Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Wanted posters, vague and threatening letters, and dragging a 75-pound dummy.

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.

Last summer Alexandria, La. police pulled over Mario Rosales for failing to use his turn signal and detained him for 20 minutes, probing for evidence of other, more serious lawbreaking, cutting him loose when they didn't find any. But wait! The officers' dashcam shows that Mario did signal. Those sneaky dogs! Click here to learn more about IJ's latest case, a challenge to pretextual, picayune harassment that passes for police work.

Over at Intelligence Squared, IJ Attorney Anya Bidwell debates the Heritage Foundation's John Malcom on the merits of qualified immunity, explaining why it is really and truly okay if officers who make good-faith mistakes in life-and-death situations are not shielded from suit. With an appearance by The New York Times's Adam Liptak.

• Muslim inmates sue federal prison wardens in Connecticut under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for restricting congregational prayer while allowing other group activities. Second Circuit: It is clearly established that officials can't restrict religious exercise without a compelling reason, and because there's no reason of any kind in the record at this stage in the litigation, no QI for you for now.
• In a startling break with tradition, this week's vocab quiz comes from Judge Phipps of the Third Circuit: parsimony, autohyponym, polysemy, and appeal. Yes, appeal! Either meaning of which is bad news for this defendant, who is on the hook (for $773,899.94) over unpaid taxes from 1986 to 1991 in spite of a 10-year statute of limitations for the feds to collect delinquent taxes.
• Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says courts can't hold interactive websites liable for information provided by a third-party content provider. But, the Fourth Circuit reminds us, a website that collects and summarizes criminal-history information is itself a "content provider."
• Fourth Circuit: Contra the district court, a 67-year-old psychiatrist who failed the physical fitness exam that all new federal prison employees must pass does indeed have standing to bring sex- and age-discrimination claims. The exam: "drag a seventy-five-pound dummy at least 694 feet for three minutes, climb a ladder to retrieve an object within seven seconds, complete an obstacle course in fifty-eight seconds, run a quarter mile and handcuff someone within two minutes and thirty-five seconds, and climb three flights of stairs in forty-five seconds while wearing a twenty-pound weight belt." (You don't need to be able to do all of it; just most of it.)
• It's textualist vs. textualist as the Safety Valve Showdown heads to the Fifth Circuit. Under the First Step Act, drug offenders with sufficiently mild criminal histories can escape mandatory minimums. The precise wording is that a defendant is eligible only if "the defendant does not have—(A) more than four criminal history points [with an exception]; (B) a prior 3-point offense … , and (C) a prior 2-point violent offense." But wait just a minute. Does that mean "does not have (A), does not have (B), and does not have (C)"? Or does it mean "does not have all of (A) and (B) and (C)"? Because a defendant with just (B) really wants to know. Which heavyweight thinker will decide her fate? Judge Oldham? Judge Willett? Nineteenth-century logician Augustus De Morgan? There's only one way to find out.
• Two Kentucky judicial candidates receive "vague and threatening letters" from the state judicial conduct commission after the commission receives complaints about the candidates' campaign advertising. The candidates bring a First Amendment suit. District Court: But there hasn't been an injury yet, so no standing. Sixth Circuit (over a dissent): There's enough of a threat of enforcement to chill speech, so we'll grant an injunction pending appeal.
• It is clearly established that a driver's nervousness and reluctance to describe his travel plans does not give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary for police to prolong a traffic stop beyond the time it takes to issue a warning or write a traffic ticket, says the Sixth Circuit (unpublished). So this gentleman who was pulled over for tinted windows and declined to share that his shaking was due to muscular dystrophy can indeed sue some Hamilton County, Tenn. officers. A jury might think they prolonged the stop to allow for a drug dog sniff (and, after a false alert, search of his car). No qualified immunity.
• If a member of the St. Louis Police Department believes that he has probable cause to arrest a person, he can issue a "Wanted," which authorizes any police officer to arrest the target of the Wanted without first getting a warrant from a neutral magistrate. A Fourth Amendment violation? Eighth Circuit: Not always, but often. Concurrence: If wanted posters were good enough during cowboy days, they're good enough today.
• In 2020, South Dakota enacted SB 180, a law that required paid ballot petition circulators to disclose their name, home address, email address, phone number, government-issued ID, voter registration state, petition sponsor name and sex offender status before they may circulate any petitions. All of this information must be available for public access, any changes must be updated within seven days, and any mistakes void all the signatures gathered by that circulator. Eighth Circuit: The challenged statute "effectively thumbs its nose at" not one, but two Supreme Court decisions. The district court was correct to preliminarily enjoin it.
