly-racist often-clearly-misogynist criticism surrounding her.

It is pretty obvious that she is not short on 'substance'. I completely disagree with her premises, but she is consistent and logical.

[Davedave]

IDK, it was unimaginable the Tories would be daft enough to pick anyone but Sunak the first time round, so I'm not as confident as I'd like - but if they pick Boris this time, it's the end of the Tories as a major party. The MPs are not going to let that happen, because it's their jobs on the line.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

The usual line of his support is that he is a "vote winner", despite his flaws.

Sadly, this is true.

[Davedave]

It really isn't true at all. Beating Corbyn because you're slightly less vile doesn't make you a winner. No-one wanted to vote for him apart from the handful of loons who still support him.

[John F. Carr]

"Miss me yet?" - GWB

[shawn_dude]

Oh, the days of the lesser evil. I miss my naivete, which died in flames in 2016.

[OtisAH]

Nothing says “mandate to lead” like bringing back the guy you kicked out two months ago because his replacement resigned and nobody else wants the job…

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome to the Daily Mail edition of Thursday Open Thread.

[Martinned]

As long as we don't have a sidebar of shame, we're OK

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned flaunts taunt opinion.

[John F. Carr]

Can we be the Sun instead? Never mind, they ditched Page 3 a few years ago. But we do have the online dating podcast ads as a sexy alternative to law and politics.

[Both Sides]

When I think of what the pros and cons of the VC are, “sexy” never occurs to me as a descriptor. . . .

[Mr. Bumble]

He's referring to the comments linking to French transvestites.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Now, Biden is bitching at the energy companies for doing share buybacks and paying dividends? What should they be doing instead?

Why, they should be drilling wells and "refining more oil". Of course, everything he's done since day 1 of his administration has been done to discourage them from drilling wells and refining more oil, including cancelling a permit that would have added to refining capacity. And of course, threatening extinction.

This clown somehow makes the appalling DJT seem like Lincoln by comparison. Easily the least competent president of my lifetime. I thought we'd hit a new low with the last one, but no, turns out we had plenty of room to fall.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Easily the least competent president of my lifetime."

...of all time.

[Martinned]

Easily the least competent president of my lifetime.

Congratulations, you write pretty well for a 1-year old.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Your witty comeback, if true, just confirms the accuracy of my statement. Well done, moron.

[Davedave]

Did that somehow make sense in your head? My toddler is more coherent.

[OtisAH]

How does it do that?

[bevis the lumberjack]

If I’m one year old I was born after Biden was inaugurated. Who would that make the most incompetent president of my lifetime? Think real hard, but if it makes your brain hurt before you get the answer you can stop.

[OtisAH]

If you were 1yo you’d have no opinion on the president.

[Michael P]

Yes, much of what Martinned writes is absolute nonsense.

[Sarcastr0]

You have a thing with Biden and energy policy not being what you want it to be, and it makes you do superlatives a lot.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re going to hate this energy policy too when the chickens come home to roost.

You literally don’t see the problem with executing an energy policy that has been proven to fail? You’re really that team blind?

[Sarcastr0]

You have a bunch of axioms you are too certain of to bother supporting, that I'm not sure I agree with.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I'm paying a lot more for gasoline. I know I don't like the energy policy that helped make it that way.

Energy cost increase is hitting all parts of the supply chain, and the regulatory climate has changed very dramatically between administrations (friendly to something other than friendly). The markets react to that - and they are. I am not sure you understand just how much this is affecting the lower quintiles of the income spectrum on a day to day survival and quality of life aspect. Maybe get outside the DC bubble for a while and take a look at how the country is living.

[Sarcastr0]

Good comment. I note the lack of superlatives.

Inflation sucks. I hope it goes away soon; but it is a worldwide phenomenon - it's not at all clearly tied to Biden's policies, regardless of how angry bevis gets.

I do find the GOP suddenly coming out for the poor to be a bit rich.

[apedad]

"Inflation sucks."

Not if you owe someone a lot of money.

Recession sucks.

Not if someone owes you money.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“Inflation sucks.”

Not if you owe someone a lot of money.

Recession sucks.

Not if someone owes you money.

Your fondness for childishly simple-minded nonsense continues.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What really sucks is the editing function here, which won't allow me to fix the formatting error above. It accepts the edit without error, but then discards it.

[bernard11]

Recession sucks.

Not if someone owes you money.

Unless it means they can't pay.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The CBO estimated that by itself the last stimulus that Biden insisted on increased our inflation rate by 3% gross.

Inflation is worldwide because oil is worldwide. Biden did that all by himself with a late assist from Putin.

And there’s another thing that they need to be doing but they’re not, because if they were you’d be hearing about it. Solar and land are very inefficient in terms of land. They’re going to need to confiscate tens of millions of acres. Maybe more than a hundred million. Flyover farms to heat coastal elites. That’s going to be a cat fight.

There. No superlatives. Just flat numbers.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden is responsible for worldwide oil prices?

The CBO estimated Biden's 2021 bill would raise inflation by 3% forever?

Do better, bevis.

Solar and land are very inefficient in terms of land. They’re going to need to confiscate tens of millions of acres.
Call me when that happens.

[Nige]

Are oil companies jacking up oil prices to punish Green policies by Biden and other world leaders, show them who’s really boss? Dunno, better vote for whoever’ll appease them the quickest, ’cause they’re in charge.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sarcastro, your smug to knowledge ratio is higher than seems possible.

You don’t understand energy, and you don’t understand inflation. Biden did oil all on his own. His fingerprints are all over inflation, but his ill-considered stimulus exasperated it greatly, as he was warned in advance.

Don’t pop off about things you don’t understand.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-energy-land-use-economy/?leadSource=uverify%20wall

[Sarcastr0]

I *disagree with you* on energy and inflation.

