Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Is Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) related to William Judd Fetterman?

https://www.historynet.com/the-fatal-fetterman-fight/

[AmosArch]

Its funny seeing the mask fall off so quickly. How recently it was that the left was smugly balls to the wall laissez faire about social media (and only social media) wagging their finger and proclaiming the virtues of free and unrestrained private enterprise doing whatever they chose to call critics. And now all of a sudden once again they are back to not seeing a strict regulation or rulebook they don’t like. Doing everything they can to scheme and clamp down specifically on Twitter.

[Stephen Lathrop]

AmosArch — I think you are making that up. I am fine with Twitter editing to reinforce or suppress whatever opinions it wants—except that I do not think Section 230 should protect them from liability for defamation. With that exception, let them do as they please.

[Kazinski]

I think the immunity from defamation should remain as long as Social Media companies conform to the original bargain: allowing free expression and debate with limited moderation.

As an example in these comments it's not unusual to see speculative allegations against politicians that could be defamation: Trump cheated on his taxes, Trump is a Russian Asset, Joe Biden is a pedophile, Hunter was acting as a bagman for Joe in a graft scheme.

Do you really think Reason and Volokh should have to worry about defamation lawsuits made by commenters in these comments?

[David Nieporent]

I think the immunity from defamation should remain as long as Social Media companies conform to the original bargain: allowing free expression and debate with limited moderation.

There was no such fucking 'bargain.' Not in the text and not in the intent of the statute. Why do people make this shit up?

[Kazinski]

Well maybe you don't think there was a bargain, but you will have to concede Congress could certainly impose such a bargain on the social media companies giving them guidelines on what kind of moderation they can perform and still retain a safe harbor from defamation suits.

[David Nieporent]

The devil is in the details, but as a general statement, yes, Congress could limit immunity for websites, sure. After all, in the offline world, there are such limits. The NYT print edition, unlike the NYTimes.com, is potentially subject to defamation liability for LTTE. Nothing would prevent Congress from equalizing the liability regimes. (It would be stupid, but that has never in history prevented Congress from doing something.)

I was merely talking about the current state of the law. § 230 does not condition immunity from defamation liability for user generated content on anything. It simply states, flat out, that there isn't any liability for UGC.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Your comment seems not responsive to Kazinski's assertion of a power in Congress to impose some kind of, "bargain," on social media companies, which would limit their ability to moderate. He clearly contemplates an imposed reduction in moderation You seem to suggest a possible reduction in immunity. Those strike me as opposites.

The right response to Kazinski is, no. Press freedom gives power to internet publishers to moderate, or edit, at pleasure, without restrictions from government—except insofar as a requirement may be imposed for liability for false and defamatory publications.

[David Nieporent]

Lathrop — your comment seems (and your entire history conclusively proves) that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about on the subject. You don't understand the law relating to the internet, you don't understand the law relating to the offline world, you don't understand what censorship is, you don't understand what defamation is. How about you learn any of those things and then come back and explain why your comment is nonsensical?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, go ahead and school me. Give me the libertarian ideological take on all those subjects. We can discuss them, and let bystanders decide which of us knows what he is talking about.

Here is a spoiler, I barely differ with you at all, except on 3 questions: what defines a publisher, what censorship is, and whether anyone can understand what a law means if he does not understand the activities the law purports to govern.

Your narrowly legalistic definition of publishing is a bad fit for history, and thus largely unserviceable to interpret the press freedom clause. So you deny independent effect for the press freedom clause, and stubbornly demand it be conflated with speech freedom. That makes no sense in history or in law.

You think even private editing constitutes censorship. That ignores that government censorship can preclude specific subject matter entirely, but private editing leaves open alternative channels for publication. If none such exist, and some legally publishable subject matter lacks outlet, press freedom guarantees private power to create a new channel of publication to accommodate it.

That does not and cannot create effects similar to government censorship. You seem determined, apparently for libertarian ideological reasons, to obliterate the distinction. That makes no sense logically, nor in terms of public experience.

You apparently are entirely innocent of any experience with institutional publishing. Any claim you make to understand press freedom, the law of defamation, or the role of publishing in the public life of the nation is thus crippled for want of real-life context.

To understand defamation as a practical concept governing publishing activity, you have to have grappled regularly with decisions about potentially defamatory content submitted for publication—before some court tells you what to make of it. You also must have followed for years with professional interest the responses of people who have actually suffered damages from defamation. And also the experiences of publishers and journalists accused of defamation, taken to court over those issues, and sometimes ruined in consequence. Nothing in your commentary suggests you have any such practical experience.

You must understand the activities the law purports to govern if you hope to understand what the law of publishing actually means. If instead you and other legal experts merely understand what might happen in court, who knows what kind of mess the nation gets thereafter.

Section 230—the cause and focus of most of these discussions about internet publishing—examples a godawful mess created by legislative and legal blunders—all made by confident legal experts such as yourself, without experience or insight into the activities they purported to regulate. With the best of intentions, their practical ignorance led them and the nation astray.

That has proved one of the most consequential legislative blunders in this nation's history. As the public and the congress struggle to imagine correctives, but run into roadblocks, that is beginning to sink in even among ordinary Americans.

Of course, among the relatively few Americans experienced in the practical challenges of publishing, those blunders were so self-evident that their malign consequences were predictable years in advance. To them, it came as a surprise that it took so long before such consequences manifested as roiling political problems, because their disruptive practical consequences became manifest almost immediately.

The proof of that is that some of those problems were predicted and described with reasonable accuracy years in advance by some, including me. For instance, during years of commentary when I repeatedly predicted an oncoming tsunami of demands for government censorship of internet publishing, all I got from you was snark, condescension, and ridicule.

Everything I predicted has lately been borne out, but your denials continue. That makes no sense.

[David Nieporent]

It is not a "libertarian ideological take." It is an understanding-the-law take.

Here is a spoiler, I barely differ with you at all, except on 3 questions: what defines a publisher, what censorship is, and whether anyone can understand what a law means if he does not understand the activities the law purports to govern.

No, we differ on much more.

1) We differ on whether you actually do understand the activities the law purports to (and actually does) govern.

2) We different on whether anyone can understand what a law means just because he (thinks he) understands the activities the law purports to govern.

3) You think the institutional press gets special protection from the 1A, when it doesn't. That demonstrates a profound ignorance as to how the 1A has been interpreted throughout American history.

4) You love censorship; you are on the less-free-speech side on every topic discussed here, from fair use to student rights to criticizing elections to criticizing vaccination to § 230.

5) We differ on both the effects of § 230 and on the desirability of those effects. You say that you foresaw the malign consequences of § 230; I say that those problems don't exist. § 230 has been a virtually unalloyed good.

For instance, during years of commentary when I repeatedly predicted an oncoming tsunami of demands for government censorship of internet publishing, all I got from you was snark, condescension, and ridicule.

And you still get them, because you're completely and astoundingly 100%, 360° wrong. There is no such tsunami; the exact opposite has occurred.

Also, I predict you will ignore this comment of mine, just as you do every single time I provide specifics about how you're wrong.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — I think you used to be a sharper reader, with a better memory.

On 2 above: I have never said that all it takes to understand what a law means is to understand the activity it purports to govern. I have repeatedly said that you cannot understand what a law means if you omit that. That has always been true with regard to the subjects you and I differ upon. You may not have noticed when I acknowledged that your purely legal takes added to my own insight.

On 3 above: I have never said the 1A gives the institutional press special protections unavailable to others. On the contrary, I have explicitly opposed the notion of some special protections available only to the institutional press, such as reporters’ privileges. But I have repeatedly insisted that the press freedom clause was meant to protect all the essential activities of an institutional press, and on that I think the courts have largely agreed. If the courts start to disagree, I will insist on the basis of history that they are mistaken.

Of course it is easy for careless readers—and even easier for motivated readers—to misinterpret my advocacy. They overlook that I also point out that to claim some of those institutional press protections, others who customarily practice expressive activities outside any institutional framework might sometimes have to take up other activities, activities which only the institutional press typically practices. But I continue to insist that everyone remains free to do that, and claim press freedom protections when they do.

Of course I recognize that a point tacit in the institutional press debate is that many commenters, maybe including you, oppose America’s existing institutional press organizations. Apparently they view them as political adversaries. Typically, those opponents hope that something will happen to undermine the institutional press. Many seemed once to have cherished hope that the internet would kill off institutional publishing. Some favor stripping an institutional press of any protections which they themselves do not wish to use.

I think that kind of advocacy is unwise. Most who comment in that vein appear unaware that absent content lifted from the institutional press to be published online, often without attribution, they would know almost nothing at all about national or world affairs. The internet has failed almost completely at the task of systematic news gathering. It disguises that mostly by use of content developed first by legacy media—the very organizations which so many internet fans denounce and want to kill off.

On 4 above, I oppose censorship at least as vehemently as you do. Judging from your apparent inability to recognize as demands for government censorship the demands for mandatory common carrier status for internet publishers, I insist I oppose censorship more than you do. Or do you recognize that as a censorship demand? I thought you did. But given that you say the exact opposite of increased demands for censorship has occurred, while calls for laws to regulate hate speech are sounding everywhere—including in government—I reply that my predictions have proved out, and my advocacy record is better than yours.

We disagree about joint liability for publishers and contributors who collaborate on false and defamatory publications. You insist that amounts to a demand for censorship on my part. I point out accurately that in the overwhelming majority of such cases, it is the activity and agency of the publisher which actually creates the damage a victim suffers. Far from being unreasonable, it is reasonable and just that the party which actually creates the damage, and tries to make money while doing it, be held responsible for its damaging agency. It is also practical. Publishers often have deeper pockets than contributors, and thus more to guard by staying careful not to falsely defame people. Note that does not mean publishers cannot publish whatever allegations they can support factually.

The only counter-argument to that would be some cockamamie demand not to chill false defamation. If that is the argument you want, I am content to let bystanders judge whether you are wise to demand it.

As for most contributors, almost all of them are content to publish unactionable opinion. Only a few even attempt more-risky factual assertions. But for the agency of a publisher to supply them with a force multiplier, even those would remain powerless to create much harm.

Perhaps you suppose my advocacy there is an untoward demand to suppress harm, which ought to be allowed to happen. If so, we disagree. I think false defamatory publications are themselves a threat to indispensable political support for speech freedom, and press freedom. I think laws against slander and libel are practical bulwarks guarding those rights. I think your advocacy to eliminate practical protections against damaging defamations is a greater threat to expressive rights than is my advocacy to limit that damage, even at the cost of holding publishers liable. I remain confident that in the big picture, liability for libel serves publishers’ interests better than its absence. It also serves readers’ interests better. And it serves the public life of the nation better. Maybe it harms liars interests, or maybe it doesn’t. I don’t know. You champion that one if you want to.

As for ignoring your comments, I am pretty responsive. But if I judge my points are well made, and thoroughly understood, and yours are repetitive or weak, I am sometimes content to let you have the last word, and let bystanders judge as they will.

I think you are losing this argument today. I probably won’t have more to say. But if you can come up with something less repetitive, showing better readings of the points I actually make, and thoughtful engagement with those points, I will reply. But I do grow weary of your habitual mischaracterizations. I think you can do better, and I wish you would try.

[David Nieporent]

On 4 above, I oppose censorship at least as vehemently as you do. Judging from your apparent inability to recognize as demands for government censorship the demands for mandatory common carrier status for internet publishers, I insist I oppose censorship more than you do. Or do you recognize that as a censorship demand? I thought you did.

You thought wrong, because you are wrong. That is literally the opposite of censorship. Look up the goddamn word in a dictionary. Censorship is the suppression of speech. This is compelled speech. Compelled speech of course violates the first amendment, but it is not censorship.

What you support — the vast expansion of liability for defamation — is censorship.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, for the sake of argument I will take as non-ridiculous your cavil about compelled speech. So what? You must concede on the basis of your own advocacy that government compulsion to force a publisher to publish content it disfavors suppresses the preferred speech of the publisher. By your own definition and frequent commentary that is government censorship of the publisher.

[Sarcastr0]

Congress could do a lot of things.

[Nelson]

"allowing free expression and debate with limited moderation"

I don't recall any bargain like this. In fact, I don't recall any bargain at all. Who were the principals in this "bargain"? When was it struck? What were the repercussions that were agreed to if one of these mysterious parties reneged?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Do you really think Reason and Volokh should have to worry about defamation lawsuits made by commenters in these comments?

Not really. I think internet platforms should have to worry about defamation lawsuits made on the basis of their own agency. For instance (without regard to VC): publishers’ agency to multiply the reach of defamatory assertions; their agency to publish recklessly such assertions, without even reading them prior to publication; their agency to give such assertions a world-wide permanent record which can be accessed by a Google search for at least many years; their agency to curate an audience with algorithms designed to goad outrage and controversy, at the obvious risk of encouraging defamation; their agency to pay would-be contributors for defamatory content, and thus encourage more defamation; their agency to monetize and profit from an audience for defamation they have created and curated at their own initiative.

The previously customary practice of shared liability for defamation among publishers and their contributors is far from an injustice. A publisher’s role to inflict the damage a published defamation delivers is almost always far greater than the role of the contributor. Typically, contributors acting without the connivance of publishers are capable of inflicting almost no consequential damage at all. When published defamation occurs, publishers responsible should be targeted first and foremost to make their victims whole.

[David Nieporent]

For instance (without regard to VC):

In other words, you carefully avoided actually answering his question.

If you don't think that Reason/Volokh should be liable for our comments here, how you to propose to avoid that possibility w/o § 230?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — I did not say what you concluded. I expanded my answer to cover social media platforms generally. I avoided comment directly about VC because the business model for the VC is opaque to me. I did not want by error to attribute to the VC any specific agency it does not in fact employ. Other platforms employ the specifics I listed. Perhaps the VC does too, perhaps not. It does not matter; it employs some of them at least. Thus, I do think the VC, like all publishers, should be liable for false and defamatory allegations it publishes on behalf of its contributors.

[David Nieporent]

Thus, I do think the VC, like all publishers, should be liable for false and defamatory allegations it publishes on behalf of its contributors.

Of course it should be. If Prof Volokh says something here, the VC should be liable for it. But we're not talking about things the VC publishes on behalf of its contributors; we're talking about things that commenters publish on their own behalf.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, how can you argue, as you do, that the decision about what to publish is the protected speech of the platform? Then, when the platform/publisher makes that decision—and in fact practices all the activities which actually accomplish publication—and monetizes that activity besides—you deny the platform has acted as the publisher of the contributor's content. You love that Section 230, but you certainly are twisting yourself into a pretzel to hang onto it.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Once more: do you know what a bookstore is? Hint: a bookstore makes decisions about which books to sell. It makes decisions about which books to promote, out of the ones that it sells. It makes money off those decisions. Those decisions are the protected speech of the bookstore. Does that mean that the bookstore is publishing the books? Does that mean that the bookstore is liable for all defamatory content in those books?

[Martinned]

If the bookstore knowingly sells defamatory books then it can definitely be held liable under traditional libel law.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/aug/09/mondaymediasection12

(Negligently selling defamatory books is a more difficult question. Historically that would have been no problem, but that doesn't seem like a very useful precedent.)

[Martinned]

Actually the article I linked has the answer on negligent booksellers, at least for the law of England and Wales:

S. 1(1) Defamation Act 1996:

(1)In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that—
(a)he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of,
(b)he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and
(c)he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.

[David Nieporent]

If the bookstore knowingly sells defamatory books then it can definitely be held liable under traditional libel law.

I know. But that's not the regime that Lathrop is arguing for. He's arguing that websites ought to be treated like publishers, not distributors.

Of course, your cites are to UK law, which is far more plaintiff friendly against any defendant (even setting aside the shifted burden of proof). In the U.S., it would be almost impossible to hold a bookstore liable because almost any book is going to be about a public figure, in which case there's no liability without actual malice. "Had no reason to believe" isn't enough; that's a negligence standard.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't know about masks, but this is what I find most troubling. I am astounded by the nature of, the level of, the frequency of discussions between the IC (intelligence community) and social media companies, Big Tech. Does anyone think what we see with Twitter is unique? Uh, no. As a citizen, I don't think I want the Federal Government exercising that kind of power over citizenry. I do not believe the Founders thought for a millisecond that the federal government as laid out in the Constitution with enumerated powers would ever have this kind of power over citizens.

I worry a lot more about the greater likelihood of oppression of citizens by the Federal Government. The ideological aspect is worrisome, yes, but I am much more focused on the power and scope of the Federal Government.

[Nige]

It's bizarre that people are wound up about the IC being in contact with social media, when social media has been shown to be a conduit for foreign interference and disinforamtion, not to mention a means of organising dodgy domestic stuff like Jan 6th. Meanwhile, how long has Big Tech openly worked hand in hand with government agencies to expand the surveillance state?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Disinformation"

Yes, it's pretty concerning when the government tells media and social media organizations what is "disinformation" and asks them to take it down...

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Scare quotes, oh no!

What are you up in arms about now that most likely didn't even happen?

[Gandydancer]

Not everyone is as disingenuously "ignorant" as you are determined to be.

[bernard11]

Not everyone swallows the BS coming out of the RW media firehose.

[Gandydancer]

Not everyone swallows the BS coming out of the LW media firehose either, but that has nothing to do with Cavanaugh's dishonest invitation to attempt the fools' errand of attempting to accomplish his remedial education.

[Nige]

It's pretty disurbing when foreign and private agencies can flood social media with disinformation in order to affect political and social outcomes. It's not that I trust the intelligence agencies especially, it's that I don't want to be completely at the mercy of assorted unaccountable oligarchs and tyrants who have the money to make issues that are not particularly important to the electorate suddenly seem like the burning issues of the decade, or just spread outright and potentially dangerous lies.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You're concerned about private agencies...(like you for example)...flooding social media with what the government would call disinformation?

And would prefer the government tell the social media organizations what can...and can't be...posted by private agencies...like US citizens?

[Nige]

Sure I could post disinformation online, and nobody would or should care, but I doubt I could manage the reach of assorted millionaires and billionaires and intelligence agencies, including the US intelligence agencies. Having said that, the Twitter Files showed that the government did not, in fact, tell social media orgs what could and couldn't be posted by anyone.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Sure I could post disinformation online,..."
Something you do almost every day.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Read more carefully....

[Nige]

Ok. Same answer.

[Gandydancer]

“It’s pretty dis[t]urbing when foreign and private agencies can flood social media with disinformation in order to affect political and social outcomes.”

Not nearly disturbing as the government colluding with media that is ultimately under its thumb (“Nice little exemption from defamation you have there — be a shame if anything happened to it.”) to block information that might affect political and social outcomes in ways it doesn’t like.

[Nige]

Except one is happening, one isn't. The twitter files showed that social media is not under the government's thumb at all.