• It is clearly established that police cannot fire tear gas at people in retaliation for their speech, says the Eighth Circuit, so these four St. Louis SWAT officers are going to need to convince a jury they had a good reason to gas a protestor as she was leaving a police brutality protest. (Nor does Missouri "official immunity" shield the officers from her state-law claims.)
• Reno, Nevada, may be the Biggest Little City in the World, but its attempt to wring cable franchise fees out of the Biggest Streaming Services in the World on behalf of a class of Nevada municipalities just went bust. Per the Ninth Circuit, the state law Reno sued under does not create a private right of action.
• The Miss United States of America pageant only allows "natural born females." Is that a violation of a transgender, would-be contestant's rights under Oregon's public accommodations act? District court: Point of fact, the act violates Miss USA's freedom of association rights. Ninth Circuit (majority): Yes, but we're just gonna say it violates free speech rights. And these same rights would protect Lin-Manuel Miranda's casting choices for Hamilton. Self-concurrence: But also association rights! Dissent: I know no one else has raised this, but does the act even apply here?
• Fun fact: The U.S. Code isn't really the law. Not in a that-flag-has-gold-fringe-your-Honor sense, but in that the U.S. Code is just a summary of statutes actually passed by Congress, and when the language of the Code conflicts with the statute, the statute controls—a fun fact that makes a rare appearance in actual, non-sovereign-citizen litigation in this Ninth Circuit opinion.
• In which the Guarantee Clause escapes from the Island of Misfit Constitutional Provisions (where it shares space with the Third Amendment, the Public Debt Clause, and an elf who wants to be a dentist) for a brief moment in the sun—by which we mean one paragraph in this Ninth Circuit opinion holding that it's nonjusticiable.
• Wisteria Island, a 22-acre spot just off Key West, wasn't formed 100k years ago from ancient coral reefs and sand bars, like the other keys. Instead, it sprung up about a hundred years ago when the Navy dredged oceanic soil in the harbor and piled it up until it became an island, so named because the ship Wisteria foundered nearby in 1919. These days, it's undeveloped and has become a squatter's community, with plans for a luxury resort brewing. But who owns it? The feds, pursuant to a law reserving for the feds lands built up by the feds for federal use? Or developers, whose title tracks to a 1951 purchase from the state of Florida? Eleventh Circuit: It depends—did the U.S. have an intended use for Wisteria Island when it created it? If so, the feds own it—but we're not sure, so to trial the case must go.
• The Chewbacca Defense does not make sense, but, per the Eleventh Circuit (unpublished), a prosecutor who brought it up in closing did not commit a harmful error. So this tax cheat's conviction stands. (H/t: SDFLA Blog.)
• Northwest Georgia voters: Our rep in Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is an insurrectionist. Please keep her off the ballot (pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment). State administrative law judge: Um, there's not enough evidence. Ga. Sec. of State: Ditto. State trial court: Likewise. Ga. Supreme Court: We don't wanna hear an appeal. Greene, in federal court (while state case is pending): Please stop the state case. Federal district court: No. Eleventh Circuit (after state case is all done): This is moot. Concurrence: Yes, it's moot now, but the federal district court should have issued the injunction. Only Congress can enforce Section 3.
• Do fans of Georgia's monuments to the Confederacy that are maintained at public expense have standing to challenge a local gov't's attempts to take them down? The Georgia Supreme Court says some do, and over at the State Con Law Case of the Week we say there's much in the opinion that's of great relevance far beyond the Peach State.
• And in en banc news, the Fifth Circuit will reconsider its decision to deny qualified immunity to Laredo, Tex. officials who jailed a citizen-journalist in retaliation for criticizing them, charging her with violating an obscure provision of the penal code that no one is ever charged with violating. (We discussed the case on the podcast.)
• And in further en banc news, the Fifth Circuit will not reconsider its decision to deny absolute immunity to a Livingston Parish, La. prosecutor who invented a false narrative out of whole cloth (and strong-armed a vulnerable witness into repeating it before the jury) to secure a (now-overturned) murder conviction and death sentence.
• And in cert denial news, the Supreme Court has befuddlingly decided not to take up IJ case CSI v. Large, in which the Eighth Circuit bafflingly ignored black letter law that reserves qualified immunity for officials who are doing their job—unlike this Mahnomen County, Minn. highway engineer who acted outside the scope of his authority, playing at traffic cop and pulling people over to carry out a personal vendetta. Bewildering.