You have strong opinions, and you mistake them as fact. It's the Brett Belmore disease, and I hope you arrest it before the transformation is complete.

[Davedave]

Bevis, grow up. Your hatred of Biden is leading you to say ludicrous things. Oil prices are high because Putin invaded Ukraine and started a war. Whether they're ever so slightly higher (or not) because of something Biden did is a rounding error - the difference is utterly insignificant.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Your basis for disagreement is that Biden is on your team. That’s it. All you got.

Note that you didn’t address the Great Land Grab that everyone is ignoring. Because you have no rational way to defend it. You’re always bitching about links and I even gave you one, to no avail. Because you just want to dispute without applying any substance.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Bevis, grow up.

That's rich coming from someone who calls everyone he doesn't agree with a Nazi.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bevis, did you even read that link you supplied. It contains an explanation for how to fit the needed renewable resources into existing—mostly agricultural—lands without disrupting them. Have you ever been to Iowa? That is already happening there, pretty large scale. Wind farms in the farmers' fields, as far as the eye can see.

[bernard11]

I read the link, Bevis. Kind of interesting.

But I wonder about the land use analysis. What about gas stations disappearing, and land becoming available that way? I know there will be charging stations, but since EV's can also be charged at home surely a lot of land will be saved. What about natural gas pipelines, and a lot of land devoted to oil refining and the like?

Nor does the article allow for possible efficiency improvements in wind and solar, which would reduce land use requirements.

I don't have figures on these things, but it does seem as if this sort of article ought to take those savings into account.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Don't knee jerk so often. Occasionally do the math before commenting,

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, the saying that comes to mind...if you're in a hole, stop digging. That is what somebody needs to say wrt current energy policy in DC.

[Sarcastr0]

You and I also disagree about inflation and oil prices.

You can think I'm being silly be pointing out that opinion is not fact, but that just says something about your ability to distinguish.

[Nige]

Most of those price rises are going straight to corporate profits.

[Don Nico]

Where else should they go?
While you are at it start discounting those profits at 6 % to 8% per years for the new few years.

[Nige]

Well, indeed, it's massive price-gouging all round.

Oh no, not 6 to 8%! How will they cope?

[OtisAH]

Quick question: What are MAGAs proscribed policy solutions for inflation?

[Davedave]

MAGA nuts believe inflation is part of the Jew plot, and can be solved with gas chambers.

[bernard11]

Bevis,

You are big on pointing out others' biases.

IIRC, your career has been in the energy business. Do you stop and think that maybe some of your views are biased by that background?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bernard, I’ve been out of the business for 6 years. My relationship to the energy business is the same as yours, except that I understand it. No financial connection at all, and I criticized it plenty as an insider.

In 2020 i voted for a woman Democrat for the TRRC because she was criticizing the industry for flare pollution and I thought she was correct. Hardly smacks of bias in favor of the industry.

Note that all of y’all say that I’m wrong without being able to say why. When you’re wrong on energy I describe why you are. Maybe the bias is on your side.

[Sarcastr0]

When you’re wrong on energy I describe why you are.

But you don't - you just call everyone too ignorant to understand your insights.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Your problem is that you don’t want to know. So I’m gonna stop. No sense wasting my time on you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bevis, read your own link. It explains how to do what you say is impossible. Seems plausible to me.

I have been to Iowa. They have done a lot to integrate wind farms and agriculture. They seem to have a lot of room to do more. Texas is nowhere near Iowa-level development for wind energy, despite much more wind to develop. Other states have barely got started. Solar may be harder to integrate, and more controversial environmentally. Which will probably mean that developing it will rely on a mix of southwestern solar farms, and rooftops almost everywhere. Presumably, efficiency of solar and wind power production still has a way to go.

I look at the problems you insist on, and they just don't seem that dire. We haven't even mentioned huge reductions in demand available from conservation. Whatever you project the footprint will be, if conservation saves half, you can cut the footprint in half.

Finally, note also that the existing footprint for energy resources is enormous—and enormously distorted by monumentally inefficient corn and soy energy crops—as your link details. I do not suppose you support those distortions, but it is worth noting that the nation has already sacrificed the equivalent of a mid-western state to generate about 5% of its energy, and we don't have to do that.

[Nige]

A Trump supporter complaining about the president 'bitching?' It is to laugh.

[shawn_dude]

Biden approved 34% more oil leases on government land in his first year than Trump–nearly 2000.

When prior presidents opened up leases in Alaska, companies weren’t all that interested despite all the media hype and political furor. Many of the leases that were sold went unused and expired.

Why don’t the oil companies accelerate pumping and new drilling with the many leases they currently hold? Because they don’t believe it would make good financial sense. They like the profit they're making without introducing more supply into the market, it seems.

[ReaderY]

The prosecutor’s not here! Let’s see how much we can get away with.

[Ben_]

Next year the Republican house and Senate should pass a bill legalizing DACA, but make that legal status contingent on the governors of border states unanimously certifying that the border is secure. And phase it in over a period of 10 years so the border has to stay secure.

[Martinned]

Wait, Congress should delegate control over immigration policy to governors of border states? I thought we were against delegations?

[Ben_]

The certification of a fact is not "control".

[Martinned]

It is if that certification (or lack thereof) is unreviewable, which I took you to be suggesting.

[Ben_]

The bill isn’t written, so you don’t have any basis to conclude that the specific language is unreasonable.

But ok, whatever. Then Republicans can be like Democrats and let the DACA people twist in the wind the rest of their lives. Biden would never sign a bill helping DACA people if it meant actually securing the border anyway. Republicans should find a way to get such a bill to Biden’s desk for his veto. The way I suggested would be one way to do that. Not the only way.