[Gandydancer]

You are a loon.

[SimonP]

I don't know why numbnuts like you particularly care, given that you are being easily manipulated by a PR campaign designed to elicit exactly this reaction.

Like - for all of your complaining, do you care, at all, that the "Twitter files" is a drip-drip-drip of selectively chosen and edited internal correspondence designed to make Democrats look bad? Do you stop to wonder what they're not showing you, from Republicans? Are you thinking, at all, about the difference between asking a company to try to limit threatening harassment of non-public officials by an anonymous online horde in accordance with the company's own terms of service, and actual "censorship"?

I will never take this complaining over the "Twitter files" very seriously, because the people complaining the most loudly are all high on their own supply of propaganda and misinformation. You have absolutely zero qualms with your information networks being controlled, censored and manipulated. You just want crooks to do it without your knowledge.

[Krayt]

Sorry, accidentally flagged for review, and there is no un-flag button, even though it was invented in 1930.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're communications channels. All sorts of people use them.

Kind of like telephones. You'd be cool with the government pressuring telephone companies to cut off from phone service people who said things the government didn't want said?

Which is, after all, the real definition of "disinformation": Just something the person using the term doesn't want communicated. That it be in any way untrue is totally optional. They use the term before the truth is known, they use it on true facts they don't like the implications of. All it really means is "Stuff I'd like censored".

[Nige]

'Just something the person using the term doesn’t want communicated.'

And the disinformation is something the person spreading it wants communicated, such as how awesome ivermectin is at curing covid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or the contents of Hunter's laptop, or that Covid might have leaked from a Chinese research facility, or all the other things that were true but were blocked?

No, Nige, all "disinformation" has ever meant is "stuff we want to censor".

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it was twitter that kept that laptop's contents from being leaked, not that it's got not much on it.

Similarly, no one was forbidden from saying the leak hypothesis is a possibility - it was those slam-dunk saying for sure and it's time to bomb China that were highlighted.

[Absaroka]

"...and it’s time to bomb China that were highlighted."

My memory is that twitter/facebook were a lot more aggressive about suppressing discussion than you remember.

[Sarcastr0]

All I know is I saw plenty of discussions of whether 'Covid might have leaked from a Chinese research facility'

But the emphasis was on might.

[Don Nico]

" it’s time to bomb China that were highlighted."
I call you.
Just who with any power in government said that?
And why did the CDC try so hard to suppress investigation of that possibility?

[Sarcastr0]

We are talking about twitter, chief. Not government officials.

[bernard11]

All conspiracy, all the time.

[OtisAH]

“No, Nige, all ‘disinformation’ has ever meant is ‘stuff we want to censor.’”

That’s a stupid thing to believe and an even stupider thing to say out loud.

[Nige]

Here's my point. Neither of these examples is 'true.' But disinformation is seen as beneficial to the Republican Party, therefore it has to be protected and even championed. The public has to suck it up, and Republicans have a right to invade their spaces with their bullshit.

[Nelson]

"Republicans have a right to invade their spaces with their bullshit"

Sure, a lot of Republican talking points are pure bullshit. But saying things that are bullshit is protected speech. You may not like it or believe in it, but you can't suppress it just because it's bullshit.

Twitter, in the other hand, is free to repress or amplify anything it wants on its platform. Which both sides should remember, since they only bitch about Section 230 when it covers the other guy. Finding someone, especially a politician, who is against Section 230 in all situations is a fool's errand.

The Twitter Files are a giant nothingburger for those alleging government censorship, since they often rejected the requests made by the government. The decision never left Twitter's hands and they often rejected the government's requests.

Should disinformation campaigns from foreign countries be banned and/or suppressed? I could be convinced, if first it was proven to be a foreign intelligence effort (like the Internet Research Agency). Someone being Russia's useful idiot doesn't count. Repeating Chinese disinformation because you believe it doesn't count. Basically, it is almost impossible to determine what is a foreign intelligence program and what is just a gullible American with lots of followers. So that shit should be left.

If you believe that a sizable percentage of stuff on the internet isn't speculative nonsense or outright, intentional, profit-driven falsehoods (for a prime example, see InfoWars), you are a fool.

"Honest" (as in not a foreign intelligence effort) dis/misinformation can't (and shouldn't) be prevented in a nation that believes in freedom of expression.

[Nige]

'But saying things that are bullshit is protected speech.'

Sure. But if people don;t want to listen to your bullshit, they don;t have to, and they don;t have to publish or promote it, either.

'So that shit should be left.'

Actually they seem quite good at spotting stuff that's coming from Russian or Chinese controlled disinformation sources.

'“Honest” (as in not a foreign intelligence effort) dis/misinformation'

Actually, I think it'd be quite a good idea to know who's spreading disinformation from any source, and why.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Finding someone, especially a politician, who is against Section 230 in all situations is a fool’s errand.

Nelson, I'm someone, though not a politician. Since I first learned it existed, in about 1998, I have been against Section 230 in all situations. I have been consistently calling for its unconditional repeal on this blog for at least 5 years, probably more.

[David Nieporent]

I have been against Section 230 in all situations.

No, you're not. You just don't know enough about § 230 to know what you're talking about. You agree with (c)(2)(a).

I do like how you admit that all your bullshit about "gigantism" and such is just post hoc rationalization, since in 1998 that wasn't a issue. Your real objection is your pathological fixation on "defamation."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nope again, Nieporent. As early as the original passage of Section 230, the day it was passed, anyone in publishing could see that it would lead directly to internet giantism, at the expense of traditional publishers across the nation.

I came to that conclusion sometime circa 1998, after about half-an-hour’s thought when I first read the law. If I recall correctly, it was my first negative conclusion about the law.

I will explain the reasoning. For everyone in customary publishing, ad sales volume—not available news—had always determined the day-to-day size of an edition. To determine your edition’s number of pages, you used a predetermined formula: average allowable percent-per-page of advertising space, with an allowance for page capacity per available press unit.

After that, on the basis of the aggregate space of advertising already sold for that number of pages, you determined a remainder, glamorously known as the “news hole.” Then you chucked in text, photos, and other content according to a mix of news judgment, aesthetic whim, and business priority, until the news hole filled up, and you went to press.

There was an obvious size limit established by that method. Your capacity to create news-hole filler (editorial content) had to grow in proportion with your advertising sales, or the quality of your reader appeal would decline. Reader attention was the product you wanted to sell to advertisers; their conviction that reader attention was always rock solid was critical. But that editorial content capacity was a major budget item, and sometimes a management headache.

As a practical matter, you could not afford to take on staff to support more editorial content than the advertising you knew you could sell reliably would support. So that cost to manage editorial content also became a limit on edition size.

Thus, editorial costs and reliable advertising sales had to grow together, in proportion. Then Section 230 put an end to that proportion, and blew off the size limit. The potential for an unprecedented increase in profitability became staggeringly obvious.

Once Section 230 passed, all it took to predict the internet’s future was to consider what would happen if you inverted the order of consideration in the customary formula. What if there were no cost limit imposed by the amount of editorial content you needed? With no liability to read everything prior to publication, that became an exciting potential reality. That would mean you could sell as much advertising as you wanted, without any proportional increase in editorial costs! Given enterprise to sell advertising, your principal problem would be to develop cost-free editorial content in unlimited quantities—but that would no longer be hindered by a need to edit, or even read it in advance of publication. And the internet made stealing editorial content a cinch. That put giantism in the cards from day 1. It did not take genius to see it.

Of course, there were some of today’s notable internet problems which Section 230 did not immediately portend. For instance, the role of algorithms took me completely by surprise. But giantism was easy to predict. And by knowing giantism was coming, demands for censorship to keep a shrinking number of editorial giants from monopolizing public influence became predictable. That conclusion took me longer to reach, but before 2015 it was already obvious.

Also easy to predict was the explosive ability of libel to outstrip customary defamation law enforcement. Anyone could see that one coming who had ever sat in a newsroom and reviewed the typical parade of horribles which Joe Citizen wanted published to target folks he hated. As soon as publishers got excused from liability for defamation by contributors, libel law became an obvious dead duck. And so it has played out. If you knew it would play out that way, then demands for censorship to stop it also became predictable.

So predictable demands for censorship would come in from two directions at once. It was an easy call.

Despite all that, you are dead wrong about my primary motivation for opposition to Section 230. The primary motivation has always been the destructive effect it had, and continues to have, on news gathering. That damage has been worse than all the others combined. That was pretty much a side-effect of the giantism, though, so I haven’t felt the need to discuss it much.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Or the contents of Hunter’s laptop…”

The contents of the laptop were exhaustively covered in hundreds of news stories on TV, radio, the internet and newspapers. There was no detail not relentlessly beaten to death. Personally, I think Twitter misjudged the situation, but that doesn’t change these facts:

(1) You weren’t cheated of your October Surprise, which you got in spades. It’s not Twitter’s fault there was nothing there.

(2) Twitter’s over-caution was wrong, but understandable. The Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman origin story remains a joke to this day. Giuliani and his pair of criminal henchmen spent two years trying to buy Hunter dirt in Ukraine. They sought trade with oligarchs under indictment in the U.S. and figures condemned as corrupt throughout the western world. At one point the White House was warned Rudy was seeking Hunter dirt from known Russian spies. U.S. Intelligence had tapes of the conversations. Then Giuliani produces his last-minute laptop, and the story behind it reeks like fish left out in the hot August sun. Of course there were concerns.

(3) Once again: Twitter may have been wrong, but that was its business right. Hysteria over a media business misjudging a nothing story is a tad overwrought, don’t ya think?

But spectacle over nothing is what we get from today’s Right. That describes all their “issues” and “causes”. It’s in the carnival barker shtick from their most popular politicians. Dumping Trump doesn’t change that a bit. You need only look to their latest savoir, DeSantis, with his anti-vaxx campaign, grotesque stunt with Texas immigrants, jihad against Disney and crusade against transsexuals.

The ethical and moral rot at the core of today’s Right existed before Trump and outlasts him. When a party sole concern is delivering WWE-style entertainment to its consumer-base, empty irrelevance follows.

[David Nieporent]

Personally, I think Twitter misjudged the situation,

For that matter, so does Twitter! They admitted the very next day that they misapplied their policies and that the article didn't violate it, and stopped preventing people from posting or retweeting it. They never banned discussion of the article or the substance thereof.

[Brett Bellmore]

Jack Dorsey says the New York Post Twitter account will remain locked until it deletes the original tweet featuring its Hunter Biden story

"The New York Post has been locked out of its Twitter account for two weeks because it has not deleted a tweet linking to a dubious article on Hunter Biden, Dorsey said during a Senate committee hearing on Section 230, the law that states tech companies cannot be held liable for content published on their platforms.

Dorsey said, "They have to log in to their account, which they can do right this minute, delete the original tweet, which fell under our original enforcement action, and they can tweet the exact same material ... and it will go through.""

He made this statement TWO WEEKS after they were locked out of their account. NOT the very next day. TWO WEEKS. And think about what a bullshit thing to say; "We'll reverse our mistaken ban just as soon as you delete the tweet we never should have banned you for."

Of course, it wasn't just Twitter censoring this story, so was FB.

[David Nieporent]

1) The NYP was, of course, not "locked out of their account," because if they were they couldn't have logged in and deleted it. Rather, they were unable to post new tweets.

2) What I said was true. Twitter announced the very next day that they had mistakenly applied their policy to the Post's article. As a result, everyone was free to link to and discuss it, starting the next day. (And even before Twitter reversed itself, everyone was free to discuss both the article and its contents w/o linking to it.)

3) Did you miss the part where Dorsey said, "and they can tweet the exact same material … and it will go through"? Or did you deliberately pretend not to read that part? I mean, yes, that's a stupid technical requirement, but it imposed no burden on speech.

4) Facebook never banned the article.

5) Of course, Twitter's action did a massive favor to Trump and the NYPost, since it Barbara Streisanded a nothing burger.

[grb]

David Nieporent : “….. nothing burger …..”

To this day, you occasionally see Brett claiming there was “child pornography” on the laptop. He did so several weeks back. So why didn’t that emerge, given the computer’s entire hard drive was in the hands of Giuliani (whose descent into unprincipled sleaze was irreversible at that point) and one of Biden’s most vicious enemies, the New York Post?

As I recall, Brett’s last attempt to explain that puzzler was comical in the extreme. Per our Mr. Bellmore, any attempt to expose the evil porn on the laptop would somehow make child pornographers out of the heroic Rudy and NYP. I’m honestly not joking. That’s actually the excuse he gave.

That Brett traffics in such childish twaddle shows even he knows the laptop was a Big Nothing. And yet he still regularly whines about be cheated out of a scandal that never existed. Aside from the dog-bites-man story that little Hunter had behavioral issues, the laptop was a giant zero.

I could what-about with a Trump story of insider Washington favoritism and potential conflict of interests, but anyone can do that about anything. The only difference is I can keep telling stories of Trumpian sleaze, a score or more for every little morsel of Hunter dirt. And each of those Swamp-like stories got a tiny percentage of the news attention pathetic little Hunter receives from the MSM. I’ll be damned if I know where Brett gets his snowflake victimhood from. Any other politician (or normal human being) would be scorched to ash by the MSM for one-hundredth of the shit Trump did.

[David Nieporent]

To this day, you occasionally see Brett claiming there was “child pornography” on the laptop.

I won't swear with 100% certainty that you're wrong, but I don't think that this is Brett. I think you're conflating him with one of the even more extremist, shameless right wingers around here. BCD, if I recall correctly. Brett certainly is a laptop enthusiast, but I think he focuses more on conspiracy theories about the FBI than about the specifics of what was supposedly on a supposed drive that virtually nobody has seen.

[Nige]

Yeah, I don't think Brett ever made child porn claims in that regard.

[Ben_]

“Kind of like telephones. You’d be cool with the government pressuring telephone companies to cut off from phone service people who said things the government didn’t want said?”

They will immediately censor or block telephone conversations as soon as they can.

They blocked private Twitter DMs on several subjects already. None of the Democrats here cared to criticize that. Some were pushing the "Russian" lie at at time.

[David Nieporent]

I do not believe the Founders thought for a millisecond that the federal government as laid out in the Constitution with enumerated powers would ever have this kind of power over citizens.

The same Founders who enacted the Alien & Sedition Acts?

[Commenter_XY]

Touche....but yeah.

[bernard11]

XY,

You slid smoothly from "discussions" to "the Federal Government exercising that kind of power over citizenry."

I don't think that's reasonable.

[Commenter_XY]

What would you call it, bernard11?

[bernard11]

What would I call what?

What I wouldn't do is confuse talking to Twitter with "exercising power over citizenry," or whatever.

What I also wouldn't do is believe that the carefully selected files Musk released to carefully selected journalists, which don't amount to much anyway, are convincing evidence of some insidious left-wing plot to use Twitter to undermine the country.

Let me suggest, with respect, that you may want to consider whether your media diet is a healthy one.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, my concern is not 'politics'. I want to be clear about that. My concern is structural and legal.

You asked what I meant when I asked you, "What would you call it?". Let me try asking this, because it gets to the heart of my concern.

Do we want a federal government that engages in the nature of, level of, and frequency of the discussions we see - just as a general proposition? I am not just speaking of Twitter, social media, legacy corporate media and Big Tech. As a general matter, do we want the Federal government doing things like 'helping' a private enterprise enforce their ToS? That is a level and degree of involvement in our everyday lives that I don't think any Founder contemplated.

Maybe you are comfortable with a Federal government with that kind of power and that degree of involvement in your life, coupled with a willingness to use that power. Ok, to each his own.

I have to tell you that I am not. I am very uneasy with a Federal government having that degree of involvement in my everyday life and it has nothing to do with media diet. My unease stems from the behaviors I see.

[David Nieporent]

I said last week on this topic that in the parallel dimension where I run the world, the government would have been doing a lot less of what it actually did.¹ But it is not a "power." The government was simply not doing what many on the right are pretending it did. It was not enforcing anything. It was not requiring anything. It was not commanding anything. It was not paying social media to do anything (related to this). And the so-called Twitter Files demonstrate this. They show that Twitter did not take action just because the government flagged something. (And, no, I don't mean this in a Bellmorian conspiratorial way, in which Twitter did 99% of what the government wanted and only avoided 1% for deniability.)
​
​
¹I want a much smaller federal government anyway. (To take a topical example, much as I dislike most non-competes, I don't think it's the role of the federal government to be banning them.) I'd send most federal agencies to the cornfield if I could. (And, of course, I also object to what much of the states do, also.)

[Commenter_XY]

This is where we totally agree = …in the parallel dimension where I run the world, the government would have been doing a lot less of what it actually did. – I feel the same way, and I want a much smaller government like you.

David, I’ll say it this way…To me, the jury is still out on the whole Twitter/FB/Google/BigTech question, and whether they were commanded or not. Maybe ‘co-opted’ is a better word than commanded. Either way, it just doesn’t align with what I was taught were the bounds and limits of Federal government power and involvement in our daily life (I know, I know – you object to power…the jury is still out, to me – we’ll see).

BTW, still chuckling at the Alien & Sedition Act wisecrack. I am still laughing at that one. Nice one.

[David Nieporent]

FTR, in the parallel dimension where I run the world, the Yankees would go 0-162 every year.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok wait....I can't live in that world. Well, maybe I could in that world but only if the Mets join them at 0-162.

[Nige]

What are you on about?

[Gandydancer]

Your pretended ignorance is really tedious.

[Nige]

No I am genuinely ignorant of what, specifically, he is referring to.

[Gandydancer]

The first five words of your sentence are true.

[Nige]

All words are true. Only sentences lie.

[David Nieporent]

Not as bad as your actual ignorance!

[Gandydancer]

My actual ignorance is considerably less than your actual stupidity, as is a mouse is to an elephant.

[David Nieporent]

You had a couple of hours, and the best comeback you could come up with was "I know you are, but what am I?"

[Gandydancer]

Took about 2 seconds, which is more than you're worth.

[gallinalg85]

They've always been thugs who seek power for power's sake. When it comes to banning conservatives' speech on common carrier platforms, and when it comes to banning guns inside private businesses, then it's all about laissez faire. But if you dare to refuse to bake a cake for one of their pet people, then the whole power of the federal government should come down on you.

[jb]

Who's trying to do what to Twitter? Mostly we're just laughing at Elon figuring out this is not so easy after all, but I haven't seen anyone say he's not free to run Twitter into the ground if he wants. Can you point to some counter examples?

[David Nieporent]

I'm not going to go out and hunt down the links, but the execrable Elizabeth Warren, as well as Eric Swalwell (or was it Schiff? I forget), have both mouthed off about how Musk has to be "accountable" for how he runs Twitter.