After she was laid off from her full-time job, Sally Ladd turned her side hustle—renting out her vacation home in the Pocono Mountains—into a full-time gig, managing six other vacation rentals for nearby property owners. But that all came to an abrupt halt in 2017, when Pennsylvania officials demanded that she obtain a real estate license, which requires 315 hours of coursework and a 3-year apprenticeship, among other things. This week, however, we're happy to say that—after a 2020 trip to the state's high court—Sally has prevailed at trial! Says the court: The requirements "are unreasonable, unduly oppressive, and patently beyond the necessities of the case." Nor do they "bear a real and substantial relation to protecting the public from harm." Hear, hear for state courts, judicial engagement, and the right to earn an honest living. Click here to learn more.

Comments

[BillyG]

The textualist 5th circuit case is why I like to use the following when listing things.

XXX under any of the following conditions:
a)
b)
c)

[arch1]

I agree that the wording wasn't a model of clarity, but it shouldn't take a De Morgan to realize that our "defendant with just (B)" is out of luck: If the "all of" interpretation had been intended, the "more than four criminal history points" portion of (A) would have been superfluous.

A judge might struggle with this, but a bright clerk or high-school child should be able to sort it out.

[tkamenick]

Definitely smarter way to write like this.

I litigated a similar case involving a negative clause (actually a double negative clause) with an "or"

"a request for a record without a reasonable limitation as to subject matter or length of time represented by the record does not constitute a sufficient request."

I successfully argued to the court that a request needed only one or the other limitation, not both, to be valid. Two of my big points were the use of a double negative (WITHOUT a reasonable limitation DOES NOT constitute) and the use of the singular "limitation" rather than plural "limitations". Everyone involved agreed that the legislature should have written it "to be sufficient a request must contain a reasonable limitation as to length [[and/or]] subject matter" (with the use of "and" or "or" depending on which was intended).

[SomeGuy 2]

I think the Fifth Circuit gave short shrift to the Rule of Lenity argument. Their reading is reasonable as is the contrary reading reached by other circuits and the dissent. If both are plausible, then nuts to this, I’m construing it against the state and in favor of the defendant. Government has a problem with that, then fine; they’re the ones running this show and can amend the statute.

[Michael P]

In the sentencing reduction case, rather than either of the denial-of-qualified-immunity cases, you mean?

Usually the Rule of Lenity governs statutes that define criminal liability. This part of the First Step Act doesn't do that, so it seems appropriate to use other canons of construction.

[SomeGuy 2]

Yeah in the sentencing reduction. Here's what they say:

"The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. But courts only apply the rule of lenity when faced
with a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty. And an ambiguity is only grievous if it remains after the court considers the statute’s text, structure, history, and purpose including all the traditional canons of statutory construction. Such a conclusion is not true of § 3553(f)(1). After studying the text and structure of the statute, as informed by the various canons of construction, one approach stands prominently above the other interpretations. Because we need not guess at the statute’s meaning, the
rule of lenity does not apply."