[Martinned]

No, the way you suggested would have no effect whatsoever, because at least one of the relevant governors would swear on a stack of bibles that the border wasn't "secure" no matter what the actual circumstances.

[Ben_]

The people of border states have a right to elect governors and representatives who represent them. They don’t require your approval.

[shawn_dude]

Third largest contingent of illegal immigration comes from China and they arrive via airline and overstay vacation visas.

Where's the FOX news hype about "invasion" and replacement theory there?

[Mr. Bumble]

Entitled and stupid; you can't fix either.
Climate protestors glue themselves to floor and then demand toilet facilities.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/vw-climate-protesters-demand-bowl-to-urinate-and-defecate-after-gluing-themselves-to-floor/news-story/c6607e415934d4e36d3188b2d0c7e2b5

[John F. Carr]

Give them a bowl just out of reach. Call it art. "Tantalus 2022."

[Nige]

You can call it a demand, if you like, but really it's just practical.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe they should have thought ahead and brought their own instead of expecting to be catered to.

[Nige]

Maybe they did, and are prepared for a dirty protest if the authorities are ok with it.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and maybe, oh never mind.

[Sarcastr0]

You must be great at parties.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

The Third XRzi Demand is "...our democracy is inadequate to overseeing [the necessary changes] and so it needs changing. Hence the [Citizen Assembly] demand."

Those who claim the right to change the law using anti-democratic coercion don't seem to understand that the rule of law is probably the only thing keeping other people from kicking their heads in.

These people are free to leave the private property at any time.

[not guilty]

The special master in the Mar-a-Lago documents seizure matter seems to be requiring Donald Trump´s lawyers to support factually their claims of attorney-client privilege. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/18/us/politics/special-master-trump-privilege.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_impression_cut_3_filter_new_arm_5_1&alpha=0.05&block=more_in_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=134634900&impression_id=854ef540-4f6c-11ed-9174-af5842c78be3&index=0&pgtype=Article&pool=more_in_pools%2Fpolitics&region=footer&req_id=53479119&surface=eos-more-in&variant=0_bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_impression_cut_3_filter_new_arm_5_1 Good for him!

Whether a communication or document is covered by the attorney-client privilege is a question of fact, determined by an eight-part test: (1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived. The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of proving each essential element.

Judge Dearie seems to realize that merely asserting that a document is privileged doesn´t make it so. Let´s see how Team Trump responds.

[ReaderY]

In the oral argument in Merrill v. Milligan, Justice Jackson made an argument that I don’t was answered.

Alabama’s position was that you start with residential patterns as they are, then apply traditional districting criteria and see if you can end up with the plaintiff’s proposed majority-minority districts. And traditional criteria, it argued, are race-neutral. It offered a simulation where “traditional” race-neutral criteria were allegedly applied. The simulation failed to produce 2 majority-minority districts.

Justice Jackson’s answer to this was to step back and ask why black Alabamians live disproportionately in a small part of the state. The reason, she said, is a pattern of housing discrimination and housing segregation. Alabama’s proposed race-neutral neutral approach, which took existing housing patterns as givens and worked from there, in effect took existing patterns of discrimination as givens and worked from that. That, Justice Jackson argued, is illegitimate. It is not the role of discrimination laws to treat discrimination as a given. The question of what voting power black Alabamians would have in the absence of discrimination is simply not one that can be answered by a similation that uses the results of discrimination as its starting point and as part of its unchallenged assumptions.

[Brett Bellmore]

But it's irrelevant: The state's obligation is to refrain from racial discrimination, not to affirmatively recreate the world that would exist if racial discrimination had never been.

[bernard11]

IOW, to perpetuate discrimination.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nope. To top discriminating, and that's it.

Where do you stop in creating this hypothetical, counterfactual "world where discrimination never happened", while perpetrating current discrimination against innocents in order to create it?

The sunk costs of the past need to be left sunk, or you create new costs today.

[Sarcastr0]

Yet again: De Facto Jim Crow: You're condoning it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yet again: Bullshit.

You're trying to erase an historical injustice. The injustice is real, sure, but in the attempt you're perpetrating fresh injustices today.

Sunk costs are sunk costs. Treat them as such, don't incur new costs by trying to erase them.

[Nige]

The generational effects of inequality and prejudice are not a sunk cost.

[bernard11]

What injustice is perpetrated in the Alabama case?

White voters are being denied disproportionately favorable representation?

[Sarcastr0]

You do not believe it is the government's job to address de facto Jim Crow regimes.

That's not being pro-liberty; that's just hewing to some formal understanding of individual rights to the death of a functional understanding of individual rights.

[bernard11]

I don't think you know what sunk costs are.

By definition, they are not recoverable. These are somewhat recoverable, as you concede.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, no, they’re not recoverable.

Say somebody commits arson, burning your house to the ground. The house has burned, that’s not being undone, the cost can’t be erased, it can only be moved around.

Now, if the arsonist can be identified, and has assets, those assets can be used to rebuild your house, which to you looks like recovery, but society is still poorer by one burned house. Still, worth doing.

But, in this case, the arsonist is long dead, no assets available to attach. So the government designates some fall guy, who is innocent of the crime, but maybe looks like the late arsonist if you squint, and takes HIS assets, and rebuilds your house.

That’s not “recovery” by any definition. That’s just a fresh injustice.

And that’s the sort of thing we’re talking about. The discrimination happened, years ago. That fact can’t be changed. It has effects today, even though the victims and the victimizers are both dead.

But what is proposed is not erasing the discrimination from history. What’s proposed is discriminating today, against people who weren’t responsible for the discrimination that you’re complaining of.

I mean, it would make as much sense to demand reparations from England to be paid to Irish Americans who the British starved out of their homeland during the Potato famine. Sure, the British committed terribly wrongs, which benefited the British and harmed the Irish, and you can find people today descended from folks on both sides of that conflict. But today's British people don't owe Irish-Americans diddly squat.