[jb]

Elizabeth Warren is not a very good example of someone who has previously been advocating for the tech companies to be treated in a completely laissez-faire manner.

[David Nieporent]

Ok, that's true, but the question I was responding to was about whether there was "anyone say[ing] he’s not free to run Twitter into the ground if he wants."

Warren is not a hypocrite in that she never thinks that private businesses can do what they want; she's not suddenly taking that position wrt Musk.

[jb]

Fair enough. My point is that I haven't seen anyone from the left flip-flop on this topic as a result of Musk's shenanigans at Twitter, despite Amos's wish that it were so.

[John F. Carr]

I had subscribed to Reason, the magazine associated with the web site that hosts Volokh conspiracy. I let the subscription expire. Not so fast! Another charge showed up recently. How did it get renewed when I don't sign up for autorenew? Reason grayed out the text of the notice that the subscription autorenewed so it was hard to see. In other words, they committed fraud. Unfortunately Reason is out of the jurisdiction of my state Attorney General. It would be nice to see them get the same blue state welcome the NRA got from New York.

[AmosArch]

Its probably more due to Reason techs having the computer skills of a baked potato rather than malice. Haven't you noticed how long its taken to update the primitive commenting system here?

[John F. Carr]

Subscription processing appears to be outsourced. Good news, only professionals handle your billing information. Bad news, they pull whatever sleazy tricks are in vogue in their industry.

[Gandydancer]

What did your credit card company say?

And do any Federal wire fraud laws apply?

[bernard11]

Was this an email? Are you sure it's legitimately from Reason?

I get a lot of crap invoices.

[John F. Carr]

It was on a financial statement, so it really happened. Reason did not notify me.

[Kazinski]

I had a much worse experience with NFL game pass international, I signed up when I was overseas for 6 months. Not only do they auto-renew, they only allow access to their website to sign on to your account or the games from outside the US, so if you move back to the US you can't cancel the service or use it.

So they notified me that I auto-renewed, but they had no number to call, no website I could go to, and I couldn't even use the service from inside the US (yeah I suppose I could have gotten around that via a VPN with an international server).

Thankfully my credit card company allowed me to dispute the charge, they said because the NFL blocked my account access, I didn't have an opportunity to cancel, so they reversed the charges.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, are you an American citizen? Over the age of about 10? Is there any such person who doesn’t understand that a newspaper or magazine or cable tv or streaming service subscription always auto-renews?

In fact, I’m not sure there are many subscriptions in any industry that don’t auto-renew as an industry standard. How can you pretend not to have been aware of this?

EDIT: I guess in the old days when one actually had to send a physical check to pay for the subscription, that they didn't auto-renew. But that hasn't been the case in a very very long time.

[John F. Carr]

I am aware that automatic renewal is popular with businesses. That is why I look for the notice that it will happen. That is why I look for the box to turn it off. If there is no way to turn it off, I may choose not to purchase. I may cancel immediately after buying. I depend on the company being honest. I depend on the company not hiding its terms of service. I depend on the company not going to extra effort to hide the way to unsubscribe. It can be a button. Why did I have to compose an email instead of clicking a button? Reason's service provider loves "dark patterns". It adverises "proactive account management service". That's another way of saying "we will defraud your customers for you."

tldr: Never give Reason your money.

[santamonica811]

As I watched the Republican circus (cuz I'm too polite to use the term "clusterfu*k") in the House over the past few days; I'm really hoping that the wingnut fringe here can help me. Please explain how this is, somehow, all the fault of the Democrats. I mean; I'm sure it is, but I've spent 2 days trying, in vain, to figure it out. BravoCharlieDelta? Dr. Ed? Please, I need your wisdom and your totally-not-crazy input. I don't want to face the possibility that my Republican party is this dysfunctional or impotent.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

I'm not sure it really is dysfunction. The Republican Party has entered a new mode of operation: when out of power, move the party as far right as possible, so that right-wing wackos get mainstreamed; and then when in power, use the extreme-right victors to move the longer-lasting elements of the government (Courts, and long-term Federal posts) to the extreme right. They have realized that the price they pay for moving as far to the right as they can when they are out of power - which is, that they stay out of power for longer - is a small price to pay for having an extreme-right administration when they finally do get power.

Democrats, and until recently, Republicans, when they lose an election or have a disappointing (to them) election, generally try/tried to figure out what the problem was, and do something to mollify the voters who had rejected them. If they lost because they had alienated moderates by having too many red-meat-base candidates, they would try to elevate some moderates, and if they lost because they had lost the base by being too establishment, they'd pour on the meat sauce.

In contrast, now, when Republicans blow an election, they don't try to make nice with anyone. They go into full out-of-power mode, and do everything they can to move the mainstream of their Party further and further right - to ridiculous levels. They figure: sooner or later, the Dems will overstay their welcome in power, forget that they can lose, and nominate a very weak candidate like Hillary Clinton. And then, we'll win, no matter how far-right loopy our candidates are. The point is they don't care how long they stay out of power, so long as they can get an extreme right-wing government when they get into power, whenever it is. Like a spore or a seed.

This is how the Republicans overturned Roe vs. Wade and imposed this crazy, deadly, unpopular fake-originalist gun policy on the country. It's why the Circuit Courts have been heavily populated with Clarence Thomas' glaze-eyed lack-brain born-again clerks.

And it's what's happening now. The "freedom caucus" is flexing its muscles and will be mainstreamed, so that next time the Dems wear out their welcome the Republicans will elect, not a moderate, not even a strong conservative, but a beyond-extreme right-wing wacko, someone who will make loop-a-dupe fringies like Matthew Kacsmaryk into mainstream candidates for circuit courts or for the Supreme Court.

[AmosArch]

Maybe I’m the crazy one but do you progs seriously believe yourselves when you constantly proclaim and act like contemporary Repubs are galaxies further right than any other conservatives in history? Did I miss the history class about the 94 genders believing antigun far right conservatives that existed in the 1850s?

[Stephen Lathrop]

AmosArch — Your craziness is of a piece with today's extremist craziness espoused by some members of the Republican Party. You (and they) presume that culture war issues have left–right political valence. They do not.

People who agitate for inclusive gender policies (or racial reforms, or women's suffrage) are not left-wingers. At present, their presence distracts, inconveniences, and hinders the left-trending politics of the Democratic Party. It has not always been that way.

People who oppose with vehemence those who prioritize identity issues are not inherently right-wingers. At present, they are just people with counter-obsessions who distract, inconvenience, and hinder the right-trending politics of the Republican Party.

The identity issue political circus stands to the side of the left–right political axis—an axis recognizably different partly because, since the Civil War, it does show a consistent left–right tradition, a tradition based largely on economic priorities.

Apply the same expansive historical perspective to issues of identity, and you see the players edging this way, then jumping that way, mostly according to their own estimates of which party offers an advantageous contemporary coalition which might prioritize and advance identity-related causes. Intra-party decisions about whether to encourage such coalitions, or campaign against them, loom large in that history.

Thus, those identity groups do from time-to-time sort themselves selectively into the two major parties, but not enduringly. While they do it, in each case, they embarrass the principles and inconvenience the tactics of party members who prefer to advocate based on left-trending or right-trending economic politics.

Leaders in both parties, by the way, have always preferred calm, tolerance for identity advocacy, coupled with de-emphasis of identity issues. The leaders want to win elections based on economic issues, and reward economically afterwards their identity-focused coalition members.

Understandably, the identity group members often do not share the party leaders' priorities. Likewise with identity group opponents, when they are extreme enough. That seems to be you—but that does not make you a leftist or a rightist; it makes you an identity maven, like so many others, on the left, and on the right. Perhaps you stand with a consistent sense of identity to the left, or to the right, on economic issues. Advocacy which keeps that in mind might confuse others less about your intentions, at least while you invoke left–right distinctions.

[bernard11]

Do you think Eisenhower would be at home in today's GOP? Or Nixon, for that matter? Do you think Herbert Hoover would be in favor of defaulting on the national debt?

[Frank Drackman]

Jeezus, 2 losers and a Mediocre General who took credit for Bradley, Clark and Patton's performance.

[bernard11]

OK.

Reagan? G.H.W. Bush? Dole? Theodore Roosevelt? Abraham Lincoln?

[Bob from Ohio]

A dumb question. You can't just assume that an historical figure would have the same views if transported by magic to now.

[Brian Thomas]

Oh good, so we don't have to care about the Founding Fathers' views about gun ownership.

[Bob from Ohio]

No we don't, we only have to care about the meaning of the words in 2A in 1791.

[Brian Thomas]

Yeah, words like "well regulated" and "militia".

[bernard11]

IOW, yes. Today's GOP is extreme.

[bernard11]

They even hate McCain these days.

[Don Nico]

Definitely NOT T.R.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bradley, Clark and Patton"

Clark was the worst senior general of the war, except for every Italian one.

Bradley was fine but over-rated.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Democrats, and until recently, Republicans, when they lose an election or have a disappointing (to them) election, generally try/tried to figure out what the problem was, and do something to mollify the voters who had rejected them."

LOL!

Yeah, that's why you keep coming back after gun rights, for instance.

[JasonT20]

Yeah, that’s why you keep coming back after gun rights, for instance.

Are you under the impression that increasing restrictions on gun ownership and use is unpopular at the national level?

Some examples from Gallup polls:

Requiring background checks for all gun purchases
Favor - 96% Oppose - 4%

Enacting a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales
Favor - 75% Oppose - 24% No opinion - 1%

Requiring all privately-owned guns to be registered with the police
Favor - 70% Oppose - 29% No opinion - 1%

Banning "assault rifles" (I know, not a very good term to use, but it is what is most often used in discussions about it)
Favor 55% Oppose 44% No opinion 1%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I'm under the impression that restricting gun rights routinely causes Democrats electoral defeats. Which is a much better measure of public opinion than polls, and far more relevant to the discussion.

And Democrats KNOW this costs them at the polls. From their 1996 platform: "But we know that the military-style guns we banned have no place on America's streets, and we are proud of the courageous Democrats who defied the gun lobby and sacrificed their seats in Congress to make America safer."

I'll give Democrats credit for this: They're not afraid to suffer short term political setbacks to achieve their goals, unlike the Republicans.

[Nige]

Worked, too. Gun violence dropped. But we're past the heyday of the NRA when they could roll out Charlton Heston to be everyone's cuddly grandfather with a nice safe gun, and instead the hyper-patriot anti-crime organisation turned out to have been flooded with Russian money and agents and also profoundly rotten to the core.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yes, I’m under the impression that restricting gun rights routinely causes Democrats electoral defeats. Which is a much better measure of public opinion than polls, and far more relevant to the discussion.

That is baloney. It is a measure of structural imbalance built into American constitutionalism—at least for now in favor of minority political advantage for rural communities. That huge disparity between poll numbers and election results dramatizes the extent of the structural imbalance.

Long-term, uncompromising resistance to gun regulation will probably prove an unwise means to protect the interests of that rural minority. On this issue, political will to cater to swing voters will inevitably remain hostage to majority response to the happenstance of violence which guns deliver nationwide.

Those poll numbers suggest that political will is already under harsh pressure, and likely trending toward a switch. If any such switch ever does occur, do not look to the majority to revisit the issue soon, or maybe ever. A decision to delay compromise and ease the pressure now is very much a decision to roll the dice for high stakes long term.

[Don Nico]

"That is baloney. "
Really? It is why Al Gore lost his home state of TN and consequently the presidential election.

[Stephen Lathrop]

That's a reach, Nico. Famously, there is a list of other, "but for," occurrences which caused Gore's loss, or did you forget?

Also? That pivotal role for Tennessee—to the extent it even exists—is arguably more a confirmation of my point about structural advantages for minorities than it is about Bellmore's nonsense that by some magic a minority of Americans who are vociferous about guns overcomes a majority who want guns more regulated.

Polls show a majority of Americans want guns more regulated. Gore won a majority among voters nationwide.

Depending on whether you can accomplish appropriate cynicism, neither gun-related factor proved decisive in 2000. An illegitimate, politicized Supreme Court decision handed the win to Bush. That was a startling first in a cascade of ensuing illegitimate Court decisions opportunistically focused on political process. Not to mention norm-shattering Senatorial connivance with an eye to create a politically unbalanced Court. Consequently, the legitimacy of the Court hangs in tatters. Even the Chief Justice knows it. Probably an actual majority on the Court know it; some politicizers among the Justices just don't care.

Thus, the nation confronts a choice to get along without a legitimate Court, or to take action politically to put this Court back on track. People are fools who suppose it is impossible that such political action will ever happen, or that the only way it could be accomplished is by the practically senescent process of constitutional amendment.

[Martinned]

For the record, in a healthy democracy people’s views on issues are weighed by how strongly they feel about each issue. That’s why nerds like Glen Weyl have been advocating for quadratic voting, but simply relying on representative democracy instead of referendums already achieves that to some extent.

(For the same reason elections for Dutch water boards give extra votes to farmers and others who rely heavily on the land and on ground water quality/levels.)

[Don Nico]

SL,
Gore lost so big in East Tennessee, the buckle on the bible belt" that he lost the state.
Your blowing off the comment is merely ignorance about TN politics.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you think that polls matter when the questions asked would violate the Constitution?

I don't give a fuck how many people think a 30-day waiting period should be implemented until and unless such a time comes where 38 States agree that it should be so.

[Nige]

If trans people or people who teach CRT could actually be linked to the number of needless deaths and all the horrors guns have, you would rip out the part of the Constitution that protects their rights with your teeth.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You clearly haven't paid any attention to my comments over the years.

I cannot think of a single piece of our Constitution that I would ever rip out with my teeth or any other instrument. Kindly fuck off with that noise.

[Nige]

Thank goodness the Constitution is safe from your molars.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Well-regulated militia . . .

[Frank Drackman]

"Shall not be infringed" Put that in your prison-issue jumpsuit pocket and smoke it, Jerry.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Second Amendment absolutists are even more tiresome than First Amendment absolutists.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but none are as tiresome as you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cavanaugh — Are you under the impression that your rights are protected reliably by a Supreme Court which this nation regards as legitimate? If so, give some thought to what kinds of changes might ensue if states encompassing large fractions of the population conclude otherwise.

Take note of the various entirely constitutional means available for national political processes to alter the Court. Take note of the means the Court so conspicuously lacks to redress any blow to its power which open concerted defiance by major states could deliver.

The amendment process appears to be failing. Political changes by other means remain available. Do you think it is wise to discount to zero the possibility that those might be used?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Take note of the means the Court so conspicuously lacks to redress any blow to its power which open concerted defiance by major states could deliver."

That's called rebellion, and if you think that's a good idea (or that it will go unchallenged), you're dumber than anyone's ever given you credit for.

Nobody's offered an amendment on this issue. Thirty-eight States haven't agreed to any amendment on this issue.

Therefore the amendment process hasn't failed. You just aren't part of the club and are left with nothing to do but whine about it here with vague allusions to rebellion.

Sorry bro.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jason Cavanaugh — In short, you do think it is wise to discount to zero the possibility of a purely political rebellion which would make a laughing stock of the Supreme Court's power within major states. That seems reckless to me.

But of course the Court in Bruen and Dobbs has already cast the die of reckless disregard for its own legitimacy, and appears intent on redoubling that as it decides other cases already on its docket. How many times do you suppose the Court will get away with that before its political targets recognize that a plainly illegitimate court has lost its power over them?

[Don Nico]

"a plainly illegitimate court has lost its power over them?"
Nothing beats assuming the correctness of the position that you are trying defend

[Stephen Lathrop]

It was a hypothetical. You always assume the facts of a hypothetical.

But while we are at it, when can you remember that 4 justices of the Supreme Court—including the Chief Justice—were as deeply concerned as now about the Court's legitimacy?

[ragebot]

Stephen Lathrop 7 mins ago

It was a hypothetical. You always assume the facts of a hypothetical.

But while we are at it, when can you remember that 4 justices of the Supreme Court—including the Chief Justice—were as deeply concerned as now about the Court’s legitimacy?

I can remember billboards saying "Impeach Earl Warren" and Ike saying the biggest mistake he ever made was nominating Earl Warren. Either you are just a whippersnapper or don't have a good memory.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ragebot — My memory of that time remains vivid. It includes that other billboards from the same enraged segregationist fringe demanded Eisenhower’s removal as a communist.

The nation was not divided over that question, as it is now over the Court. The nation liked Ike—who was at heart a segregationist himself, but a principled one who prioritized following the law. His example comes to mind from time-to-time, as a corrective when I find myself sliding toward hostility to America's military.

[Krychek_2]

Not everyone agrees that a 30 day waiting period violates the Constitution. One of my standing gripes with the right is their insistence that their interpretation of the Constitution is the only possibly valid interpretation of the Constitution. Not so. The Constitution is susceptible of as many interpretations as the Bible.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Then you're incapable of comprehending basic English.

A waiting period on the exercising of a right means that for the duration of the waiting period, you do not have that right.

I'm sure you'd think differently if it was applied to any of the other rights you're actually ok with. Want to stand on the sidewalk with a placard? 30 day waiting period for you!

[Krychek_2]

To my knowledge, no one ever died because someone stood on the sidewalk with a placard.

My English is fine; it's your inability to understand the concept reasonable minds can come to different conclusions that's at issue. Who are "the people"? What is an "infringement"? What does "keeping and bearing" mean? I'm sure you have answers, and I may even agree with some of them, but the point is reasonable minds can differ on what they mean. For that matter, reasonable minds differ on the basics of how to interpret it; textualism, originalism and living constitutionalism are all perfectly valid methods, even though I only agree with one of them.

The world is not black and white. It's nuanced.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have to kill somebody to have violated their rights? That's the only interpretation I can get from your stating, "To my knowledge, no one ever died because someone stood on the sidewalk with a placard."

[Krychek_2]

Well, that interpretation is the logical fallacy of undistributed middle. Try again.

[I Callahan]

What other possible interpretations of “the people”, “infringement”, and “keep and bear” are there?

[gallinalg85]

The fact that guns can cause death does not mean that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply. On the contrary, the 2nd Amendment was written to protect guns in spite of the fact that they can cause death.

[Nige]

The 2nd Amendment was written to protect slave owners from uprisings.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you a lawyer, Jason Cavanaugh?

[Frank Drackman]

Are you, Jerry?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Who is this Jerry you continue to mumble about, you bigoted, delusional half-wit?

If I had a blog that attracted the Volokh Conspiracy's right-wing fans, I would focus on my faults before nipping lamely and incessantly at the heels and ankles of my betters. The Volokh Conspirators seem impervious to that point.

Carry on, clingers.

[Life of Brian]

Not everyone agrees that a 30 day waiting period violates the Constitution.

While "not everyone" may be ever-so-technically true, I'm plenty old enough to remember the mass-deployed fainting couches over mere 24-hour waiting periods for abortions.