(Whole bunch of internal citations and quote marks omitted). So they agree the rule of lenity would apply if the statute was ambiguous but say it's not a grievous enough ambiguity.

Which, in my view, is crazy; their own colleague read the same statute, evaluated all their arguments, and came to the opposite conclusion, as have other circuit courts. I think the majority has the better argument, but the dissent certainly has a plausible one. If there's this much confusion and good arguments on both sides on what the statute even means, then obviously it is ambiguous and I'd say it's grievous enough that lenity wins the day.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The rule of lenity isn’t intended to give a single judge the power to veto a pro-prosecution ruling, much less a panel from a different circuit. (Incidentally, I believe the ninth circuit is the only one to have accepted this argument, and an en band petition is pending.)

[Commenter_XY]

I have to say Michael P, having thought about the legal 'Rule of Lenity' and how it applies, it makes me wonder if one should adopt that very same rule in everyday life. I think it is a good rule (Rule of Lenity).

[Tom Tildrum]

We once had occasion to call the office that codifies the US Code, to ask them about some quirk in the way certain parts of a Public Law had been selected and adapted into the US Code. Nice people.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The problem is that the conjunctive reading isn’t reasonable or plausible, because it makes subsection (A) completely superfluous.

[jb]

I dunno. The definition adopted by the court seems to make the word "and" completely superfluous, so either way you're stuck with part of the text not making sense so then you should read it in the way that's favorable to the defendant.

[Toranth]

The entire thing becomes insane if you accept the defendant's claim here: someone with one hundred 3-point violent crime convictions would still be eligible for relief because they didn't have any 2-point convictions (A and B only, no C), but someone with a single violent 2-point and a non-violent 3-point would not be (A and B and C).

While that's an absurd case, that is the logic of interpretation that holds under Palomares's argument.

And as the ruling says, it's the natural language distributive case for the NOT vs the purely logical negation of the union of A, B, and C. The 'and' is still required in both cases, but in case 1, the result makes more sense than case 2.

[jb]

The way to distribute the options across the NOT is with an OR, not an AND. If the 'and' had been replaced with an 'or' the language would be unambiguous and none of us would be having this discussion.

It's one thing to say that the legislature clearly intended an outcome and so we're going to interpret the ambiguous language that way; it's quite another to assert that the language itself is unambiguous.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Intelligence Squared is generally pretty great.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is one of those Sackler assholes still associated with Intelligence Squared (or, perhaps more apt, does Intelligence Squared still associate with the Sacklers)?

[Davedave]

Hey, you found another opportunity to express some antisemitism. Are you sure you're doing any better than the bloggers?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disdaining a group of lying, thieving misery profiteers (the Sacklers) is antisemitic? Modern, mainstream America reviles the Sackler family for good reason.

You seem comprehensively stupid.

[darkknight9]

I really wish they hadn't put their name on so many museums. I still have a poster from my honeymoon (Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, National Museum of Asian Art) and I haven't been able to get myself to bring it out of storage to do anything with it. Love the depicted art but big 'Sackler' in bold black lettering isn't something I want to see hanging in the house, ya know?

[Davedave]

Keep going with the antisemitism, clinger. The only reason you have even heard of the Sacklers is the antisemitic propaganda blaming them alone for something that was the responsibility of many different groups and companies.

'Profiteer' is a standard codeword antisemites use for jewish people, so you're hardly helping your case.

"Modern, mainstream America reviles the Sackler family"

No, it doesn't. Only antisemites claim any such thing, jew-hater.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2893

[arch1]

“Only antisemites claim any such thing, jew-hater.”

You might want to dial that back a bit. For example, I don’t think much of the Sacklers and had no idea they were Jewish (nor do I care).

[Davedave]

The only reason you have heard of them at all is that antisemitic propaganda is effective.

[Zarniwoop]

A cop that will falsely claim "he didn't turn on his blinker" in a police report to justify a fishing expedition is a cop that will falsely claim "I thought I saw a gun" and shoot an unarmed person with their hands up to punish perceived disrespect.