[Nige]

Interestingly, reparations for the abolition of slavery were being paid in the UK until relatively recently. To the descendants of slave owners.

[shawn_dude]

In your example, for it to be relevant, the "arsonist" is the state government. So the arsonist is not "long dead." Red lining and other anti-black laws and policies designed to keep them poor and concentrated on the outskirts of white cities were perpetrated by the government itself.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, you are simultaneously calling the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow a, "sunk cost," and demanding that blacks—and only blacks—keep paying for that legacy year after year. You seem to think that is a good faith argument, but it does not play like one.

[Davedave]

Yes, but Stephen, we know Brett is an actual honest-to-god Hitler worshipper. He's not even a neo-Nazi, just the old-fashioned type. He wants to gas every single person in the world with skin darker than an albino, but he doesn't want to admit it, so he's flailing as usual.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm usually at least a bit annoyed at such accusations, but Davedave's are so over the top that they're hard to take seriously.

[Don Nico]

Cute slogan. Rule 1 of microeconomics. Sunk costs are gone and are irrelevant to future costs vs benefits

[shawn_dude]

Sure, but since we're still paying that bill, we can include those debts that remain and include them in any future cost/benefit analysis. The amazing part about unpaid bills is that they tend to accrue interest.

[Randal]

Another Brett fantasy.

The state's obligation is to refrain from racial discrimination

Where did you get that from? The VRA wouldn't work at all if that were true.

[bernard11]

Well, Doug Mastriano is a little bit on my mind.

How many of the conservatives here would vote for him if they lived in PA? How representative is he of the GOP?

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, kind of loaded question(s). Answers.

1. Pretty much 90%+, since his opponent is Josh Shapiro. If there is an 'October Surprise' - that changes. I will simply say that observing that race from the People's Republic of NJ, it is nasty, and Shapiro looks like a 'lock' to me. Shapiro will not enjoy dealing with an opposition house and senate.

2. Define representative. If Mastriano has 10 policy positions and one agrees with 5 of them...is that representative? If I have the same philosophical framework as Mastriano, but have 10 completely different policy positions, is Mastriano representative?

If you're worried about the PA governors race, you can relax. I don't think Mastriano wins.

[bernard11]

Policy positions?

We're not talking about taxes, or school funding, or economic development. The guy is a nutcase Christian nationalist. He runs around with antisemites and criticizes Shapiro for sending his kids to an "elitist" Jewish school. He's prepared to appoint a Secretary of State who might refuse to certify the 2024 election if a Democrat wins, and you're talking about policy positions?

At what point do just reject these assholes, and live with what you think are bad policies for a while?

[Bob from Ohio]

"How many of the conservatives here would vote for him if they lived in PA?"

He's the GOP nominee, so of course.

[Ridgeway]

The only reason he is the nominee is the Dems outspent him by a significant to help him defeat his primary opponents.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's still the nominee and deserves support. A victory [however unlikely in his case] would be even sweeter.

[Sarcastr0]

The pride by which Bob tells us what a pan utter tool he is again and again is kind of amazing.

[MoreCurious]

With the possible exception of Herschel Walker, Doug Mastriano is the dumbest, least qualified candidate running this year. Doesn't that bother you at all, Bob?

[shawn_dude]

If his open fascism and antisemitism don't, do you think just being "dumb" is going to an issue?

[bernard11]

More from Mastriano,

“And on top of all this, [Shapiro] is standing aside while the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is grabbing homeless kids and kids in foster care apparently and experimenting on them with gender transitioning; something that’s irreversible,” Mastriano said.

Just an ordinary Republican, I guess.

[bernard11]

I thought it was because he became Trump's darling.

[M L]

Biden's FBI conducted a (heretofore undisclosed) heavily armed raid on the residence of a prominent journalist back in April. I wonder if he's going to be charged with a crime or just persecuted without indictment? Oh, and it seems he's been missing since then.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/fbi-raid-abc-news_producer-1234613619/

The first thing Meek’s neighbor John Antonelli noticed that morning was the black utility vehicle with blacked out windows blocking traffic in both directions on Columbia Pike. It was just before dawn on that brisk April day, and self-described police-vehicle historian Antonelli was about to grab a coffee at a Starbucks before embarking on his daily three-mile walk. He inched closer to get a better vantage, when he saw an olive-green Lenco BearCat G2, an armored tactical vehicle often employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, among other law-enforcement agencies. A few Arlington County cruisers surrounded the jaw-dropping scene, but all of the other vehicles were unmarked, including the BearCat. Antonelli counted at least 10 heavily armed personnel in the group. None bore anything identifying which agency was conducting the raid. After just 10 minutes, the operation inside the Siena Park apartment complex — a six-story, upscale building for D.C. professionals, with rents fetching about $2,000 to $3,000 a month — was over.

“They didn’t stick around. They took off pretty quickly and headed west on Columbia Pike towards Fairfax County,” Antonelli recalls. “Most people seeing that green vehicle would think it’s some kind of tank. But I knew it was the Lenco BearCat. That vehicle is designed to be jumped out of so they can do a raid in that kind of time. It can return fire if they’re being fired upon.”

[DaveM]

Was Hillary driving?

[Nige]

Is that the guy whose attorney says he's fine just not being public because no, ragetruthing and giving press conferences are not the things you should be doing when raided by the FBI?

Also, yes, holy crap, demilitarise law enforcement.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

“Mr. Meek is unaware of what allegations anonymous sources are making about his possession of classified documents,” his lawyer, Eugene Gorokhov, said in a statement.

[Nige]

'Wait for facts to emerge' would seem like the best approach.