[Nige]

Should anyone who wants to buy a gun also be subjected to unnecessary intimate examinations, then?

[Krychek_2]

When red states starting passing legislation requiring women who want abortions to undergo medically unnecessary intimate examinations, I suggested, semi-seriously, that the blue states should respond by requiring men who wish to attend conservative churches to undergo digital rectal exams. It would have been the same thing: Harassing people with values you don't like by requiring them to have medically unnecessary and uncomfortable exams.

[gallinalg85]

What about the irrationally unnecessary gun regulations? Like if a resident of Georgia wants to buy a handgun in South Carolina, why is he prohibited from doing so? Why is a person prohibited from carrying his gun into a post office? Why is a person in California who already owns guns have to wait the 10 day waiting period? Most gun laws are irrational, or they're only rational in the sense that the purpose is to harass people exercising 2nd Amendment rights.

[Nige]

They're rational because of all the gun violence.

[gallinalg85]

That's not how the Constitution works. You actually need evidence, even when subject to strict scrutiny (and SCOTUS said that the test weren't applicable at all)

[Nige]

You can keep pretending gun violence isn't a problem, but it is.

[gallinalg85]

No one claims gun violence isn't a problem (although it's really limited to black males). But, at the very very least, you need to show a rational connection between your "common sense" restrictions and the goal of reducing gun violence. You haven't done so. Not even close.

[Nige]

That's okay, there are plenty of models out there for effective gun control, the important point is the extreme, and recent, gun fetishism is responsible for most of the gun violence.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, is there history, tradition and text to support that? = Not everyone agrees that a 30 day waiting period violates the Constitution.

[gallinalg85]

Ahh, yes, a 30 day waiting period when you already have guns is just fine. You're an idiot

[bernard11]

Fair enough, Jason, but this discussion is about public opinion, not the Constitution.

That's what Brett's claim, and Nige's response, are about.

[gallinalg85]

Public opinion doesn't mean squat, as most people don't know what they're answering in response to polls.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bernard, the point is that when it comes to guns (and due process) public opinion doesn’t matter.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, let's use polls to determine how we treat everything in the Bill of Rights.

Since everybody knows that defense lawyers only serve to get criminals off, you might lose your due process rights, but hey, it'll be popular at least.

[bernard11]

Fair enough, Bevis, but this discussion is about public opinion, not the Constitution.

That’s what Brett’s claim, and Nige’s response, are about.

[Bob from Ohio]

Issue polls are garbage, without exception.

[bernard11]

"My unsupported statements are absolutely true. Your evidence otherwise is nonsense."

[Bob from Ohio]

Polls are not "evidence". Issue polls are garbage because of the many ways to manipulate the results.

[gallinalg85]

"Do you support requiring background checks for all gun sales?"

"Do you support requiring Bob from Ohio to drive 50 miles out of the way to a gun store and pay a $40 fee to sell a handgun to his law partner that he has known for 30 years?"

[bernard11]

Do you think all gun sales that don't require background checks are in that category?

How far do you think the nearest gun store is to Bob? There are over 2000 gun dealers in Ohio. I bet there's one closer than 50 miles. Will you take that?

[gallinalg85]

No, I don't think all gun sales are in that category. But the one thing gun controllers refuse to acknowledge is that it's an expense and a time burden, and they steadfastly REFUSE any attempt to eliminate those things while implementing private sale checks.

Because the expense and burden are the features, not the bugs.

[Absaroka]

I think gallinalg85 was making the point that the phrasing of the questions has a huge effect on poll results (and he's exactly right).

To address the other question, much of the resistance to universal checks would evaporate if they were designed to be as easy as possible while still accomplishing the crime fighting objective.

1)When Adam and Bob drive the 50 miles and pay the $50, what value does society get for their trouble? Well, the FFL collects the $50, looks at Bob's ID, and calls the FBI and asks 'can Bob get the gun'?

What value does society get that you wouldn't get if Adam made the same call from his living room and skipped the drive and kept the $50? Adam can look at Bob's ID just like the min wage clerk can. If Adam is unscrupulous enough to skip the check, he will skip the drive as well.

2)The announced purpose is to stop people selling guns to strangers, no questions asked. But they generally prohibit even loans between people who know each other well. For an example, some years a friend flew into town. He was someone I had known for maybe 35 years, an Army officer still serving in the national Guard, a part time deputy for his county, and was an FFL. Instead of checking luggage with a gun (like a lot of LEO types, he hates being unarmed) he asked if he could borrow a gun during his visit. For some reason, I wasn't worried about doing so - and I don't think any reasonable regulatory scheme should prevent me from doing so. But under the recent UBC law in my state, I couldn't do so today without both of us driving to the store and paying the $50, both at the start and end of his trip.

3)I have known people who asked friends to store guns when someone in the household was having a rough patch. That's not legal here today. Generally speaking, FFL's don't offer storage either - and if they did, yep, $50 a pop. Does that make sense to you?

Etc, etc. From the gun owner POV, the UBC laws seem to maximize the hassle for minimum benefit. Just imagine similar laws before you could loan your car to an out of state relative, in the name of cutting down on drunk driving.

[gallinalg85]

Absaroka, very well said.

The Democrats exposed themselves when they voted down the amendment to allow private sellers to use the NICS system. The goal was never reducing crime. It was always harassing us.

The mask also came off when they started using mass shootings where the shooter PASSED the check as "evidence" that we need UBCs.

That's like saying that a plane crash is proof for why we need seatbelt laws for cars.

[grb]

Intelligent Mr Toad : “The Republican Party has entered a new mode of operation”

The chaos in the House springs from this: Today’s Right isn’t a political movement or ideology; it’s an entertainment business. What ultimately matters isn’t policy, but consumer viewers getting WWE-style drama and thrills. As with pro-wrestling, factual reality is purely optional – in fact, it’s needlessly limiting & frustratingly frumpy.

What have we seen these past few years? A reality-TV star huckster buffoon becomes president. The Right makes cartoon theater out of non-existent or microscope issues. CRT? The “woke military”?? The tiny percentage of people who are transsexual??? In each case, the Right gives us operatic displays of rage, fear and panic. We just had an election filled with hopeless nonsense about voting fraud and schools putting litter boxes in classrooms for kids who identify as cats. I doubt seriously Right-types believe any of their own bullshit. Just like at pro-wrestling shows, they like their blood pumping as they hoot and holler. If bullshit works best for that, bullshit it is.

McCarthy problem has nothing to do with beliefs, policies, or concessions; He’s guilty of not delivering the spectacles that today’s Right-type consumer demands. McCarthy is a mere extra on an action movie set (and a particular gaudy one at that). Where’s the thrills in that?

[Gandydancer]

What a wall of shit.

[not guilty]

Napoleon advised, when the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him. Accordingly, I have no words of advice for the GOP, but the schadenfreude is enjoyable.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The GOP isn't your "enemy".

That's your first mistake. They are a group of Americans with different political opinions, across a wide range.

[Nige]

I think they finally forsook any lingering claim to just having different political opinions when they decided they wanted to overthrow the election.

[I Callahan]

Did they? Isn’t that also an opinion? Because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it’s beyond the pale. And who are you to decide what’s beyond the pale anyway?

[Nige]

I tend to decide for myself. Who decides for you?

[not guilty]

I came of voting age during Richard Nixon's presidency. Any political party who would nominate the likes of him five separate times is indeed an enemy. Nothing I have seen since has improved my opinion of Republicans.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I don't have a high opinion of Republicans, either. I just have a lower opinion of Democrats.

I arrived at voting age in the late 70's, and voted Libertarian reliably until the late 90's, when I concluded the LP was never going anyplace, and probably run by people who were content with that, and had to either stop voting or pick a major party.

There were some things the Democrats claimed to stand for at the time that I liked, and much that I didn't like about the Republicans, but it seemed to me that the Democrats were serious about the stuff I didn't like, and unserious about the stuff I did like, while the Republicans were the opposite.

And I think the years proved me right about the Democrats: They did give up on free speech, and doubled down on gun control. I could never vote for a party that wants me gagged and disarmed; What else do they plan that they felt that necessary?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaking of being serious . . . how is the search for former Pres. Obama's Kenyan birth certificate coming along? Are you are former Pres. Trump ready to announce any results yet?

[Frank Drackman]

Jerry, 2012 called, wants it's "Meme" back, C'mon Man, Barry Husseini released his BC years ago, documenting his birth in Hawaii as a Healthy Moose-lum Boy

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" documenting his birth in Hawaii as a Healthy Moose-lum Boy "

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators, and the reason your employers regret hiring you. (Well, maybe not South College of Law Houston . . . )

[Frank Drackman]

or your Western Dum-fuck PA Bible College (you do claim to be a "Reverend")

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Congregation of Exalted Reason. No superstition or fictional stories involved.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t seem to need to do dearly so much work to justify my partisanship.

No telepathy needed at all from me. Nor speculation. Nor conspiracy theories.

[Life of Brian]

I don’t seem to need to do dearly so much work

Dictation software having a rough time with your cold?

[bevis the lumberjack]

not guilty, you're the problem.

How many times was "killer" Ted Kennedy nominated after he killed the girl? If you want moral people, find something other than politics to care about.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit with the blanket 'all politicians are bad.'

It's facile and dumb.

There are bad people, and a system with bad incentives. But generalizing like that is dumb.

[I Callahan]

Explain that to Nige.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, he's overblown on that as well.

But I would note that one thing he is not doing is saying 'all politicians are bad, therefore this one's lawbreaking is something I'm happy to ignore.'

[Nige]

Sarc, has everyone forgotten the sheer number of indictments that went with Trump’s presidency? Trump himself was guilty of fraud! The nepotism! The Chinese patents, the Saudi Arabian millions! Foreign dignitaries staying at Trump hotels! Procuring PPE from Trump donors with no experience providing PPE! If I made all that up, you could call it overblown, but it’s not.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Quit with the blanket ‘all politicians are bad.’"

All politicians lie and cheat, without exception.

Most steal too, though the methods varies.

[Sarcastr0]

Repeating the thesis I explained is a bad one doesn't make it suddenly a good one, Bob.

[Bob from Ohio]

I stated facts.

[Sarcastr0]

You stated unsupported opinion.

The insights of a nihilist.

Meh.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, maybe you'd like to point out the paragons of honesty, fair play, and decency walking the halls of Congress. I'm just not seeing very many.

Can you really be a Congressional politician in 2022 America and not lie, cheat and steal in some form?

[Sarcastr0]

No shifting the burden, Commenter.

The blanket statement about politicians is unsupported. I don't need to go about finding a counterexample to point out that it's reductive, because that's self evident.

Can you really be a Congressional politician in 2022 America and not lie, cheat and steal in some form?
Look at this crap. This is your priors. It's not supported, just general hostility.

Hostility to politicians has a long tradition in America. It's always been facile, and mostly used to excuse any specific wrongs by specific politicians by normalizing them.

[Life of Brian]

There's plenty of support for the notion that Congresscritters generally fare (much) better than the hoi polloi -- for those that aren't just being reflexively argumentative. The Personal Gain Index is one brutally objective example, where the ~80th percentile members' net worth (excluding residence(s)!) experienced only -- only -- a 20% CAGR over the course of their time in Congress, with an average of ~15% CAGR across all of Congress. That largess scales with tenure is aptly shown by their separate analysis of freshman members, who had only an average ~8% increase over their first year.

If you want to take the position that such broad-based statistical anomalies across such a focused group of people is just dumb luck rather than a sign that the group is able to take advantage of "opportunities" not available to the rest of us, knock yourself out -- and then go buy a lottery ticket on your way home. Many of the rest of us will cheerfully continue to identify ducks by how they look/walk/quack.

[Sarcastr0]

You're making a statistical argument about wealth gain in response to a blanket statement about morality. Never mind that the rich get richer, and the average income of Congresspeople.

I know it's your main move, but no new goalposts, LoB.

[Don Nico]

“No shifting the burden, Commenter. ” Geez, S_0. You make a empty blanket statement regarding how many politicians may have or may not faults, and when questioned, you refuse to answer. That is neither convincing that your position is sound nor that you are willing to have an open discussion beyond proclaiming your point of view.

Regarding Ted Kennedy, despite all his faults, he was one of the very few to oppose the invasion of Iraq. To me that redeems his previous flaws.

[Life of Brian]

Never mind that the rich get richer, and the average income of Congresspeople.

Low-thought deflections like this show you didn't even bother to read the study, which had both very low and very high net worth members experiencing double-digit CAGRs over long periods of time, on basically the same income. Maybe numbers just aren't your thing.

[Sarcastr0]

Don - saying a blanket statement is wrong is not, actually a blanket statement.
Think out the logic for a moment.

LoB - you are still addressing an utterly different argument than the one actually occurring.

[Life of Brian]

you are still addressing an utterly different argument than the one actually occurring.

Nah, what I raised is exactly 4.0 corners with "most steal."

Very sorry if you need the argument to be something different because you're out of moves on the one at hand. That's how the cookie crumbles, unfortunately.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m making an individual argument.

Your statistics *cannot* address that, even if they were relevant to the thesis. Which they are not, since you failed to establish causality. I even offered an alternate cause.

[Life of Brian]

I’m making an individual argument.

You're not making any sort of argument at all. You're just abstractly picking at others' arguments, as is your wont.

Your statistics *cannot* address that, even if they were relevant to the thesis.

I'll take that as a walkback of your prior accusation that they weren't relevant at all, since even you can't scrape up an actual argument why they aren't.

We use statistics to reach conclusions about groups of people all the time, often much more fine-grained than this one.

You just don't like the glaring conclusions here but have nothing at all you can say to explain it away, so you're feebly waving your arms and trying to burden shift.

The results are grossly abnormal, both with respect to people outside the bubble and people just joining it, and as with most things in life the most likely explanation is probably the correct one. If you think it's something different, the burden falls to you to defend your fellow government tit-suckers.

But you won't, because you can't.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I mentioned one politician who was particularly bad. One. The number that is just one more than zero.

[Sarcastr0]

My thesis is not that no politicians are bad. My thesis is that you are wrong here:

If you want moral people, find something other than politics to care about.

Lazy.

[Nige]

Now it's bad to criticise bad politicians?

[Frank Drackman]

Lets, see, Teddy the K was reelected to the Senate in 1970, 1976, 1982, 1988, 1994. 2000, and 2006 until he got the Celestial Re-call in 2009.

[gallinalg85]

Let's not forget about Bob Menendez. Democrats are fine with crooks representing them.

[not guilty]

bevis, Republican National Conventions nominated Nixon in 1952, 1956, 1960, 1968 and 1972. The only Democratic National Convention to consider Ted Kennedy's candidacy for nomination rejected him soundly in 1980.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh the Nixon that ended the Wah in Veet'nam that JFK/LBJ started? thanks for remembering.
And in 1980 even the DemoKKKrats couldn't nominate a Drunken Sot (redundant? ) like EMK

[not guilty]

Uh, Nixon did not end the war between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. He ended direct American involvement in the conflict in 1973 on essentially the same terms he could have gotten at the outset of his presidency. In the meantime, the conflict widened into Cambodia and Laos. The last four years of casualties are attributable to Nixon's administration.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not enough time and space to rehash the war but...
The greatest number of casualties (dead) occurred before Nixon took office.
During his first year in office, Nixon began reducing troop strength.
An agreement was reach between North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the US that ended the war and any US direct involvement. The treaty was never ratified by the US Senate and was almost immediately broken by North Vietnam.
The US continued to draw down troops per the agreement.
Fighting continued for another two years until the North launched a massive campaign against the South and took control of the country in 1975.

[Gandydancer]

"The treaty... was almost immediately broken by North Vietnam. / The US continued to draw down troops per the agreement."

Doing ANYthing "per the agreement" if the agreement "was almost immediately broken" was stupid beyond words, even if the "ANYthing" was per se OK.

It was anyway LBJ's war, and pretending that LBJ wasn't worse than Nixon on VN, as not guilty implicitly assumes, just means that not guilty is self-identifying as a cretin.

[Don Nico]

"Republican National Conventions nominated Nixon in 1952, 1956, 1960, 1968 and 1972. "
Proving nothing.

[not guilty]

It proves that the slimy prick Nixon was the central figure of the Republican Party in the twentieth century. The GOP has never repudiated him.

[Gandydancer]

Actually that was Reagan. And if you look up "slimy prick" you find a pictures of LBJ among others, something of a majority being (D)'s.

[Don Nico]

it proves that Eisenhower chose hin for VP and the 1960 nomination fell to him. He lost is what some thought was a questionable election, but most able LBJ crippled the D party and RJK was shot.
Nixon did not dominate R power politics, and certainly not the way the Orange Clown has dominated the R's since 2016.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not guilty, Kennedy was elected to the Senate around 1,047 times by Democratic voters.

[not guilty]

Is that as true as everything else you have said, bevis?

[SimonP]

The GOP doesn't have "political opinions." They're a bunch of cronies trying to hand out bennies to their campaign funders. They are absolutely the enemy of every American.

Now, conservatives or Republicans - no, they aren't the enemy. There are plenty of conservative Americans with different political opinions, and none of them is anyone's "enemy." The problem is who they tend to put in elected office.

[I Callahan]

Pure and utter projection. 10% for the big guy. Hunter Biden being put on governing boards of business when he has no business doing it. Dems bringing in zillions in pork for their cronies. Tammany Hall.

Dems invented cronyism. Own it.

[SimonP]

What political favors were exchanged in the course of Hunter negotiating any particular business deal?

You've got nothing. You've got - what? Hunter Biden using his status as the son of a prominent politician to get a leg up in business? Sorry to tell you, but that's nothing new, and you have nothing but insinuation.

Compare it to Jared Kushner getting $2b from Saudi Arabia for his investment fund. How do you think that decision was made, hm? Oh, and Mnuchin has one of those arrangements, too. Y'know, Mnuchin - the guy that stopped Congress from getting Trump's tax returns and may have had a hand in preventing Trump from getting audited while he was in office?

[Voize]

Hunter Biden being put on governing boards of business when he has no business doing it.

He had been appointed to the board of directors of Amtrak in 2006 and served until his resignation early in 2009 when Joe became Vice President. So yes, he had relevant experience,

[Gandydancer]

“[Hunter Biden] had been appointed to the board of directors of Amtrak in 2006 and served until ... early in 2009… So yes, he had relevant experience[.]”

“served”. “relevant experience.”

You have no capacity for shame, do you?

[David Nieporent]

He had been appointed to the board of directors of Amtrak in 2006 and served until his resignation early in 2009 when Joe became Vice President. So yes, he had relevant experience,

Hunter Biden has a lot of personal problems. Everything from substance abuse to infidelity. And he doesn't seem to be very selective in who he's willing to do business with. But people act like he's Donald Trump Jr. — a guy who'd have been selling timeshares in Boca if his name were John Smith. Biden is a Yale-educated lawyer with corporate experience. (I think these people don't really grasp what being on the board of directors of a corporation encompasses.)