I think lifetime revocation of law enforcement credentials is a reasonable sanction. Time for a new career as a mall cop on a segway.

[Michael D]

Thinking about that case, I am wondering what remedies are available to the plaintiff that do not entail punishing the taxpayers of Alexandria, LA.

Losing their jobs and being prevented from working in law enforcement is all well and good but that is no remedy for the plaintiff. If there is a judgement against the city or a settlement, all that does is spread the punishment out to the taxpayers of that city.

With the probability that qualified immunity will apply in this case, the officers themselves face no real punishment beyond losing this career path for what amounts to a violation of the plaintiff’s civil rights.

This is just one more reason I find the necessity to abrogate qualified immunity. The individual(s) who harmed the rights of the plaintiff, not society, should be who is held liable for their actions. I do not believe the taxpayers of that city engaged in a conspiracy with the police department to have its officers engage in this type of behavior. Why then should they bear the burden?

My two cents.

[MatthewSlyfield]

" I am wondering what remedies are available to the plaintiff that do not entail punishing the taxpayers of Alexandria, LA."

None.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m not sure I follow. If the officer is protected by qualified immunity, then the government can’t be held liable either. And of course plaintiffs are inevitably going to try to attach liability to the government, for all of the usual litigation incentives.

On top of that, I’m having trouble seeing now qualified immunity would be an issue in the facts of this case (assuming that the video indeed shows that the traffic infraction didn’t happen).

[Michael D]

QI protects the officer from personal liability but it does not protect the city from liability.

[David Nieporent]

If the officer is protected by qualified immunity, then the government can’t be held liable either.

That's not correct. If what the officer did isn't unconstitutional, then the government can't be held liable (obviously). But if what the officer did is unconstitutional — but it wasn't clearly established as such — then the officer can't be held liable but the city potentially can be.

[darkknight9]

I always wondered how this one jived. The old man would tell me that an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees. If that's the case then the municipality that hired the officers is on the hook, and the cops could only be busted if what they did was criminal (unconstitutional). It always seemed to make sense in regular businesses (where you could fire employees without fear of reprisal if they just cost you $ from insubordinate behavior) but when it involves city (gov) employees it always seems to get rather messy.

[tkamenick]

There's no respondeat superior (employer responsible for torts of employee) in 1983 law for constitutional violations. However, you can get employer liability by showing a policy or practice of permitting/encouraging these violations.

[Davedave]

The pseudo-cop lied. He committed a serious crime - kidnap/false detention at gunpoint, while masquerading as a police officer. Then he committed many others - fraud, etc - in an attempt to cover up his initial crime. Jail him for the rest of his life, simples.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Seems to me that it could be used to impeach his testimony in any future trial.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Law and legal interpretation is ultimately about values. And we can tell what values someone had when they give short shrift to Supreme Court precedent when it’s about a social media law or Title VII remedies but decide it is ultimately very important when shielding a prosecutor who tried to get someone killed from civil liability. Today we can tell that Judge Jones and Judge Oldham’s values suck.

Judge Ho, surprisingly, had decent values today. Kudos to him.

[Lee Moore]

Law and legal interpretation is ultimately about values.

No, that would be politics. Law and legal interpretation is about applying the rules the politicians have written, whether what they have written complies with the judge's values or not.

A judge who refuses to stay in his lane, and refuses to apply the rules as written because they offend his values is a usurper - an insurrectionist if you will. A lower creature even than a politician - for the judge's politicking is a breach of trust. The politician's politicking is his job.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Judicial power is political power and its exercise is ultimately a form of politics. Judicial and legal politics do not necessarily match current partisan politics in every scenario. Judges have their own political goals. Some of those goals: appearance of neutrality, making sure most cases are processed effectively and fairly, etc will map onto traditional conceptions of legal reasoning as a neutral enterprise based on logic. And even in those cases, there is often a lot of discretion involved and you can see how it is ultimately about values. But the more you stray into areas with partisan salience or just general philosophical disagreements values really matter and no judge, no matter how neutral or good at legal reasoning can escape that.