[Davedave]

https://deadline.com/2022/10/abc-news-producer-fbi-raid-james-gordon-meek-1235149633/

He has in fact fled from justice.

[Don Nico]

You care to prove that stuttering dave?
Give the exact worlds from you cited article.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Give the exact worlds from you cited article."

Mistakes notwithstanding, I managed to find this article with a single google search of the man's name.

It was even one of the top-four responses to my query!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/producer-james-gordon-meek-disappeared-after-fbi-raid-rolling-stone-reports

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Rolling Stone reports."

OK, then.

[Davedave]

His lawyer said the stuff lawyers say when their client has fled from justice. It's pretty obvious. AFAICT the only reason there are no charges yet is that the perp absconded.

[David Nieporent]

AFAICT the only reason there are no charges yet is that the perp absconded.

As always, your ignorance of the law is impressive. To quote GEICO: That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

[Sarcastr0]

He’s doing what defense attorneys tell you to do.
Smart guy.

You thinking it’s a rendition or something is stupid.

[shawn_dude]

Wasn't there a Q-drop that said he was hiding out in the basement of a pizza parlor?

[not guilty]

Judge David Carter has ordered that more of John Eastman´s emails be disclosed to the House January 6 investigating committee, in that they more likely than not evince criminal activity. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23168579-carter-decision

Among the court´s findings is that Donald Trump signed under oath and submitted to a federal court in Georgia a verification including false vote totals, even after Eastman had advised Trump of the falsity of the numbers. Judge Carter opined ¨The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public. The Court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.¨

This false swearing should also bolster the criminal investigation of Trump in Georgia. A relevant state statute, Georgia Code § 16-10-70(a), provides:

A person to whom a lawful oath or affirmation has been administered commits the offense of perjury when, in a judicial proceeding, he knowingly and willfully makes a false statement material to the issue or point in question.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is interesting, in that, at least theoretically, the January 6th committee isn't conducting a criminal investigation. It's investigating to see what changes to laws might be in order. It being a legislative committee, not a grand jury.

It's not clear to me that "evinces criminal activity" actually makes the contents of the email relevant to the committee's theoretical purpose.

Of course, we all know the committee's actual purpose has nothing to do with legislation, and maybe this is just the judge tacitly acknowledging that.

[Randal]

Oh come on. You don't see how knowing what the President and his shady lawyer were talking about would be useful to the January 6 committee's quest to figure out how to better protect the country from people like the President and his shady lawyer?

That's just willful self-retardation.

[not guilty]

Judge Carter´s analysis considered whether the emails were privileged in the first instance, and if so, whether the crime-fraud exception nonetheless required disclosure. Relevance was not at issue.

But I suspect you know that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But I suspect you know that.

That is remarkably generous of you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This judge doesn't care. They only care about damaging Trump before he runs again.

[MoreCurious]

No one needs to damage Trump; he's doing a remarkable job of damaging himself.

[shawn_dude]

I mean, really, since the Access Hollywood recording, has Trump really done anything to actually worsen his reputation among the GOP? Do we see the GOP inching away from him or still leaping to embrace him? He's a terrible human being that sees life as purely transactional for his own momentary pleasure. He's never had to truly face any real consequences for his actions and I don't see any indication that he ever will. Worst case is he has to sell one of his many clubs to pay for an IRS settlement, which he'll use to fundraise on, and then he'll die on his golden toilet surrounded by his only love--himself.

[John F. Carr]

On December 1 Trump swore that Fulton County counted votes of "10,315 deceased people, 2,560 felons, and 2,423 unregistered voters." Eastman wrote on December 31, "[Trump] has since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate. For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate." Trump signed a new pleading anyway, incorporating the original figures by reference but not repeating them. (Carter order, pp. 16-17.)

Let's put Trump aside. People lie in civil cases all the time. What are the odds that some random person in Trump's position would be charged? Trump could claim that given conflicting evidence he believed the evidence that was more favorable to his position.

Carter takes a shot at Trump's lawyers in footnotes 74 and 75. Basically, no matter how gullible Trump is his lawyers should have known better. Are they facing discipline over the Georgia lawsuit?

[bernard11]

Let’s put Trump aside. People lie in civil cases all the time.

So it's commonplace and not worth getting excited over? Funny, that's not what conservatives thought when Clinton did it.

[not guilty]

The Georgia statute that I quoted makes no exception for false swearing in civil cases.

Several of Trump´s lawyers and former lawyers are facing disciplinary proceedings, including allegations of conduct involving dishonesty. Those whom I am aware of were not counsel of record in the Georgia district court proceeding. https://casetext.com/case/trump-v-kemp I don´t know whether the Georgia attorney who there represented Trump is or is not facing any disciplinary proceeding.

[John F. Carr]

I'm not questioning whether there is reason to suspect perjury. I'm asking if, were Trump charged, he would have a fair claim that he was being singled out for unusual but not illegal treatment.

Under the circumstances I doubt that he had the required criminal intent. The question is not whether the numbers were false but whether he (1) realized he was reaffirming those exact numbers despite the obfuscated pleading, and (2) subjectively believed they were wrong. On the public evidence so far, I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump in December and January believed he lost fair and square.

[Randal]

Wow, congratulations on your adept goal-post vanishing act there in the last sentence.

[not guilty]

When even a tool like Eastman advises that the subject numbers are false, that is a pretty good indication of Trump´s culpable state of mind. If Trump in December and January didn´t believe he lost fair and square, the principle of willful blindness comes into play.

Selective prosecution can theoretically be a defense, but the cases in whch it is available are vanishingly few. The defense must show that other persons situated similarly to the accused have not been prosecuted by the particular authorities for the same offense, and the selection of the accused was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. See, Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962). A prosecutor´s exercise of discretion not to prosecute is essentially unreviewable.