[Gandydancer]

For Biden it encompassed cashing a fat check, giving the Big Guy a cut, and putting the rest up his nose. Was he even showing up to vote as he was told, back then?

[gallinalg85]

The Democrats are pure vote buyers. "Vote for Warnock and we'll give you $2,000."

"Vote for us and we'll give you student loan relief!"

[Commenter_XY]

It is utter incompetence, sm811. Team R is politically incompetent. It is really not more then that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

They just have a real diversity of opinions under their roof.

Slavish obedience to party leadership isn't normal.

[Commenter_XY]

It is really more a case where I think incompetence is a better explanation than actual dysfunction (from OP), IMHO.

[Moderation4ever]

But there is also a diversity of opinion on the Democratic side, or if you read the comments here on the Libertarian side. Other groups carry the difference through to function. So, why are the Republicans failing?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Because they don't have the slavish obedience the Democrats have?

[apedad]

Sens. Joe Manchin (D) and Kyrsten Sinema (former D), would like to talk with you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

They seem to have fallen in line, regarding leadership.

[apedad]

WTF you talking about?!?!!?

Sinema LEFT the Dem Party - she didn't fall in line with anything.

[Armchair Lawyer]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/08/politics/schumer-majority-leader-senate-democrats-leadership/index.html

Before she left...

[Mr. Bumble]

Yet she and the two other "Independents" caucus with the Democrats which is why they control the Senate.

[apedad]

In Mr. Bumble's world "caucus" means "slavish obedience."

SMH...

[Mr. Bumble]

No, it means that they've thrown in their lot with Democrats though they claim to be independent. Stop attributing to me something I never said and go back to shilling for Best Buy and iRobot.

[Nige]

They're going to end up slavishly obedient to some of the worst, most deranged and extreme politicians in the country if this keeps up.

[Sarcastr0]

'We are able to briefly cooperate on required functions' is not slavish, you empty cheerleader.

[SimonP]

This is such a funny line. The hold-outs aren't going to just go along with the establishment! Nosiree! But what do they want? What's the endgame here?

These people don't stand for any kind of real policy platform that requires this kind of brinkmanship. They're just here for the spectacle. That's all they stand for. Most of their demands are designed just to give them a bigger platform from which they can embarrass themselves. They want to trigger a leadership crisis any time the House passes compromise legislation. They want to bog down committees with asinine questions teasing out conspiracy theories. These people aren't interested in doing the people's work. They don't have any particular objection to McCarthy himself, except that they don't like him. They can't even settle on an alternative candidate to vote for!

[apedad]

Democracy is - by design - messy and I applaud the small group of Republicans who are holding their positions (not sarc).

Obviously, I don't agree with their policy stands but if you've read Profiles in Courage (which I'm guessing many of you have), then you might recognize their fidelity to their cause/goals.

What I find disgustingly hilarious is Sen. Cruz saying Democrats are soldiers who obey leadership.

He doesn't know who Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are?!?

[Sarcastr0]

Ah, but what are their cause/goals?

McCarthy has given them a ridiculous amount - everything they could ask for.

And they say no.

Because they have no cause. They are just more reactionaries without a direction to go in.

[OtisAH]

No, he hasn’t given them everything they want. Yet. Politico alleges that after last night they’re getting pretty close. This includes a reversion to allowing one member to challenge the Speaker’s longevity and control of the most powerful committees in the House.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2023/01/05/inside-mccarthys-brewing-speaker-deal-00076507

[Sarcastr0]

They keep coming up with new asks. But those are made up and not really what they want.

What they want is a scalp.

[Gandydancer]

Gaslightr0 gives us the benefit of his mind-reading skills to let us know the populist GOPers doesn't really want what they say they want.

Evidence? He don't need no stinkin' evidence! The voices in his head are telling him what's REALLY going on!

[OtisAH]

I wondered who’d be the first to pick up the “The House Speaker fiasco is ACTUALLY democracy in action and it is GOOD” ball. The House Speaker fiasco is an attempt by 5-20 MAGA — thats between 1% and 4.5% of the membership — to control the entire House of Representatives. It is neither democracy in action nor good for anyone except 5-20 MAGA (especially wrt ethics investigations).

[Voize]

nor good for anyone except 5-20 MAGA

I don't know about that, much of what they are demanding -- other than the Super PAC business -- involves changing House rules to empower cliques and individual members. Democratic extremists would probably welcome that too, though it would probably paralyze the House even worse than usual.

[ragebot]

"I don’t know about that, much of what they are demanding — other than the Super PAC business — involves changing House rules to empower cliques and individual members. Democratic extremists would probably welcome that too, though it would probably paralyze the House even worse than usual."

You say that like it is a bad thing.

[Gandydancer]

Nobody elected them to to knuckle under to McCarthy. So not doing so in order to independently adavance their objectives rather than his is EXACTLY "Democracy in action".

[Don Nico]

"He doesn’t know who Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are?!?"
Of course he does, and he knows that they can be counted on to vote that way Schumer wants when it is necessary.

As for Cruz's complaint, his guys generally do the same thing whenever the quid pro quo can be delivered. When you're in the minority that is less frequently than for the other fellows

[Ed Grinberg]

If I remember correctly, on various occasions Kevin McCarthy took action against conservative Republicans for saying something the Left objected to. I sure as hell don't want that sort of leadership!

[Armchair Lawyer]

What's funny is, apparently either do the Democrats.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the Democrats want a Democratic Speaker, obviously. I think at this point they're hoping that enough RINOs will get tired of the fuss and cross over to vote for their guy.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Seems pretty unlikely that those hard right of the GOP caucus would prefer a Democratic speaker to a GOP speaker.

On the other hand, seems that the Democrats would prefer the GOP speaker would not make concessions to the hard right in their own caucus, especially when they could do something about it.

Just my opinion, mind you.

[Nelson]

The number necessary to make the difference is only 5. If the hard-right can gather 15-20 to oppose McCarthy, are you so sure that there aren’t 5 Rs in swing districts that wouldn’t make their own move in opposition?

Do you think if one of the most moderate Rs went to the Dems and said, “I have the other 5 votes. Support me and I will have the votes” that the Dems wouldn’t consider it?

Or if the Dems said, “We’ll choose a conservative Dem (think Conor Lamb) and if you support him, this will be over and you will have committees” that there wouldn’t be 5 vulnerable Rs that wouldn’t consider that?

The same thing that allows this tiny group to stop McCarthy is the same advantage that gives other tiny groups the power to make moves of their own.

If we had 2-5 truly moderate Senators with a spine, extremists wouldn’t be filling judgeships the way they are now. If we had 20, they would dictate the success or failure of every piece of legislation as the bloc that would either give (or block) passage, filibusters, and vetoes.

[not guilty]

"No, the Democrats want a Democratic Speaker, obviously. I think at this point they’re hoping that enough RINOs will get tired of the fuss and cross over to vote for their guy."

The election of a Democrat as Speaker is unrealistic. I can envision McCarthy trading some concessions (perhaps some committee chairmanships) for a handful of Democratic votes.

[Voize]

He might be willing to make that deal, but it would be at the risk of losing Republican votes. There may not be a compromise that gets him enough of a net gain.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Oh, no. The dreaded RINOs. One must agree totally on every single thing or else.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: there are no RINOs. That they're not as vapidly conservative as you are does not make them RINOs.

[Mr. Bumble]

I know one of his nicknames is The Turtle, but Cocaine Mitch would seem to qualify as a Rino especially in light of his support (along with several other Rinos) for the omniporkulus bill after the Republicans won the House (but before they took over, if they ever do).

[David Nieporent]

What exactly about supporting the omnibus bill makes him a "RINO"? When you define more than 1/3 of the GOP senators as not being actual Republicans, don't you think the problem is that your definition of Republican is warped?

Look, if it were just Susan Collins, your argument would still be wrongheaded but it might be understandable. But I mean, you think Tom Cotton is not an actual Republican? John Thune and Mitch McConnell — both in the GOP leadership? Jim Inhofe? John Cornyn, Richard Shelby?

[Nelson]

[bernard11]

Perhaps you could edify us about these incidents.

I can't seem to recall any.

[Brian Thomas]

Maybe he's referring to when the Left objected to the conservative Republicans trying to overthrow the government and Kevin McCarthy said that was wrong for them to do before he changed his opinion about that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Meh, this is just real democracy in action.

In any other country, this would be considered a normal day.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's my reaction, too.

What's genuinely dysfunctional about Congress is that the leadership have managed over the years to centralize an enormous amount of power in their own hands, to the point where the individual member is really just, oh, 3/5ths of a representative, and the leaders are super-representatives. That's why there's this huge fight about who the Speaker is.

I can't see the holdouts letting McCarthy win. If you strike at the king you must kill him, and all that. Doesn't matter what he promises to win, if he wins he WILL make their lives hell.

So they've had nothing to lose from the moment they challenged him.

[Armchair Lawyer]

We'll see. Someone has to win. They may bring in a McCarthy replacement.

[Krychek_2]

Since Hakeem Jeffries is far more open to deal making than Matt Gaetz is, if I were Kevin McCarthy I would quietly sit down with the Democrats to find out what concessions they would accept to allow me to become speaker. I would then spend the next two years ensuring that the 20 GOP members who voted against me were aware of my displeasure -- no committee assignments, no legislation with their names on it comes up for a vote, no legislation that even remotely benefits their districts gets passed. The only way the GOP is going to save itself is by de-fanging its batshit crazy wing.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That would make sense.

But, from what I've gathered from the Democratic response, it's been... "This is your problem. We're not lifting a damn finger to help you".

[Krychek_2]

If so, that's very poor strategy on the part of the Democrats. The question is do they want to enjoy a few days of gloating over the GOP's inability to get its act together, or would they rather get some concrete concessions from the new speaker. I know which of those I'd go for.

[not guilty]

McCarthy doesn't seem to be making any headway. If Democrats are going to strike a deal that would put McCarthy over the top, it doesn't hurt to let the Republicans flounder for a few days longer.

[SRG]

Except you never know what is actually happening, only what is being reported.

[Bob from Ohio]

" I were Kevin McCarthy I would quietly sit down with the Democrats to find out what concessions they would accept to allow me to become speaker"

This ain't the "West Wing". There would be a far broader GOP revolt, he'd be finished.

[Krychek_2]

Only if Kevin McCarthy were stupid enough to tell the rest of the Republicans that he was negotiating with the Democrats. That's the sort of surprise you spring after the final vote has been taken.

[Bob from Ohio]

LOL Like you could keep that secret.

[not guilty]

With voting by roll call, there is no way to spring such a surprise.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm guessing that by "quietly" he means "secretly".

But, yeah, good luck being Speaker when the Majority leader has a mandate to block everything you might attempt.

[John F. Carr]

In any other country with a multi-party system where coalitions are required. At the end of last year it took six weeks of negotiations for Denmark to form a government and that is far from a record.

[bernard11]

Sort of.

But in a parliamentary system - not without flaws, obviously - if they couldn't get it together they'd be out.

[Nelson]

I agree. If you aren't a partisan, this is a good thing. A fringe group, unwilling to compromise, that will require coalitions outside of "our guys vs. their guys" to get any result? That's awesome.

Especially since the most likely outcome is for McCarthy to get 5 Dems to cross over in return for moderating concessions. He's gotta be in a "fuck those guys" mood these days regarding the wingnuts. He's lost 9 times at this point.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

GOP kids want to convince America that they can govern appropriately, when they can't even elect a student council President.

Their only 'plan' is to investigate Biden/the FBI/anyone who dares expose Trump's crimes, and among the chief rules changes they want to make in the House is to gut the ethics committee.

That says everything anyone needs to know about the current GOP.

The current batch of right-wing dipshits around here don't care about that, but they do care about the alleged misuse of government power elsewhere.

Ethics for thee but not for me!

If it wasn't for the risk to national security from not having a functional House at all, I'd completely enjoy the McCarthy sitcom. Someone who ignores lawful subpoenas deserves nothing less than to be front and center of this national embarrassment.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd like to see the details of what some people are describing as "gutting the House ethics committee".

[David Nieporent]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/05/house-republicans-office-congressional-ethics-santos-january-6

The principal issue with the rules changes is that the reintroduction of term limits would force out three out of four Democratic-appointed members of the OCE board which decides whether to launch investigations, according to people with knowledge of how the body functions.

The incoming House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries would immediately have the ability to name replacements to the Democratic-side of the board, but such appointments typically take months and finding suitable candidates remains an arduous process, the people said.

That is where OCE hits the second hurdle, the sources said. The new rules also require OCE to hire staff within 30 days of the new Congress – a window that would likely expire before the board is complete, and potentially leaving it with its current staff of just one investigative counsel.

The two-pronged changes in practice would likely leave OCE without a board long enough to ensure it runs out of time to hire investigators and conduct oversight over Congress, especially as it remains the only office that can accept referrals against lawmakers from the public.

[Life of Brian]

The incoming House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries would immediately have the ability to name replacements to the Democratic-side of the board, but such appointments typically take months and finding suitable candidates remains an arduous process, the people said.

The new rules also require OCE to hire staff within 30 days of the new Congress – a window that would likely expire before the board is complete, and potentially leaving it with its current staff of just one investigative counsel.

So this entire red-meat Guardian sources-say screed is grounded in weasel words like "typically," "likely," and "potentially." Outstandingly solid work that should roundly convince even the most skeptical of us.

[Sarcastr0]

Reducing the odds of an effective ethics committee to infinitesimal but nonzero is alright by you?

Now you're pettifogging.

[Life of Brian]

Reducing the odds of an effective ethics committee to infinitesimal but nonzero is alright by you?

Your response to my point about weasel words is to double down and come up with an even more ludicrous interpretation of "potentially"?

That's just sad.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If it wasn’t for the risk to national security from not having a functional House at all"

What risk? Last congress just passed the defense authorization for this fiscal year. Is the military going home because there is no Speaker?

[Brett Bellmore]

In the 34th Congress it took two months. We could easily break that record and be in no trouble.

[Sarcastr0]

National security needs only be addressed once a year, in the National Defense Authorization Act.

Other than that, it's not an issue.

Not even you can believe that.

[Bob from Ohio]

The House has no day to day national security responsibilities.

[Sarcastr0]

Oversight isn't day-to-day exactly, but it does build up a debt if neglected.

Congress is absolutely meeting with the Joint Chiefs and receiving reports from the Pentagon just about continually.

https://www.thebulwark.com/house-is-paralyzed-without-a-speaker-creating-national-security-risks-and-a-shadow-shutdown/

[Bob from Ohio]

That's it. They can't get a dog and pony show from the joint chiefs. Yawn.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sigh,

Surely even you can manage to think of some things mentioned in the Constitution related to the nation's security which requires a functional House without having to be told?

It's possible that you might even consider some of the functions of the House that are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution that are currently being hampered. Perhaps the word 'committee' might ring a bell or two.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nothing the House does has any day to day impact once they pass the funding. If we need to declare war, they'd elect a speaker.

Congressional committees are jokes. Have you never seen one in action? Much sound, no substance.

[Sarcastr0]

Congressional committees are jokes. Have you never seen one in action? Much sound, no substance.

Not when you work in a federal agency, Bob. They are a pretty big deal. Answering their questions, executing their funded (and unfunded) programs and studies, these are a top priority.

With the current gridlock among the members, maybe even a bigger deal than usual.

[Nige]

But the military is shit. Does no-one remember Afghanistan?

[Gandydancer]

Not following you. The military is shit, agreed. Electing McCarthy promises to fix that how?

[Nige]

Oh, that'll make it worse, but that's Republicans for you.

[Moderation4ever]

I would suggest that part of the problem facing Republicans is of their own making. Gerrymandering helps the party stay in power, but it also ensures that incumbents stay in power. Incumbents often have veto power to ensure their districts are safe in elections. This results in people that are not only independent but perhaps too independent. They have a job whether they do anything or not. No politician should every feel his job is completely safe.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Federal politicians have a 90%+ incumbency rate. Some have even passed their seats on to their heirs.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Gerrymandering helps the party stay in power,"

Equally true of the democrats.

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed. Political gerrymander wherever it is done, helps the party, help the incumbent, and hurts the voter who does not have a choice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at the Dems in 1933 -- there is a realignment happening.
McCarthy isn't trusted, and there are memories of how Ryan turned.

You can blame a lot of this on Lynne Cheney who started the fratricide .

[Voize]

Dick Cheney’s wife killed her brother in 1933?

[David Nieporent]

how Ryan turned

What does this mean in English?

[Nige]

I see Trump is taking the opportunity to remind everyone he's a racist piece of shit.

[Gandydancer]

So sad it’s not YOUR Republican party anymore.

And that YOU and your ilk don’t get to control the Speakership without a fight.

If McCarthy doesn’t like the “clusterfuck” he could take the hint from the fact that he doesn’t have the votes and go.

Me, I take the view that no man's rights are safe when Congress is in session and a McCarthy-led House is more likely to do bad than good, so I’m not unhappy about what is going on at all.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’m not unhappy about what is going on at all."

This House only exists to say "no" to Biden. No speaker, no chance of saying yes.

[David Nieporent]

So sad it’s not YOUR Republican party anymore.

And that YOU and your ilk don’t get to control the Speakership without a fight.

If McCarthy doesn’t like the “clusterfuck” he could take the hint from the fact that he doesn’t have the votes and go.

Um, McCarthy has 200 votes. The kooks have 20.

[Gandydancer]

So sad that 200 worthless GOP congressvermin aren't enough for you to get the Republican speaker you appear to want. Just breakin' my heart.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't and don't want McCarthy. He's marginally better than the loons, but only in that he's more venal than crazy.

But, ha ha. You got the one you didn't want.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The only way to fault the Democrats is if you accept that the establishment Republican leadership are really just Democrats in disguise.

Screw the establishment. I hope they never get a speaker. The country would be better off if Washington DC can't do a single thing.

[defaultdotxbe]

I wouldn’t lay fault at the feet of the Democrats, but they are certainly complicit in it. At any point they could vote for McCarthy (or the anti-McCarthy du jour) and put an end to it, but for the moment they are getting more political mileage from pointing and laughing.

[Gandydancer]

Mileage with who?

[Don Nico]

SM,
C'mon. Use the correct term because that is what it is. Thanks to the wingnut fringe, the R's lost the Senate and got a minimal majority in the House so fragile that they cannot even use it.

[Kazinski]

It seems functional to me, not disfunctional.

The era of the Imperial House Speaker should end.