[Lee Moore]

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

Certainly, judges are human with human foibles and weaknesses. Certainly some cases will not be easily decidable on algorithmic textual principles, or on precedent. And I agree that cases with political salience may present a larger temptation to deploy one’s values than cases about income tax.

But that just means that a judge will sometimes be more tempted to stir his own values into the answer than at other times. But how is that different to observing that a drunk and incapable girl at a party presents even a bishop with a powerful temptation ? OK, we cynics may note that judges and bishops, being flawed humans, sometimes succumb to temptation. But that doesn’t make succumbing to the temptation what the law, or religion, is “ultimately about.”

Rather the judge’s role in the law is ultimately about resisting the temptation to insert his values into the case. And so, mutatis mutandis, for the bishop.

And because it is the judge's responsibility to keep himself, and his foibles, weaknesses, prejudices and values OUT of the case, that his values should be the very last thing that he uses to decide a case, not excluding consulting the entrails of dead animals.

[Dr. Ed 2]

694 feet -- where on earth did the Feds get that number?

And a 70 lb dummy? No adult only weighs 70 lbs....

[Michael D]

It is obvious where the 694 comes from: that is 211.5312 meters!!

[Michael P]

Yes, but a median 10-year-old does! They're probably worried about the case where an elementary school is touring the prison and it's important to carry an unconscious 4th grader slightly under 700 feet feet in 180 seconds.

[Jimmy the Dane]

In other news Pelosi's husband apparently calmly answered the door when police came and might have later been assaulted by the person found with him in the house. But, then the media just said "psych!" and cancelled the story.

Also, body cam and security video exists but no one can see it. The media doesn't seem to be doing its usual gnashing of teeth about 'freedom of the press' that we heard so much for years over the denial of these public records. Wonder why....?

[Zarniwoop]

Please do explain what you’re trying to insinuate here. Are you blaming the 82 y.o. victim of a violent assault? Be specific, please.

And are you engaged in some pathetic attempt to score political points and/or “own the libs”? Wow, that’s really just sad.

[Michael P]

Presumably (a) Congress needs to understand why the Capitol Police officer responsible for monitoring the security cameras at the Pelosi residence didn't flag anything, (b) there may be something going on cognitively with the elderly guy who recently crashed his car and called this assailant a friend (during his 911 call), (c) the police response was odd for a high-profile, elderly man being assaulted by a much younger man, and (d) people like you, the media, and local officials, are suspiciously incurious about all these procedural failures.

[Davedave]

You've made all that up, Michael Kremlinbot. Or rather, your Kremlin controllers have.

[MatthewSlyfield]

a) Why would a Capitol Police officer be monitoring a house in San Francisco?

[David Nieporent]

According to Fox (not my source of choice, but this seems to be an unbiased article) they do pay some attention to security there because, you know, she's Speaker of the House. But also, you know, she wasn't actually at the residence, so they weren't paying attention to it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/u-s-capitol-police-officers-werent-watching-live-home-security-cameras-when-paul-pelosi-was-attacked

[Hank Ferrous]

Agreed, fox is biased, but once past that, there is a chance that fox provides unbiased news. Their opinion stuff, not so, of course. As for the other matter, not you in specific but as a blanket, many of the VC posters come off as holding themselves as superior and best-informed, with everybody w/ whom they disagree being inferior. It is common knowledge that the Speaker rated capitol police protection among my peers, non-attorneys for the most. Heathens, clingers, even. Or, perhaps, just folks who chose a different path due to different interests.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Post Jan 6th, the CHPD has national jurisdiction -- they have a "field office" in Tampa, Florida and another in California.

It's Nancy Pelosi's private police department.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’ll do it for you. He has a personality disorder.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let's get real -- this was what, 2 AM?

Was Peloisi sober?

He was home and it was 2 AM -- people who are still awake at that hour aren't.

Otherwise, this does NOT add up...
Victims usually run TO the cops, often grabbing them.