[Mr. Bumble]

For those of you who don't visit the Reason side and interesting article aon why some lawyers (and their clients) cause people to lose respect for the law.

https://reason.com/2022/10/20/texas-pete-hot-sauce-the-latest-victim-in-exploding-trend-of-cynical-false-labeling-lawsuits/

[Martinned]

Previously covered repeatedly, and with much more humour, by Lowering The Bar: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2021/06/hint-of-lime-case-its-not-crunch-berries-but-its-close.html

[John F. Carr]

Last week Boston asked people not to feed the homeless drug addicts lest they think being homeless drug addicts is acceptable behavior. A few days later, the Boston Herald reported the city was handing out free drug paraphernalia. So it's wrong to help the homeless eat, but right to help them inject drugs.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/10/15/boston-nonprofits-giving-out-drug-pipes-tourniquets-cookers-on-mass-and-cass/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federals just voted to make the COVID-19 vaccine part of the childhood vaccination schedule.

Now, of course, the COVID vaccine makers get legal immunity. And we all know the Federals also have immunity from almost everything, so no one will ever be held accountable for the harm caused by the State actions and by the clot shot.

Ever.

[Davedave]

Fuck off, Kremlinbot.

[David Nieporent]

I think you forgot the scare quotes around "harm."

[Noorondoor]

So SCOTUS predictably denied the taxpayer standing argument for the student loan "relief" out of Wisconsin. I see what the play is here. They'll ultimately rule that Biden didn't have the authority, but that since it's already been done, the money can't be clawed back. So Biden gets what he wants, a vote buying exercise.

[not guilty]

Steve Bannon has been sentenced to four months confinement and a fine of $6,500 for his conviction of two counts of contempt of Congress. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/us/politics/steve-bannon-sentence-contempt-congress.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20221021&instance_id=75244&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=110633&te=1&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f It´s good to see some accountability.

[John F. Carr]

I learned today that there is a one month minimum sentence for contempt of Congress. The judge treated it as a mandatory minimum. I assume that will be an issue on appeal. Bannon can stay free pending appeal.

Under my state's precedent probation can often be substituted for a minimum sentence unless the statute explicitly says otherwise. He would have a non-frivolous argument on appeal. I can't speak to federal misdemeanor sentencing.

[John F. Carr]

The parties' sentencing memoranda are online at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60990687/united-states-v-bannon/?page=2

To get release pending appeal the defense must show that an appeal is likely to succeed. The defense points out that circuit precedent precluding Bannon's defense (reliance on counsel) has been called into question by later Supreme Court decisions.

[mse326]

Its not inconsistent to say that there is too much LEO abuse and say that a school shouldn't let let armed men closer to reaching the students

[SRG]

There are two FBIs, you see. There's the tyrannical FBI secretly run by a cabal of Democrats that harasses poor innocent citizens going about their business, like Donald Trump, and there's the patriotic policing organisation that keeps our country safe from commies, nigrahs, Meskins, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Generally, yes. Normally state law dictates an acceptable range of population per polling place, and the local elections officials take care of the details.

In the cities the local authorities often protest that they have much larger populations of voters to deal with. And blow off the fact that they have proportionately larger budgets to do it with.

[Moderation4ever]

With all the news happening I am sure that this will not get the attention it deserves, but the bottom line here is there is no evidence that the investigation of Russian influence in the 2020 election was handled in an incorrect or illegal manner. The facts remain that Russian took effort to influence the outcome of the election in 2020 and members of the Trump campaign did communicate with the Russians.

It is also true that the effect of the Russian influence cannot be measured and the results of in 2020 were and remain that Donald Trump was elected President.

It is possible to hold two sets of facts in one's head.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Federal prosecutors have like a 90% win-rate. Meanwhile Super Star Durham is 0-3. Whoopsie Doodles!

[Armchair Lawyer]

"but the bottom line here is there is no evidence that the investigation of Russian influence in the 2020 election was handled in an incorrect or illegal manner. "

You know, aside from that whole guilty plea where the FBI lawyer admitted to manufacturing evidence in order to get the FISA warrant. Aside from that...no evidence at all.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" With all the news happening I am sure that this will not get the attention it deserves, but the bottom line here is there is no evidence that the investigation of Russian influence in the 2020 election was handled in an incorrect or illegal manner. "

That is one a white, male, right-wing blog will ignore . . . focusing instead on another report from the Yale student group office, or maybe a stray judicial discipline case from a municipal court, or indignation concerning a top 20 school that is insufficiently hospitable to racists and insurrectionists, or just about anything else that diverts attention from John Eastman, the insurrection trial, Ted Cruz, abortion zealotry, Trump's legal troubles, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, the insurrection hearings, or the Federalist Society's association with insurrection.

[Ben_]

You said 2020 3 times. Are you sure you know anything at all about what you think you're talking about?

Did you ever, in your life, "communicate" with "Russians"? How abut anyone associated with you? What should we think you're guilty of because your associates communicated with Russians?

[Nige]

Even that came out before Durham, didn't it? Eesh.

[Brett Bellmore]

And all the evidence that they hid from the FISA court on renewal. Like telling the judge that Steele's source sounded credible, and neglecting to mention that he'd credibly said the dossier was a steaming heap of lies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fortunately, the Satanic Democrat pedophile FBI agents are easy to distinguish from the godly upright Republican patriot FBI agents because the lefties all work out of the basement of a pizza shop.

[ragebot]

Real first for queenie agreeing with Trump; wonder how long this will last.

[Nige]

Funny how the real Russian Hoax was perpetrated all the people calling it a 'Russian Hoax.'

[OtisAH]

Yes, all that evidence. Which is why we’ve seen the steady flow of convictions stemming from the three year Durham funvestigation. Because of all the evidence.