Even if we do keep our current system of the majority party in total control, it still should be the majority, not the House Speaker who has total control of the agenda, can throttle any bill, can bring up for a vote any bill. And the body can't even depose the Speaker.

As Ocasio-Cortez said in 2020:
“A lot of this is not just about these two personalities, but also about the structural shifts that these two personalities have led in their time in leadership,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “The structural shifts of power in the House, both in process and rule, to concentrate power in party leadership of both parties, frankly, but in Democratic Party leadership to such a degree that an individual member has far less power than they did 30, 40, 50 years ago.”

[Sarcastr0]

You know this circus won't end the power of Congressional Leadership.

You're putting lipstick on a pig.

[Kazinski]

The idea isn't to end the power of Congressional leadership it's to reduce it.

What's the point of making a motion to vacate the chair out of order? Making it so the house can't remove a speaker gives the speaker too much power.

Not allowing reps to propose amendments gives the speaker too much power.

I hope you aren't claiming the current system of top down control in the house and Senate is serving the American people well.

[Sarcastr0]

Making the leader an utter creature of the Freedom Caucus nutters is not actually reducing the power of anything, it's just moving it to people with no interest in governing.

No institutional or incentive changes are being made. This is not change, it's failure.

[Gandydancer]

That's just stupid, Gaslightr0. How does the ability of a member to make a motion to vacate the chair "Mak[e] the leader an utter creature of the Freedom Caucus"?

[Nige]

Aw, poor McCarthy. Could this be characterised as a kind of... insurrection?

[Gandydancer]

If he were officially a Democrat he probably would.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember that McCarthy was opposed a decade ago by Conservatives, that's how we got Paul Ryan.

[Gandydancer]

Conservatives were right a decade ago, too, then.

That they settled for Ryan is just par for the course.

That McCarthy doesn’t have the votes to easily seize power on Pelosi’s terms is all to the good.

But par for the course is that this will be a nothingburger again.

[AmosArch]

If you got teleported to the outskirts of ancient Rome around the time of J. Caesar with nothing but some suitable time appropriate clothes on your back what would you do? Realistically. What do you think would most likely end up happening to you? Burned at the stake? Become a godking etc?

[Brett Bellmore]

Realistically? Don't speak Latin, I'd probably end up a slave.

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean, hopefully I'd end up enslaved to a metalsmith, as I know a fair amount of metallurgy, and could make myself valuable enough to be treated well. But, yeah, don't speak Latin? You'd end up a slave, if not just fodder for the gladiators to practice on.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Even if you were enslaved...in a best case situation, you would develop distillation, then make a fortune.

[Brett Bellmore]

Would make your owner a fortune, anyway.

[Moderation4ever]

Good answer.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who does speak Latin? If Pope Francis has his way it will even disappear from the Catholic Church.

[defaultdotxbe]

No one does, Church Latin is different from Classical Latin, and no one has any real idea of how Classical Latin was actually spoken, its just been pieced together from writings and best guesses based on Medieval and Church Latin.

[Mr. Bumble]

And in any event even if it had survived as a spoken language it would be vastly different after 1500 years.

[John F. Carr]

My thought too. I studied the formal, written Latin of the first century BC. I was not fluent in that. I would recognize a few words and case endings, leaving me better off than the average American. Romanes eunt domus! Sic semper tyrannis! Veni, vidi, vici!

Were beggars enslaved? Could you show up in a particular square at dawn and get a job for the day? Did the culture of Rome accomodate people who didn't speak Latin or Greek?

[bernard11]

Sounds right.

[Bored Lawyer]

Quid dicis?

[Nige]

Hang around outside the Senate trying to warn Caeser about the Ides of March.

[gormadoc]

You'd risk your life for a literal dictator? Also, "the ides of March have come!"

[Nige]

No, just to be immortalised by Shakespeare.

[gormadoc]

I wish you luck in your future (and past) goat gut-related activities.

[bernard11]

But you'd have to elbow Artemidorus out of the way.

[Nelson]

Not knowing Latin but being seven inches taller than the average Roman, I would probably end up as a gladiator with some name like The Barbarian Behemoth.

[Bill Poser]

I'm curious as to what will happen if Brazil requests the extradition of George Santos. It looks like he would be likely to be extradited if he were an average Joe: there is an extradition treaty between the US and Brazil, the fraud of which he is accused is a crime in the US, and Brazil appears to have good evidence that he committed the crime. So, two questions: (a) assuming he is sworn in, will his status as a congressman provide any protection against extradition? As far as I know he has no constitutional or statutory immunity and there is no policy reason for DOJ to decline extradition such as his having had access to classified information. (b) if he is extradited, how will that affect his status as a legislator?

[Moderation4ever]

I myself have wondered about what would happen if Brazil requested extradition. My understanding is that Santos has pleaded guilty and skipped the country before sentencing. So there no question about his guilt, or no more than anyone who pleads guilty.

This is also a lesson for anyone who is on the lamb, best to keep a low profile.

[Nige]

Santos went on a little lam
Became a congressman pure as snow
But everywhere that Santos went
An extradition warrant was sure to go.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being extradited would not automatically affect his status as a legislator, but I hear the House is radically restricting use of proxies. (As they should!) Be kind of hard to vote in person from a jail in Brazil.

The administration obviously would have partisan motives to permit the extradition. And it's within the power of the House to expel him, which would lead to a special election. But as close as the margin is in the House, the majority might not cooperate. (Takes a 2/3 vote, pretty rare.) And I have no idea of the likely outcome in such a special election.

Incidentally, the crime we're discussing was back in 2008, when he was 19. Not minimizing that, just saying that the case was long dormant, and seems to have been revived only because he got elected. Some diplomatic pressure through back channels? Or just Brazil learning where the heck he was? Don't know.

According to Yahoo Finance, "An official in the prosecutor's office told ABC News, however, that the likely punishment if convicted would be a fine."

By the way, according to news reports, he did NOT "plead guilty", as he was never tried. Rather, when confronted, he confessed. Not quite the same thing, but the odds of him beating the rap in Brazil, especially if tried in abstentia, are not great.

To put this in context, William "Freezer Cash" Jefferson won reelection after having been found to have criminally obtained several hundred times as much money. But he was defeated in the next election.

Frankly, I think the GOP is better off without this clown.

[Nige]

*Rick Scott whistles with affected nonchalance*

[Brett Bellmore]

The GOP has a long and troubling history with dirty members, which is a history they share with the Democratic party, so don't gloat.

Some people think that you actually HAVE to have some dirt in your background to advance in DC, that the establishment regards people they don't have a "handle" on as too dangerously independent to permit power.

Maybe. Or maybe politics just attracts scum. Probably a bit of both.

[Nige]

‘which is a history they share with the Democratic party, so don’t gloat.’

The criminal record of the Republicans is dense and crowded, the criminal record of the Democrats is relatively sparse and airy.

‘Or maybe politics just attracts scum.’

Certainly the party that has Rick Scott in it must look like an attractive option for scum on the make. Like Santos.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL. Man, it's amazing how selective your vision must be to conclude that.

No, both parties are utterly filthy, especially the upper leadership.

[Sarcastr0]

Empty blanket cynicism about politics is easy, but wrong and useless, except to normalize individual wrongdoing.

Republicans love it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Anyone who supports a party in which Ted Kennedy is a long-time hero shouldn't be lecturing anybody else about the wrongdoing of politicians.

[Sarcastr0]

Dredging up Ted Kennedy?!

Yep, you're soaking in it. Makes you feel superior, I guess.

We could have a discussion about the morality of the political and the personal, but you don't really care.

The important thing is you're above it all.

Reductive and boring.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Freezer Cash" Jefferson has already been mentioned.

[Sarcastr0]

A 2009 Congressman.

Hardly generalizable.

Brett, you're only proving my point. These blanket statements, they are a dodge so you can justify your own people's bad acts today.

Which you spend a lot of time and work to do.

[Bob from Ohio]

Chaka Fattah (D-PA) was convicted on 23 counts of racketeering, fraud, and other corruption charges (2016).[161]
Corrine Brown (D-FL) was convicted on 18 felony counts of wire and tax fraud, conspiracy, lying to federal investigators, and other corruption charges (2017).[162][163]
Anthony Weiner (D-NY)[164] was convicted of sending sexually explicit photos of himself to a 15-year-old girl and was made to sign the sexual offenders register. He also was sentenced to 21 months in prison, a charge that was later reduced to 18 months. He reported to prison in November 2017 and was released in May 2019 (2017).[165]

[Nige]

Chickenfeed compared to Republicans. Dennis Hastert was more evil than all of them combined, to name just one.

[Nige]

Generally it is, in fact, the job of political parties that oppose each other to call out each other’s failings. That's how parliamentary politics work.

[gormadoc]

Someone in my area has been desperately trying to sell a buddy of Ted Kennedy on Craigslist for a few months now. They haven't bothered lowering the price even slightly.

[gormadoc]

"a buddy"
Whoops, that should be "a bust."

[Bob from Ohio]

"Empty blanket cynicism "

Stupid people often mistake realism for cynicism.

He's absolutely correct.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, have you noticed that no one shares your 'realism' and most are repulsed by it?

That's because your realism is not you being a truth-teller, that's you justifying your missing moral compass.

[Bob from Ohio]

"moral compass" seems to be your phrase of the week. Was it on your desk calendar?

"no one shares your ‘realism’

Not true. I'm agreeing with Brett after all.

[Nelson]

That isn’t the endorsement of your view of “realism” that you think it is.

[Nige]

I can't recall anyone from Obama's administration going to prison or getting indicted, for example I can recall quite a few from Trump's. Also a few from George W Bush's. I mean, the record is clear. Democrats aren't spotless. Republicans are filthy.

[David Nieporent]

Some people think that you actually HAVE to have some dirt in your background to advance in DC, that the establishment regards people they don’t have a “handle” on as too dangerously independent to permit power.

No people think that.

EDIT: No sane people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is check fraud a FELONY in NY? I don't think it is, so no extradition.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, of course forging checks or uttering forged checks is a FELONY in New York.

[Bill Poser]

Issuing a single fraudulent check is only a misdemeanor, there are various more serious offenses. Engaging in a scheme to defraud ten or more persons, for example, is a felony. So depending on exactly what the charges are, it may be a felony. In any case, the treaty between the US and Brazil does not appear to restrict extradition to felonies. It contains a list of extraditable offenses which includes various forms of larceny and fraud, which likely include what Santos is charged with.

[John F. Carr]

He can't be arrested while Congress is in session.

Remember the "you're fired!" scene from Robocop? He could be expelled, except it's not a safe seat and Republicans won't vote to give it up.

[Gandydancer]

To arrest him and ship Santos to a place from which he would be prevented from travelling to join a session of Congress would seem to me to fall foul of the the Congressional Immunities clause. Extradition is not explicitly mentioned but a violation of the intent of the provision seems far clearer than in a lot of kritarch-invented law that is generally accepted.

[Kazinski]

Well he is immune from arrest while Congress is session as long as the charges don't amount to a felony, which they don't seem to.

There may also be the question of the Statute of Limitations, and whether a misdemeanor charge of over a decade ago are still valid.

[Commenter_XY]

Happy New Year, VC Conspirators! I hope 2023 is a year filled with health, happiness and prosperity for all of you.

I am very glad I found this site; I have learned a lot about the law, and I must say it is fascinating. Really. The ongoing series of blogs on aspects of free speech in 2022 were spot on; kudos to Professor Volokh for taking the time to focus on free speech. If ever a time where this country needs a reminder about free speech and why it is existential, it is now.

I interact with many posters here, ask lots of questions, and I learn things every day. I'd like to think I even have a respectable relationship with Rev Arthur; I am rather proud of that 🙂 (sidenote: As a proto-clinger, I worry Arthur might not like me very much but I appreciate his on-point commentary when he turns serious about something - like 2A). So thank you all for that (yes Arthur, you too).

Sure looks like an interesting year is ahead, full of new legal questions.

[Nige]

Many happy returns!

[Don Nico]

Happy New Year C_XY.

[Commenter_XY]

You too, Don Nico.

[Paladin_44]

My sentiments as well. IANAL and enjoy learning a few new things every day. Rev. Arthur usually adds a nice bit of commentary too. I've also seen a few of his on-line posts in response NY Times articles - same inciteful responding there.

[apedad]

I bought the family an iRobot Roomba i7+ for Xmas and I'm pleasantly surprised how easy the set up was and how well it works; especially maneuvering around chairs, under sofas, etc.

Got it on sale (still available) at Best Buy for about $350 cheaper than other places: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/irobot-roomba-i7-7550-wi-fi-connected-self-emptying-robot-vacuum-charcoal/6280529.p?skuId=6280529&ref=212&loc=1&extStoreId=288&ref=212&loc=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIj77sqaSw_AIVUODICh0MTA1WEAQYBCABEgISJPD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

[Mr. Bumble]

Now you're shilling for Best Buy or iRobot?

Hope it is not taking upskirt pictures.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Bumble, quiet down. Adults are talking.
When will you tire and finally go away,
you effeminate, annoying little troll.

[Mr. Bumble]

Could have fooled me but thank you for your thoughtful and civil response.

[Commenter_XY]

How does it do transitioning between surfaces; hardwood to carpet to concrete to hardwood? I always found that to be a hassle.

[apedad]

I don't have concrete but absolutely no problems going from/to hardwood / carpet.

It's not the wet kind (those were much more expensive), but the vacuuming is pretty good.

I took it upstairs and it knows not to go over the edge.

You do have to move/remove cables, wires, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is Your Robotic Vacuum Sharing Data About You?

"Of the companies we test, only iRobot earns an Excellent rating in data security. In addition to using encryption, the company issues regular updates to patch security vulnerabilities. Its internal policies limit and monitor employee access to user information, and invite outside security researchers to monitor its products for vulnerabilities. “We supplement internal expertise with extensive engagement with the security research community to provide the broadest view possible to identify, react to, isolate and resolve potential security issues,” says Mike Gillen, director of product and data security at iRobot."

But,

"Ecovacs, iRobot, LG, Neato, Samsung, and Shark provide more details about their privacy policies than Eufy, and also allow consumers to request the information that’s collected about them. However, none of these better-ranked companies allow consumers to obtain all of their private and public data, and few do a good job of updating consumers about changes to their privacy policies. Each earns a Good rating for data privacy. "

I guess it's no worse than carrying around a tracking devicecell phone all the time.

[Brett Bellmore]

I should state that my beef with them is that operation of the Roomba doesn't, as a matter of technical necessity, have to involve sending data to IRobot. Configuring things so that it does get sent was a conscious, deliberate decision. So they're better on securing data that never should have been in their hands to begin with? Great...

I'm pretty down on companies that unnecessarily route functionality through remote servers for products that could be locally complete.

[John F. Carr]

I have read too many stories about smart home devices, pet feeders, and other gadgets turning into bricks when a company suffers an internet outage or goes out of business.

[MoreCurious]

Many Americans now have the right to openly carry handguns, rifles, and shotguns in public places. Predictably, the appearance of an armed person can cause fear and panic in others, and it shouldn't surprise anyone if the first reaction of many passersby is to seek cover and to call 9-1-1. Some argue that this creates a dangerous situation for the responding police because it cannot be possible to know a person's intention when he or she enters a shopping mall carrying sometimes multiple weapons.

Can someone please explain why someone would feel the need to walk into a shopping center with an AR-15-style rifle, a semi-automatic handgun, and 120 rounds of ammunition, as happened last year in Houston? And what motivates a man to go into a supermarket in Atlanta wearing body armor and carrying six loaded weapons? Does the right to openly carry outweigh the right of people to feel safe on the street or in a supermarket? Finally, how should the police respond to a 9-1-1 call reporting someone who is armed and perceived to be dangerous?

[Ed Grinberg]

Does the right to openly carry outweigh the right of people to feel safe on the street or in a supermarket?

Couldn’t you extend this argument to all 2nd Amendment rights? As in:
“Does the right to carry a concealed weapon outweigh the right of people to feel safe on the street or in a supermarket?”
(I'm pretty sure I actually saw this argument somewhere.)
Come to think of it, this template can be used to eliminate other rights too. For example:
“Does the right to say what you think outweigh the right of people not to be offended?”

[Nige]

You could extend it, yes, mostly to avoid it.

[MoreCurious]

It wasn't an argument it was a question, which I notice you didn't answer.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Predictably, the appearance of an armed person can cause fear and panic in others, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone if the first reaction of many passersby is to seek cover and to call 9-1-1."

Abuse of the emergency phone system is generally a crime. Calling 911 because someone is openly armed would be abusing that system.

No brandishing. No threats. No emergency. The exercising of a constitutional right is not reason to call 911, and it SHOULD surprise people if that's the reaction, because it's illogical and illegal.

[Nige]

'You can only call 911 if you've confirmed that the mass shooting has begun.'

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Absent brandishing or threats, the carrying of a firearm is a constitutional right that does not permit you to call 911 and harass that person over.

If you're such a fucking coward that you think any public sighting of a firearm means an emergency is about to occur, stay in your basement.

Aside from the general stupidity of your attempted snark, you're actually correct: you can only call 911 when an emergency is actually happening - not just because you're irrationally fearful and ignorant.

[Nige]

It's not irrational in the US to associate people bedecked with weapons like an NRA Christmas tree with mass shootings. It's irrational not to.

[Brett Bellmore]

Given that the number of mass shooters is a rounding error away from zero percent of the "people bedecked with weapons like an NRA Christmas tree", yeah, actually it IS irrational.

It's like seeing somebody driving down the road, and getting scared because they might suddenly turn onto the sidewalk and run you over. Sure, it's possible they'd do it, but the odds are so low no rational person would give a moment's thought to it.

[Nige]

Given that mass shooting are common enough to appear on the news almost weekly, have enormous knock-on traumatising effects on families, communities and the entire country, and given that the response of gun-advocates is practised, cynical, sociopathic indifference backed by financial muscle that translates to political muscle, I'd say people have a right to be afraid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, in a country of over 330M, with every such incident reported nation wide, that's still not a lot of them.

"I’d say people have a right to be afraid."

Well, sure, people have a right to be irrational. It's stupid, but a lot of things people have a right to do are stupid.

[Nige]

They have the right not to be gunned down by a gun-industry profit-making weapon, they have the right not to be afraid, they don't have the right not to have their fears casually dismissed by sociopathic gun-advocates, but it's always good to know who has their best interests at heart.

[Gandydancer]

It's been explained to you already that merely because you fear someone bearing a weapon does not give you any right to interfere with his Constitutionally protected right to do so.

Wishing it were otherwise is not an argument for it being otherwise. Continuing to pretend that it is is merely tiresome.

[Nige]

I understand that is your argument. I also understand your goal is to maximise fear so that the gun industry can profit off it. I don't think people like it very much.