And I don't care what a cop says, releasing your grip on a weapon an assailant is trying to attack you with BEFORE the cops grab it is counterintuitive.

Remember that the 911 operator would have seen "Peloisi" on the screen and likely more.

[Nige]

What a load of bollocks you spew.

[David Nieporent]

Was Peloisi sober?

He was home and it was 2 AM — people who are still awake at that hour aren’t.

That doesn't even make sense, even on its own terms. I'd only be awake at 2 AM if I was sober. If I were drunk — which I virtually never am, but if I've had anything to drink — I'm out long before that.

But more importantly, what the fuck difference does it make if Pelosi were sober in his own home at night?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Spend 20 years in student affairs and you wouldn't need to ask...

[LawTalkingGuy]

Aside from the absurdity of comparing students to old men. How bad were you at your job if you think students are only up at 2:00 am due to being drunk? Never heard of an all-nighter to get a paper done? Or staying up late watching TV or movies or playing video games? Or working a late night job? Sleep schedules of college students are often all over the place. Lots of very sober night owls in college.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"Victim blaming" is all you got, huh?

Maybe try yelling "conspiracy theory" more. That one seems to stick more these days.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Your confusion about how the Pelosi incident occurred is largely the result of not having access to all the available information; your filling the gaps with your own ideas, however, is purely your own doing.

The body cam and security footage will probably be released, as it is these days in most other high profile criminal cases. It has already been shown to the Pelosi family, and will obviously be released to Depape's lawyers for trial. If it were being unlawfully suppressed, that would be a different issue, but there is no evidence of that occurring at this point.

I'm looking forward to the publication of Depape's "journal", which he somehow decided he needed to bring with him on his "suicide mission" to Nancy Pelosi's residence. What do you suppose it contains?

[David Nieporent]

In other news, Jimmy the Dane is a disgusting liar.

[darkknight9]

Subtleties are lost on me this mornin after not gettin enough sleep thanks to one of the local bars karaoke contests. That went way past closing time. That I wouldn’t be bothered with except extremely intoxicated folks who think they sing better that way are L-O-U-D.

Just in case I’m not missing something

Is he lying in the first paragraph, the second paragraph, or both? Cuz I saw someone reporting on a pulled video that gave previously unreleased info. Its never gonna go away thanks to the internet… but the song I got friends in low places doesn’t seem to be going away either. (seriously that auto tune device wouldn’t have helped some of them, it would have blown up)

“In other news Pelosi’s husband apparently calmly answered the door when police came and might have later been assaulted by the person found with him in the house. But, then the media just said “psych!” and cancelled the story.

Also, body cam and security video exists but no one can see it. The media doesn’t seem to be doing its usual gnashing of teeth about ‘freedom of the press’ that we heard so much for years over the denial of these public records. Wonder why….?”

All hail the edit button!

[Jimmy the Dane]

In other news, no I'm not. But these are the same people that think by saying something over and over again like "there is no inflation" makes it so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jimmy, truly innocent victims often do incredibly stupid things, particularly if it's a situation they didn't anticipate.

We once had a guy who'd run his sailboat onto a ledge at 2AM. We were fishing him out of the 53°water and he was freaking out over not being able to find his credit cards. (We told him that Lobsters weren't into credit card fraud. You'd be amazed at some of the things car crash victims say.

I can see not releasing this out on human decency grounds. OTOH, this does not add up.

[Zarniwoop]

Misfired response, pls ignore.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"And in cert denial news, the Supreme Court has befuddlingly decided not to take up IJ case CSI v. Large, in which the Eighth Circuit bafflingly ignored black letter law that reserves qualified immunity for officials who are doing their job—unlike this Mahnomen County, Minn. highway engineer who acted outside the scope of his authority, playing at traffic cop and pulling people over to carry out a personal vendetta. Bewildering."

It isn't at all bewildering when you consider that SCOTUS is no longer interested in upholding the Constitution and righting wrongs.

It's pathetic.

[fafalone]

I was hoping the replacement of Breyer would result in a court ready to limit QI, that's a big disappointment.