So much evidence. So much…

[Moderation4ever]

I agree we need a citation for that claim.

I would suggest the following;
The Center for Tech and Civic Life which is the Zuckerman Foundation funded group administering the grants states,
“Once applicants were verified as legitimate, they were approved for grant funds which had to be used exclusively for the public purpose of planning and operationalizing safe and secure election administration,”

from https://www.nbc15.com/2022/03/02/breaking-down-zuckerberg-5-wisconsin-election-report-ctcl-derides-allegations/.

[mse326]

being wary of LEOs doesn't mean one should let armed men closer to students

[Martinned]

Being wary of LEOs means one *shouldn't* let armed men closer to students. That's the whole point.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/30/gov-ralph-northam-aborted-infant-saved-if-mother-and-family-desired/
You people are fucking ghouls.
Yes, I'm pretty libertarian. And yes, I would impose severe restrictions on abortion. It isn't a fucking pimple, it's a human life!

[M L]

That's some high octane propaganda right there!!

"This article was amended on 19 October 2022 to include the detail that at nine weeks the nascent embryo is not discernible to the naked eye."

Oops.

So I could show you an image where Earth looks like a speck of dust if taken from far away and say, "See how small this thing is?" and imply that this somehow means something...not just anything but a profound sweeping moral claim.

See how stupid that would be?

Aside from being zoomed out too far, no embryo can be seen in this image because your view is blocked by the gestational sac. So take an image where Earth would look like a speck of dust, but actually it can't be seen at all, because it is blocked by other celestial bodies, and imagine claiming that somehow shows a major, sweeping moral claim.

See how stupid that is?

Anyway, here's an actual image of 14 weeks. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/stunning-photos-of-baby-nathan-miscarried-at-14-weeks-prove-the-humanity-of/

Where would you draw the line? Before or after that 14 week image?

[M L]

Also, this is false:

"This article was amended on 19 October 2022 to include the detail that at nine weeks the nascent embryo is not discernible to the naked eye."

See for example: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302

"Eight weeks into your pregnancy, or six weeks after conception, your baby's lower limb buds take on the shape of paddles. Fingers have begun to form. Small swellings outlining the future shell-shaped parts of your baby's ears develop and the eyes become obvious. The upper lip and nose have formed. The trunk and neck begin to straighten.

By the end of this week, your baby might be about 1/2 inch (11 to 14 millimeters)"

Wow! The Guardian article is not even remotely close to being true. Go figure! Maybe they would attempt to keep digging and offer something like, "well by not visible to the naked eye we meant your view is blocked so you can't see it, haha! so your eye is naked because it lacks x-ray vision not magnification as one would assume!"

As I said, that's some high octane propaganda/lies.

[DaveM]

It used to be a widely held belief that we need to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves. We are to defend the defenseless, protect the weak, feed those who cannot feed themselves, and clothe those who cannot clothe themselves.

All that goes double for the innocent, those who are suffering not because of any choices they made, but because of their circumstances in life.

What we're not supposed to do is dismember them in the womb and sell their body parts. Nor are we supposed to treat them like human garbage who can be discarded at will.

[Martinned]

If you're trying to convince anyone that you're "pretty libertarian" and/or a reasonable commenter, your first mistake was reading Breitbart.

[OtisAH]

How about that, yet another libertarian who knows nothing about libertarianism. What a treat!

[Kazinski]

You seem to confuse the fact that legislature sets the standards and the local governments are responsible for administering the election according to the standards.

Local governments are responsible for their own budgets.

[Moderation4ever]

Good catch. My bad. It should be the 2016 election.

I have numerous times spoken to people from Russia. Many immigrated to the US after the dissolution of the USSR. They have included neighbors, co-workers, and others. I have never been in a political campaign, nor I have spoken to Russian officials.

[Martinned]

Local governments are responsible for their own budgets.

...and the result is that poor voters queue and rich voters don't.

[Ben_]

I guess we'll all decide what you may be guilty of based on your Russian contacts and those of your associates.

Or we could all decide not to make up stories about people.

[mse326]

What point? They didn't let the police in. They let two armed people in, who don't appear to be students, so...

[Martinned]

Aren't American police officers armed?

[bernard11]

Arithmetic is your friend.

[mse326]

What does that have to do with letting armed men that aren't students into the school?

[M L]

There's nothing wrong with Breitbart. That's just lies and smears from their counterparts on the left.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What does that have to do with letting armed men that aren’t students into the school?

You're trying to make sense out of the ramblings of someone with the IQ of a doorknob.

[Martinned]

LEOs are armed men/women that aren't students.

[Sarcastr0]

Remember the black crime section.

[OtisAH]

You’ve lost the thread, dummy. Durham is the guy “proving” all the 2016 frauds and hoaxes committed by Dems and other perfidious Hillary lovers.

[Randal]

Switching teams I see. Ok, I guess you can be a lib. But you've got a lot of work to do practicing how to engage with your own brain before you can truly be one of us.

[Kazinski]

I wouldn't have convicted Danchenko either. For two reasons: the FBI was lying him to lie, so they were hardly being lied to; and lying to the FBI shouldn't be a crime. Seems ridiculous that the FBI can lie to you trying to get you to lie, but you are the only one that can get charged.

[M L]

We should care for the poor? We shouldn't kill?

Geez man, keep that religious stuff to yourself.

[shawn_dude]

This what happens when manufactured, political, wedge-issues take on a life of their own and start to eat their parent from the inside out.

[Davedave]

"Or we could all decide not to make up stories about people."

OK, we will if you will. (It's easier for us...)

[Sarcastr0]

Oh yeah, super easy issue. Amazing there is any controversy about it worldwide.

Simplistic contempt is all the Pro Life side has these days. Ignoring the hard questions is not going to do you many favors in the long run.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Durham is the cover up guy.