[Nelson]

While I am pro-Second Amendment, I understand where Nige is coming from.

While I wouldn't necessarily assume I was about to die, if I saw somwone walking into a store in body armor with multiple openly-carried weapons, I would think that, at best, he was an agitator trying to panic people and, at worst, was mentally unbalanced and dangerous to others. So at best a complete dick and at worst deranged.

Sane people don't dress up for a shootout to go shopping.

[Gandydancer]

"I also understand your goal is to maximise fear so that the gun industry can profit off it."

You are a loon. Not actually understanding anything is the expected result.

[Nige]

Why are you disagreeing with me? I thought the whole point of the sacred 2nd Amendment was you don't have to care if you drenched the country in violence and spread terror everywhere so long as it sold more guns? The people who don't like it don't matter! Why pretend otherwise?

[OtisAH]

“There aren’t really that many mass shootings anyway” has entered the chat.

[Gandydancer]

Gibbering irrational fear got here first. And arrived again when you did, apparently.

[MoreCurious]

No, it's not like that at all. Unlike the thousands of drivers I see every day, a lone chickenshit carrying semi-automatic weapons at my local Walmart is attempting to intimidate me and my family. And, yes, I will call the police just as I would if I saw a prowler in my backyard.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Hopefully you're appropriately charged for abuse of the emergency system.

Perhaps a jail sentence would allow you to better identify your fellow criminals.

[Nige]

'I'd have called the cops on that heavily armed guy hanging round the school but he hadn't started shooting yet.'

[Jason Cavanaugh]

For fuck's sake Nige, is that your best example? Did you get hit on the head in the last day or two?

Firearms are not currently permitted near a school. In this instance, you'd actually be doing the right thing.

The fact that you cannot discern the difference between this hypothetical and the other dipshit offerings you've posed this morning suggests you should see a neurologist.

[Nige]

Gasp! So it IS permissable to infringe the right to bear arms! Progress!

[MoreCurious]

You're delusional if you believe that someone who calls to report a prowler or someone carrying a firearm in a place where firearms are not traditionally present is going to receive anything other than a thank you from the police.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I will call the police just as I would if I saw a prowler in my backyard.

A reasonable person might call the police. A Texas gun nut would shoot and kill a maintenance worker for attempting to check on vulnerable utility connections after a winter storm. It was Texas-style, so the cowardly, stupid gun nut shot the innocent victim through a window.

The snapback against gun nuttery by better Americans is going to be beautiful.

[MoreCurious]

Jason Cavanaugh: If you’re such a fucking coward that you think you need to openly carry firearms in public, stay in your basement.

[Brett Bellmore]

Looking back at my former home state, Michigan... The state was legally open carry, had been from its founding. The push for concealed carry reform came because police in some jurisdictions would charge you with illegal concealment if your arm swung over the holster, or anything obstructed view of the holster. OTOH, if you went out of your way to keep it visible, they'd go with "brandishing".

CCW reform was an effort to stop that: The police couldn't hassle you if they didn't KNOW you were carrying.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Whether I think that I need to or not, it is my right to do so.

It is not your right to abuse the emergency system and sic police on someone who is doing nothing more than exercising the same rights you have.

Any other stupid remarks you'd like to share?

[Nige]

Meh. You decide to go around with lots of weapons and someone calls 911 on you, tough shit. Minor inconvenience in order for you to feel empowered by radiating implicit violence.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Meh, you decide to make the wrong remark and someone calls 911 on your speech, tough shit.

Minor inconvenience in order for you to feel empowered by radiating implicit stupidity.

Let's boil down what you're actually saying:

"I don't care if people are harassed by cops (with the threat that the cop might just decide to kill them because that's what cops do) as long as it's generally about a right I disfavor. Meanwhile I'm going to accuse others of disfavoring other rights without evidence because I'm a hypocritical little bitch."

You’re already making your power move for the dumbest Volokh poster in 2023 eh? You’ve some distance to catch up, but your plan seems sound.

[Nige]

No, I don't care if heavily armed assholes are harassed by cops, no. They deserve each other. Realistically though, heavily armed Proud Boys and tyrannical cops are likely to be asshole buddies. The ultimate expression of the 2nd Amendment will be right-wing militias helping cops round up the dissidents and the decadent cosmopolitans.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Are you really that fucking stupid Nige that you think anyone openly carrying must be a Proud Boy?

You're also openly stating that you don't care if your prejudice against people exercising the same rights you have ends up with them getting shot and killed by a cop.

You're a fucking sociopath.

[Nige]

Just one example of heavily-armed extremist right-wing sociopaths who are cosy with the cops.

Why would they get shot and killed by the cops? Don't they have the means to defend themselves hanging off them and jammed into multiple holsters? They're wearing camouflage so the cops can't even see them while they're being mown down in self defence!

[MoreCurious]

How about this one? If I see you or anyone else on the street, in a restaurant, or in a store, and you're openly carrying a firearm, I'm going to call the police even if it's just a single-shot .22 rifle. Then you can explain to them how you are a scaredy-cat who is simply exercising your Second Amendment right because you're afraid to go out in public without a weapon.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As I said previously, hopefully you can spend some time in a cell of your own to better recognize what a criminal looks like, versus a fellow citizen who is doing nothing wrong.

It would seem like you can get a head start on that exercise by looking in a mirror, since you're openly admitting that you plan on committing two crimes:

Abuse of the 911 system and harassment.

I don't mean to mince words here, but you're the cowardly sociopath in this scenario.

[MoreCurious]

You, the guy who apparently thinks he needs a firearm to show how brave he is, is calling someone else a “cowardly sociopath?” Sorry, Jason, but you and the other cowards who are afraid to go out in public without a firearm are the losers here. And you might want to look up the meaning of the word “irony.”

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Did you ever bother to verify whether I open carry or not?

Are you capable of moving past the middle-school argument of "those who carry a firearm in public have small dicks/live in fear/etc."

I'll answer for you:

No, and no.

One would expect that if you're going to argue against a constitutional right, you'd have more to bring to the table than delusions, fear, assumptions and stupidity.

How embarrassing for you.

[not guilty]

Walking around unarmed takes a combination of brains and testicular fortitude that not everyone is blessed with. Hence the urge to purchase a fanciful substitute for manhood at the gun store.

[Frank Drackman]

Where I come from the Po-Po would tell you to go (redacted) yourself

[Kazinski]

They'd laugh at you where I live if you called the cops because someone is carrying openly.

Also keep in mind that stopping and questioning someone who is legally carrying a weapon also opens up a cop to a civil rights suit, any responsible police department is going to need for whatever Karen who calls them to articulate some indication of an actual potential for a crime being committed, other than someone getting the vapors.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I find it difficult to believe someone with Jason Cavanaugh's judgment was able to become a member of the bar.

Well, maybe in one of the most severe backwaters . . .

[Gandydancer]

It's hard to believe anyone with so limited an intellectual range as your graduated Junior High.

But maybe you landed on your head AFTERWARDS?

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, be respectful to Jerry Sandusky, so he's got a little of the CTE going on, still can coach a mean "D"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Get an education, clinger. Start with standard English, focusing on capitalization.

Or, just remain an illiterate, bigoted loser as you await replacement. By your betters.

[Frank Drackman]

Ah C'mon Jerry, don't tell me you checked your "Recruits" English Grades????? before slipping them the "Little Jerry"
And I got the best Pubic Screw-el Ed-Jew-ma-Cation money can buy (actually don't think my parents paid anything, that whole Military guys claiming Florida as their State of Residence) might not know how to diaphragm a sentence, or what comes at the end of one (You make an Appeal!!) but I can roll a Spliff like Snoop Dogg, probably could teach that poser a few thangs,

Frank "D-Dog" Drackman

[jb]

People call 911 because they see someone with the wrong skin color in their neighborhood and that's almost never prosecuted. Carrying a gun in an unexpected context seems like a significantly more reasonable trigger so it's hard to imagine anyone thinking about alerting the authorities as being a crime regardless of your opinions on the Constitutional protections afforded to gun owners.

[SimonP]

If you're such a fucking coward that you can't go to the grocery store without arming yourself to the hilt (to prevent... something?), maybe you should stay in your basement.

[Frank Drackman]

Not a coward to be prepared, if you haven't noticed, Grocery Stores and Wal-marts are prime targets, and not like some 90 year old Wal-mart Greeter's gonna help.

[SimonP]

So what you're saying is, it makes sense to arm yourself to the teeth when you're going to the grocery store, because grocery stores are getting shot up; but Jason is telling us that we have nothing to fear from people armed to the teeth when they're going to the grocery store, until they've started "brandishing" their weapon and shooting up the place.

Gosh, if only there were a solution to the problem that didn't require people to be psychic!

[Frank Drackman]

Guns just a tool like a jack/spare tire(do you have those?) not like I need a jack/spare tire that often, but when I do, sucks not to have either,

Frank

[Nelson]

True, but the purpose of a jack is to raise a car. The purpose of a spare tire is to replace a tire that has broken. The purpose of a gun is to kill things.

It's not just something that it is capable of doing. It is the point and purpose for which it was created.

That is a significant difference.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You mean someone who might otherwise prevent the very thing you're afraid of?

Someone who might otherwise defend you?

[SimonP]

I have never, in my life, felt the need to arm myself, for my own protection, when just going about my ordinary day's activities.

The only things that might change that are: (1) such an incredible increase of gun violence that I must anticipate being shot in public and (2) such an inundation of gun-bearers in public that I have to anticipate that at least some of them are "bad guys" - maybe crooks, maybe cops with anger issues, maybe punks with an inadequate sense of gun safety.

I've seen what you gun-nuts are like online, with the protection of anonymity. I don't trust a single one of you to wield your firearms safely and appropriately in public. You're lunatics.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Casually insult over 100 million Americans you don't even know and who generally would be willing to intervene on your behalf and do what they can to protect you should the need ever arise...

Strong rebuttal!

[Kazinski]

Half the states allow constitutional carry, permitless concealed carry, so you really don't know who is armed when you go into the supermarket.

I myself have gone into the supermarket armed many times, but I'm not arming myself to go buy groceries, I'm arming myself for other reasons, and I happen to stop by the grocery store as I go about my business.

[Nelson]

Do you wear body armor, too?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Calling 911 because someone is openly armed would be abusing that system.

One of the events that may have precipitated this discussion involved a report from a legitimate newspaper that a man had entered a supermarket carrying six or eight weapons (two "assault rifles," if I recall correctly). He entered a rest room, donned body armor, removed the guns from a bag, and was observed by another customer who believed he heard the gun nut loading weapons in a stall.

It seems unlikely that anyone who figures anyone should respond to that circumstance by waiting to see what the gun nut does next will have his preferences respected by most modern, reasoning, reasonable Americans.

Gun nuts are among my favorite culture war casualties. Gun absolutists are destined to join anti-abortion absolutists, supporters of Israel's right-wing belligerence, and others in paying a severe price for hitching their political wagons to the wrong side of history and the losing end of the American culture war. I hope the right to possess a reasonable gun for self-defense in the home survives the predictable, deserved backlash from better Americans against gun nuttery.

[bernard11]

Exactly.

If I see a guy in body armor loading a bunch of guns in a grocery store restroom I'm calling 911.

Anyone who thinks that's no different than driving down the street is insane - totally gun-obsessed bonkers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not the bigoted, poorly educated gun nuts who are attracted by the Volokh Conspiracy. They figure society must await the first bullet's launch before responding . . . and are also stupid enough to believe they have a chance in the culture war.

[Kazinski]

Well I agree with you that loading guns in a restroom is not only suspicious but alarming, and merits a call.

But someone with a holstered weapon buying groceries is shouldn't be alarming, especially since for everyone you can see armed there are probably 50 people carrying concealed.

[Gandydancer]

The op complained about the mere "appearance of an armed person... caus[ing] fear and panic" without anything else to justify the reaction other than reference to something that "happened last year in Houston". Is that the incident of which you speak? And we still don't know if the "belie[f] he heard the gun nut loading weapons in a stall" was made up? Link?

[MoreCurious]

It happened. Google is your friend here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Open wider, Gandydancer. Your betters have plenty more progress and reason to shove down the throats of bigoted, gullible, antisocial, disaffected losers like you.

And be nicer, or the culture war's victors might decide to become less magnanimous toward the casualties.

[Gandydancer]

Fuck you, asshole.

[Dr. Ed 2]

MoreCurious --

What motivates gay activists to do some of the things THEY do?
In both cases, it's to show they CAN.

Watch a gay pride parade sometime and you will understand...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Watch a gay pride parade sometime and you will understand…

What do you make of faith-healing congregations, rattlesnake-juggling exhibitions, and old-timey revival meetings?

[bernard11]

Tell me, Ed. Do you see any difference in the two behaviors?

[Gandydancer]

Answer him first: Do you see the parallels?

[Nelson]

No, it is the worst type of sophistry. The purpose of a gay pride parade is to show gay pride. Gay pride has no possibility of killing you.

The same cannot be said of a gun.

[Gandydancer]

Apparently you've never seen a Gay Pride parade. Dr Ed has a firmer grasp on the purpose of the participants in one than you do.

[David Nieporent]

You spend lots of time watching gay pride parades? Why?

[Gandydancer]

The Castro was on my way to work a quarter century ago. I had no need to act as you apparently would to see what was going on so you can control your envy.

[MoreCurious]

We're all looking forward to your explanation for that inane comment you made about gay activists. Are a lot of them openly carrying firearms?

[John F. Carr]

I knew somebody who would call police to report a man with a gun on an overpass. It was a cop running a speed trap, which he knew but would be willing to testify he wasn't certain of.

[gormadoc]

It's a demonstration like any other. They, like racial justice advocates or LGBT groups, believe that even offensive/worrying demonstrations of their rights and lifestyles, help to normalize and draw attention to the free exercise of their rights.

[Nelson]

It's intentionally provacative, especially when done soon after a mass shooting (which is almost the entire year). What is the point? To act like a Tommy Toughguy?

[David Nieporent]

Does the right to openly carry outweigh the right of people to feel safe on the street or in a supermarket?

It kind of has to, or it wouldn't exist at all.

[apedad]

Chief Justice Roberts 2022 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2022year-endreport.pdf

Seems like across the federal judiciary (SC, appeal courts, district courts, and bankruptcy courts), the number cases filed were down.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any mention of the Dobb's leaker?

[Ed Grinberg]

Shhhhhhhh!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yes! She shall not be named.

[Gandydancer]

How do you know "her" pronouns?

[Frank Drackman]

Because he's Jerry Sandusky, he can certainly tell an XX from an XY, (and knows his X's and O's pretty well also)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ask the Volokh Conspirators. I would wager at least one of them has some relevant information along this line.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's make it a parlay wager: I would also bet on too cowardly, partisan, and hypocritical to disclose the information.

[Gandydancer]

You're not making any sense, Artie. Not for the first time, but this is weirder than most. Why is "her" pronouns such a "cowardly, partisan, and hypocritical" secret? "She" is likely a (D). after all, and flaunting "her" pronouns would seem to be just "normal" (D) idiotic virtue-signaling.

[apedad]

The "theme" for this year's report was judicial security and CJ Roberts brought up many of the real threats justices and federal judges faced this year - but had zero info on the leak.

[Ben_]

Serving the public wasn’t the theme, of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they're incredibly unlikely to identify the leaker; The brief was widely shared, so the number of people who had access is large, and even a minimal amount of care would have safeguarded their identity. And we're not talking idiots here.

Basically the only hope of solving the case was a confession. Apparently none was forthcoming.

[apedad]

He still could have mentioned it and maybe the status of the Marshal's investigation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably don't want to confirm to everybody that leaking is relatively risk free.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Basically the only hope of solving the case was a confession. Apparently none was forthcoming."
Who confesses to anything?
Roberts made a point of saying that the leaker would be found and now eight months later, crickets. I wonder how the Justices feel about this.
Not a great precedent.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's never smart to guarantee what you know you might not deliver on. They might have to go to some extreme, like using canary traps, to discourage this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- what if you *know* and have ensured that it won't happen again -- at the price of not being able to say who it was publicly?

I'm thinking they do know (maybe not able to prove) who it was, and have taken measures to ensure it won't happen again, and hence consider the issue resolved.

A lot of corporate problems are quietly resolved this way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, that could be it. But for the reasons I've stated, they WERE unlikely to catch the perp without a confession. So failing to identify the perp is hardly suspicious.

[bernard11]

This is not a corporate problem.

If the leak was as big a deal as everyone thinks then Roberts has no business concealing the facts.

Even if Brett is right and the leaker can't be found, Roberts has an obligation to give some sort of status report, rather than a "never mind" shrug of the shoulders.

[Gandydancer]

Roberts is all in on treating the public like morons.
Otherwise "Obamacare is a tax" wouldn't have happened.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember that only 8 of the justices were there at the time.
My money would have been someone affiliated with the 9th.

[not guilty]

Eight of the current justices were there at the time. Justice Breyer had announced his retirement more than four months prior to the leak. What reason or incentive would Breyer or anyone affiliated with him have to leak the draft opinion?

[Nelson]

It’s much more likely that it came from one of the Justices who wanted more than just overturning Roe, hoping that the pressure from conservatives would lead to a national abortion ban or support for fetal personhood or some other extreme position.

[Commenter_XY]

Perhaps we will know the leaker by what does not happen. Meaning, is there a law clerk who did not obtain employment, post SCOTUS.

[Dr. Ed 2]

🙂

[Gandydancer]

Or she'll show up as a legal talking head on CNN for no apparent reason.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Or maybe she will continue to be paid by clients who crave influence involving her husband?

[not guilty]

When then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was elevated from the Court of Appeals to SCOTUS, her husband left a lucrative tax practice and went into teaching. Then then-Judge John Roberts was so elevated, his wife left the practice of law. (She later became a headhunter.)

When then-Judge Clarence Thomas was elevated, his wife elected to become the Thomas family bagwoman.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am not convinced that she is just a corrupt, cynical, greedy bagman.

I sense a genuine prospect that she is genuinely a true-believing clinger. Still corrupt and greedy, of course, but mostly she is taking money to pass along messages she believes in anyway.

[not guilty]

Whatever her ideological motivation, Mrs. Thomas holds herself out for hire to folks with business before SCOTUS. Justice Thomas for many successive years omitted her employment from his financial disclosure forms. (He should have been prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- the belated amended disclosure forms would have been powerful evidence.)

How can a litigant before SCOTUS hope to get a fair shake when an adversary is putting biscuits on the Thomas family breakfast table?

[Gandydancer]

You have the Ginsberg and Roberts tax returns? Why not?

[David Nieporent]

It's an interesting thought, but there's no way that it could be well known enough to prevent the clerk from getting a job but not well known enough to be discovered by the media.