No one cares about all the horrific illegality he has uncovered because the Left doesn't believe it and the Right is powerless to do anything or are in on the con.

[Sarcastr0]

Such crystalized 'the conspiracy theory cannot fail only be failed'...it's so pure, I might cry.

[M L]

I've not shifted any goal posts at all, just digging a bit deeper into the issue that you brought up. Your dishonest propaganda post on the other hand is noted, and debunked. You may apologize and state that you were just relying on the credibility of The Guardian, if you want. But will you answer the question? Where would you draw the line?

[M L]

Pure projection, Sarcastro. Do you agree The Guardian article is false?

[Randal]

I'm having a hard time even understanding it! I think I'm just not creative enough.

So Barr appointed Durham to "cover up..." what exactly? "The con?" And Barr was in on the con? Who was he conning? Trump?

[M L]

Don't worry, the DOJ is accountable to the DOJ. The DOJ will hold the DOJ accountable.

Also, the FBI and DOJ acting politically is legal, going after political opponents with blatant double standards is legal, and the average American commits three federal felonies a day. That's legal. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. And if it's legal, then that means it's right and nothing to worry about. Plus, this means the future of politics should be very exciting!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Barr refused to and even forbade investigation into the obvious election fraud in 2020.

Look at all of Durham's indictments, it was all people "duping" an innocent FBI.

No one at the FBI caught any bit of scrutiny.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It would probably better for your health if you would do the same.

[John F. Carr]

https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/10/11/boston-tells-do-gooders-to-stop-bringing-food-to-mass-and-cass/

"Do not cater the open-air drug party at Mass and Cass.
That’s the message from city officials to would-be do-gooders whose food offerings to the people wandering the streets are contributing to issues in the troubled South End area that hosts a thriving drug market — and Boston’s sending out flyers to tell people to quit it. [...] 'The message is if you stay here you’re going to be able to eat, sleep and do whatever you want and everything is fine,' [Boston Police Department Lt.] Messina said. 'That is not the right message.'"

[M L]

1. You said the Guardian article provides a "look" at the supposed "persons." That is a lie. The embryo is hidden behind a gestational sac.

2. You are arguing that unborn humans should not be considered persons because they are small, and look weird, or something. So a straightforward obvious question is, where would you personally draw the line?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The people who impeached Trump over the "perfect phone call" are all of a sudden totes cool with it!

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't get to read it yet.

Don't need to - you're blithe reductionism is dumb and bad regardless independent of that.

[Randal]

So, I was right? Barr and Durham were "conning" Trump?

[Sarcastr0]

Cool with what?

Are you trying some kinda wookie defense thing here?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Cool with political targeting.

See Mar-a-Lago and what the Democrat US Treasury is doing to DeSantis.

[Nige]

Politically targeting people for investigations just because they're suspected of committing crimes, how political.

[bernard11]

I had not heard about the drug paraphernalia.

Has the city's involvement been reported anywhere but the Herald? (Sorry to be a touch skeptical.)

I do agree that coming around with food and other supplies is a terrible idea. Among other things, the whole situation seriously affects those who work in the area and needs to be addressed for that and many other reasons.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is impossible considered "difficult"?

[Noorondoor]

Yes. It's nearly impossible except for Establishment Clause cases.

But that isn't the point. These cases should have been heard before he started giving out free stuff.

[John F. Carr]

All I can find in recent Globe coverage is the statement "The city collects nearly three times as many syringes as it distributes, [Dr. Bisola Ojikutu, executive director of the city’s Public Health Commission] added." That confirms part of the recent Herald article. Nothing about food. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/20/metro/wu-defends-citys-response-homeless-crises-mass-cass-area-ends-news-briefing-amid-shouts-demonstrators/

Boston's mayor is asking the state to build 1,000 housing units outside of Boston to get them off her streets.

[BrotherMovesOn]

The Boston Herald is a back sports pages, Howie Carr and assorted malcontent "columnists", for the first 4 pages and 20 pages of automobile ads. They outsource their printing to the Globe, and have a circulation under the population of Natick.
Fish wrap. But John F. Carr is correct.

[ThePublius]

And the Globe is not fish wrap? Ha, ha. Or the NYTimes and WashPo, for that matter.

[John F. Carr]

The Herald has been drained by vulture capitalists. The Globe survives by convincing liberals that it is the only newspaper in Boston.

I wish we could have a newspaper that concentrated on news rather than political agenda.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Barr was. Durham wasn't covering up the crimes.

[Randal]

So then what explains this, just, incompetence? Barr intentionally appointed a rube?

Meanwhile Super Star Durham is 0-3.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Barr appointed another Federal to cover up the crimes of the Federals.

Durham is probably the first Federal prosecutor in history to go 0-3 on idictments.

Weird.

[Randal]

But if Durham wasn't in on it, why didn't he charge any Federals?

Also, the courts / juries were the cause of the 0 for 3. Are they Federals too?

[Brett Bellmore]

The Freedmen's Bureau was dealing with people who had actually BEEN slaves. Not people whose lives are hypothesized to be worse on account of some of their ancestors having been slaves. There's a big, big difference between people who are the actual victims of a wrong, and people who are just worse off because somebody was wronged generations ago.

[Nige]

Except the wrong was perpetuated down through the generations. Jim Crow is just one example.

[M L]

Wow, half a millimeter? They are 2mm at 5 weeks so I guess you're very anti-abortion . . .

[ThePublius]

As my mother (who would have been 100 tomorrow) used to say, "If wishes were horses beggars would ride."

I don't think there ever was, in the history of print, a newspaper that didn't have a point of view and/or agenda.

[bernard11]

Come on, now, John.

The Globe is fine. Miles better than the Herald. It actually does have news.

Have you seen what passes for a local paper lots of other places?