[not guilty]

"Perhaps we will know the leaker by what does not happen. Meaning, is there a law clerk who did not obtain employment, post SCOTUS."

How would prospective employers know which applicant leaked?

Cui bono? The person who stood most to gain from the leak was Justice Alito himself. If Chief Justice Roberts had peeled off one of the other five Republican appointees to uphold the Mississippi 15 week ban without overruling Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that position would have had precedential effect pursuant to Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.)

At the time of the leak, Roberts was likely pursuing that strategy. The leaked opinion had the effect of firming up Alito's majority. Justice Kavanaugh or Justice Bear It could not thereafter join Roberts without appearing to cave to pressure.

[bernard11]

Another question to ask is, "Assuming Roberts knows who the leaker is, who would he protect?"

Certainly, not, IMO, a clerk or other staffer.

But a Justice?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Or a justice's family member?

Or the patron and benefactor of all clinger justices?

[Noscitur a sociis]

This leak would very likely have been trivial to solve with a couple of grand jury subpoenas. After a week or two of no progress from the Supreme Court police, Roberts should have reached out to the Department of Justice, and DOJ should have opened an investigation when he failed to do so.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trivial, how? You've got a bunch of people who had access. All they had to do was hand it over to a media outlet anonymously. What's the grand jury subpoena going to do, force the guilty party to confess to something they know damned well can't be proven?

[Noscitur a sociis]

You'd start with the reporter - Politico claimed to have authenticated the draft, so you'd see how they did that and follow up as necessary with additional subpoenas, search warrants, and so on.

[Bob from Ohio]

"DOJ should have opened an investigation"

You want a Democratic party controlled DOJ investigating a GOP court?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You want the hapless, bigoted, delusional, election-denying Republicans of the House of Representatives investigating a Democratic executive branch, or Democratic courts, or the family members of Democratic officials?

[David Nieporent]

This leak would very likely have been trivial to solve with a couple of grand jury subpoenas. After a week or two of no progress from the Supreme Court police, Roberts should have reached out to the Department of Justice, and DOJ should have opened an investigation when he failed to do so.

Um, what would the DOJ/grand jury be investigating? The non-crime of leaking? And what is the grand jury going to do, subpoena every one of scores of people who might have had access to the brief and say, "Did you leak it?" (The reporters sure aren't going to talk.)

[Commenter_XY]

You sure leaking SCOTUS documents is not a crime?

[not guilty]

What federal criminal statute(s) would such a leak arguably violate? I am not aware of one (unless the leak was done corruptly, which does not seem to be indicated here).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some expert opinion in this context would be interesting. Maybe something along the line of an "honest services" claim? Or a breach of a statement provided under oath?

That, of course, assume the leaker owed a duty to the government, worked for the government, or would have signed any employment-related agreements. My chuck-a-luck nickel would be placed on a civilian with a close connection to the Supreme Court.

[not guilty]

The "honest services" fraud doctrine is historically associated with bribery or kickback schemes.

[David Nieporent]

I'm pretty confident of that, yeah. I mean, as we all know the federal penal code is so extensive that the leaker might have committed some crime of some sort in the course of leaking,¹ but the leak itself wouldn't be one.

¹The same is true in the course of dropping by Starbucks to pick up a cup of coffee, but that wouldn't justify empaneling a grand jury. You need some basis for doing so.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Um, what would the DOJ/grand jury be investigating?

I found the § 1905 theory floated over the summer convincing.

(The reporters sure aren’t going to talk.)

If they'd spent enough time in jail to exhaust the contempt power, I'd retract my criticism. As it is, of course, we'll never know.

[Voize]

What would be the hook giving DoJ the authority to investigate, never mind convene a grand jury?
I haven't seen any credible argument that either a crime has been committed or that a counterintelligence investigation is warranted.

[not guilty]

"This leak would very likely have been trivial to solve with a couple of grand jury subpoenas. After a week or two of no progress from the Supreme Court police, Roberts should have reached out to the Department of Justice, and DOJ should have opened an investigation when he failed to do so."

A couple of points. Leaking the draft opinion was not a crime, so what basis would there have been for a grand jury investigation? Also, grand jury testimony is secret as to all persons listed in Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2)(B). Which exception(s) would arguably here?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Leaking the draft opinion was not a crime, so what basis would there have been for a grand jury investigation?

Some theories, of varying degrees of plausibility, were offered over the summer, see e.g. here: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/03/ex-prosecutor-markus-funk-and-judge-virginia-kendall-n-d-ill-on-possible-prosecution-of-s-ct-leaker (Actually I guess you did see it, since you commented on it!)

Note that a federal grand jury "can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not." United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950)).

Also, grand jury testimony is secret as to all persons listed in Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2)(B).

If your point is that it's possible the grand jury investigation has already been conducted and we just haven't heard anything about it yet, I suppose that's possible - but it doesn't seem very likely.

[not guilty]

I had forgotten that post, but having reviewed it, I still think that the statutes cited therein are a stretch -- unless, as my prior comment in the instant thread acknowledged, the leaker acted corruptly.

[Kazinski]

What statute was violated?

I remember a couple of bloggers here saying it wasn't clear there was any law that covered leaking a draft opinion.

And of course the other drawback to that is when you invite the FBI in, they are in, they may decide to investigate all the justices internal emails and web history for other purposes.

[John F. Carr]

The leak made the court appear less professional. Other than that it was not important. It did not set a precedent. It did not affect the rights of parties. The writing is often on the wall after oral argument.

[Gandydancer]

It was one of many revelations pointing to the fact that the Court is a nest of viperous pretenders no better than we think it is, you mean.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now Democrats are entering the game of musical migrants.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/01/colorado-dem-governor-jared-polis-to-send-migrants-to-chicago-and-nyc/

[Sarcastr0]

You want border states to absorb all of them?

This has been happening since at least 2000, though in a coordinated manner not the showboating bullshit of TX and FL.

[Mr. Bumble]

"You want border states to absorb all of them?"
No, I want them stopped at the border and by the way, Colorado isn't a border state.

[Ed Grinberg]

I want them stopped at the border

Racist! Hater! Cancel him!!!

[Sarcastr0]

Absent shooting them, that's never going to happen.

[Gandydancer]

I'm OK with shooting enough to discourage the rest.

[Nige]

See? Under it all you're actually in favour of mass shootings.

[Frank Drackman]

of an invading Army? yes

[Nige]

I’m sure school shooters had similar delusions, but the crucial thing is to pick on people who are themselves unarmed.

[Frank Drackman]

You mean the armed ill-legal aliens? I have to agree with you there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kate_Steinle

[Nige]

If they were armed, you wouldn't go shoot them.

[Gandydancer]

I am absolutely in favor of shooting as many invaders as necessary to stop the invasion, but it's not as clever as you think it is to redefine "mass shooting" to include even more instances where the shootings are fully justified.

[Martinned]

Nutcase wants to shoot lots of people. That's hardly news.

[Gandydancer]

Nutcase doesn't like repelling invasions, ought to be kicked out.

[Nige]

All mass shooters think their shootings are justified.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I’m OK with shooting enough to discourage the rest.

These assholes are your people, Volokh Conspirators.

And the reason mainstream academia disrespects you and your stale, ugly right-wing thinking.

[Gandydancer]

At least I'm not enough of an asshole to feel a compulsion to repeat myself saying the same stupid thing ten times on every Volokh thread for a decade.

You are in serious need of a life, but I expect it's way too late.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NOW is the time to send some more out to Martha’s Vineyard — https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=41.4168&lon=-70.6161

Yes -- Gringoland has ice storms. And Northeast wind off the water that is even worse. We No Like Gringoland....

[Kazinski]

Yeah midnight flights are much more migrant friendly.

[Sarcastr0]

My understanding is that they usually use busses.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Is long term masking detrimental to your health?

So, we've reached a new paradigm, where for some people, the masks just don't seem to come off. Month after month. Year after year. And, in such a situation, the long term health risks should be re-evaluated. Like a cigarette, one doesn't kill you. Even a pack doesn't. But year after year of smoking will.

In this particular case, what we should be worrying about is the partial CO2 pressure, and its long term effects on the human body. A number of studies have been done on the partial CO2 pressure, and masking appears to elevate the level of CO2 being breathed in by 10-fold...or more. So, people go from CO2 concentrations of 400 ppm to 5000 ppm...or more. Which is technically above the OSHA limits, due to rebreathing in.

Now, the short term consequences there aren't horrible. These levels of CO2 are comparable to those within a submarine, or the International space station. However, the long term effects appear to be weakening of the bones and reduced bone mass, as well as increased aortic pressure.

The cause for this is likely due to the higher levels of CO2 dissolved in the bloodstream (to be expected when breathing in higher CO2 levels), and the corresponding drop in blood pH (also to be expected in such a situation). In the short term, this is clearly fine. But in the long term...month after month...year after year...8 hour a day...there may be fairly significant, detrimental, health effects.

[Moderation4ever]

I think the easy answer is no. If you have traveled to other countries, particularly Asian countries, you will see people commonly wearing masks. I never heard of long-term effects in those countries. I see far fewer people wearing masks today that in the near past. When I see people wearing them, I assume they have a reason for wearing them. Perhaps they have a cold, they have a health condition, or they care for someone with a health condition. Maybe they don't have a good reason, but I give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Armchair Lawyer]

People are free to do whatever they want. But they should be informed about the potential long term health risks.

Simply because you've "never heard" about the long term health risks doesn't mean they aren't there. To use the smoking analogy, for years...decades even...people thought it was fine.

[Nige]

Everybody's known for decades that smoking is not fine.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Go back a ways in your history.

[Nige]

Believe it or not, people have also been wearing masks in various situations for a very, very long time, long enough to figure out that they don't actually damage wearer's health.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Really? Sizable percentages of the population? N95s? For years at a time?

[Nige]

Wearing masks was common during the Spainish flu epidemic and during periods of heavy air pollution, such as London’s pea soupers. And, of course, hospitals.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ah yes, the famous N95s during the Spanish Flu....

[Nige]

Yeah, the masks they had back then weren't even as good as the masks we have now.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Precisely....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember that N95 is an industrial standard -- OSHA/NIOSH and not a medical one. Memory is that OSHA also has some very strict standards for mask REPLACEMENT and it is like every hour or so.

[Absaroka]

"Memory is that OSHA also has some very strict standards for mask REPLACEMENT and it is like every hour or so."

IANAL but I'm pretty sure it's legal to check one's memory before commenting.

Here's what the CDC thinks:

"Replace the N95 when the straps are stretched out and it no longer fits snugly against your face or when it becomes wet, dirty, or damaged."

[David Nieporent]

You think people you see wearing masks in public don't take them off when they're at home?

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the number I've seen wearing masks, alone in their cars (even on the highways) I'm not so sure about that.

[Sarcastr0]

People are free to do whatever they want. But they should be informed about the potential long term health risks.

Not if it's bullshit, AL.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Tell me more about the health benefits of smoking tobacco...

[Nige]

Smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in the smoker and in others who happen to be in their vicinity. Wearing masks does not, though if you wear a mask when in the vicinity of a smoker, it reduces your chanes of developing lung cancer.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You need to look up the reference being made.

[Nige]

You need to make your point better. 'What of masks turn out to be unhealthy as cigarettes' isn't really a serious point.

[Frank Drackman]

In Med School when we spouted some Bullshit like that we'd have to back it up.

[Nige]

What med school did you go to, The Big Tobacco University Of Smoking Is Safe Just Ask These Doctors?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes, what would the FBI want us to see?

[Sarcastr0]

Many people have told you how wrong you have this twitter FBI thing, bevis. At this point I'm left assuming you really want to believe.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The many people that are saying that are Democratic partisans. Twitter was so overwhelmed with "suggestions" from the FBI that the couldn't keep up. Minimize it all you want, but of course if Biden hadn't continued the effort you'd be on the other side.

And what do you say about the appalling Adam Schiff trying to get Twitter to deplatform a reporter who published a story he didn't like?

You want rights that you have denied to people you disagree with. So we should all consider your thoughts in that context.

[Sarcastr0]

1) Ad hominem is a fallacy, bevis.

2) DMN is not a Democratic partisan.

3) It's not like people have said 'trust me' they've lead you to the actual facts. You continue to ignore them.

4) Rep. Adam Schiff wanted Twitter to ban Paul Sperry because he identified the whistleblower who triggered impeachment proceedings against former President Donald Trump.
I don't think banning was the right answer, but that's a dangerous leak.
Your high dudgeon as usual seems to be based on reading a single outrage-bait story and then not bothering to follow up.

Stop doing that.

You want rights that you have denied to people you disagree with.
Unsure what you mean here.

[Brett Bellmore]

In Asian countries, it's expected that you'll wear a mask if you're sick, and out in the public. To avoid passing it on to others. If Covid results in the West adopting that practice, good! That's not the same thing as wearing one day after day even when healthy.

OTOH, homeostasis is a real thing, and blood ph is subject to it. I'd be somewhat surprised if the body doesn't eventually adapt, and restore ph to normal levels.

Probably the biggest long term effect is that you can now tell the Democrats from the Republicans in public, without talking to them. 😉

[Nige]

'That’s not the same thing as wearing one day after day even when healthy.'

I think the people wearing the masks want to remain healthy by not catching covid, and other respiratory diseases, and inhaling air pollution. Also, not spreading covid and other respiratory diseases, if asymptomatic or mild.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It was the submariner long term health concerns that really did it for me, as that was most directly applicable.

Typically, they're exposed to 5000 ppm CO2, day in, day out, for months. And they do see real health effects, like reduced both mass.

I'm not sure the homeostasis is enough to compensate.

[Nige]

Yeah, anyone wearing a mask 24 hours a day every day for months while also completely deprived of sunlight and being subjected to regular changes of pressure probably isn't doing their health any favours, but who the hell does that?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Have ant-mask kooks been similarly worried about surgeons and other medical personnel for decades?

Why not?

Carry on, clingers.

[bernard11]

How are submariners comparable to people who wear a mask even eight hours straight every day? And how many people do that? Do surgeons take the weekend off?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, the body has these 2 Organs called "Lungs" and "Kidneys" that maintain pH within a narrow range, most peoples have 2 of each.

[defaultdotxbe]

I don't think there are long-term consequences for adults wearing masks (its different for young children) but comparing the masking cultures in Asian countries to the mandates that existed in the US recently isn't an apples to apples comparison.

In Asian countries people who wear masks generally only do so in crowded places like busses and trains, not all day. They also don't necessarily wear them every single day, but when they are feeling ill (there's more to say on this as well) or when smog is particularly bad in their city.

Regarding masks when the person is feeling ill, that has as much to do with the work culture of many Asian countries, its frowned upon to take a sick day so unless you are literally on your deathbed you are expected to go to work. I would expect that middle class (and even many working class) Americans would simply take a sick day rather wearing a mask to work.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Naturally you don't actually cite any of these alleged studies.

I suspect that you're someone who wouldn't wear a mask anyways regardless of the reason, so why do you pretend to care at all? Grievance politics?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Google is your friend.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-13711-2

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm not here to provide your evidence for you. If you care to pretend that 'studies' support your nonsense, you should back that up with a link.

"Face mask such as surgical masks and FFP2 induce small changes in pulmonary function, which, in turn, lead to slightly increased blood carbon dioxide levels during physical activity with high intensity. All carbon dioxide values were, yet, in a physiological range and did not affect cognitive performance and subjective wellbeing. Therefore, we found no evidence for detrimental health effects of mask application in settings without the option to maintain social distancing over a limited timeframe, such as commutes (cycling or walking) in public areas, public transport or car sharing. Cardiovascular performance seems to only be upregulated to a minor share during mask wearing. Consequently, healthy adults are able to physiologically compensate the impact of mouth and nose protections masks during rest and physical activities (i.e. exercise), if a metabolic steady state can be obtained. Further studies need to assess the effects of prolonged and repeated mask application especially in realistic settings (shared workspace, long distance public transport) including physical activity (i.e. physical labour in crowded areas) to further evaluate potential effects on well-being and metabolism."

I'm still wondering why you care at all, given that you aren't someone who's going to be wearing a mask anyway. Need something to complain about?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Further studies need to assess the effects of prolonged and repeated mask application especially in realistic settings (shared workspace, long distance public transport) including physical activity (i.e. physical labour in crowded areas) to further evaluate potential effects on well-being and metabolism.”"

[Sarcastr0]

You do realize a further research statement is boilerplate, and not proof of anything, right?

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, what would a comparable level of CO2 levels look like long term?

Something like submariners, who are regularly exposed to high CO2 levels...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19882096/#:~:text=Submariners%20taking%20part%20in%20prolonged,activity%2C%20and%20altered%20dietary%20habits.

[Nige]

That's a study of a number of environmental conditions, only one of which is CO2. Certainly CO2 can cause IQs to drop at high levels, but I've yet to see anything suggesting that wearing a mask can by itself raise an individuals CO2 to anything near those levels.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's it demonstrated...

https://scholarlycommons.hcahealthcare.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1321&context=hcahealthcarejournal

[Nige]

This study suggets regular mask breaks as sufficent to compensate, seems fair enough.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And again...

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06056-0

[Nige]

This study says the levels need not be a concern for day-to-day use by health care professionals.

[Sarcastr0]

You are now cherry picking articles, AL.

That's bad science.

But then, your goal is not getting at the truth, it's supporting your chosen conclusion.

[Absaroka]

You link to an abstract; did you have access to the full article? I ask because I wasn't willing to spend the $39.95 to read the full article, and the abstract doesn't offer much insight on health effects of mask use.

Specifically, the abstract says "Submariners taking part in prolonged missions are exposed to environmental factors that may adversely affect bone health. Among these, relatively high levels of CO(2), lack of sunlight exposure affecting vitamin D metabolism, limited physical activity, and altered dietary habits."

So CO2 levels are one of 4 possible causes of the observed issues with sub crews. To gauge the effects of masks, wouldn't you need to know the relative effects of the four factors, and their interactions?

What are the typical levels CO2 levels on subs over time[1] relative to shoreside mask use? Granny might wear a mask a couple hours a week going to the store, while the checker at the store might wear one 40 hours a week, and the sub crew is down there 24 hours a day. Wouldn't that matter?

Etc, etc, etc. That abstract really doesn't offer useful information on CO2 related health risks outside of submarines.

[1]I dunno how much levels on subs vary over time...from watching documentaries, nuke subs have scrubbers that continually remove CO2, but when those need maintenance or whatever they 'burn' canisters of chemicals that absorb CO2. Dunno how much it typically varies over time/between submarine types/etc.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's a lot more on it

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11170/chapter/5#62

[Dr. Ed 2]

I thought that our submarines had scrubbers to remove the CO2 from the air -- are you saying that these really expensive subs don't work right???

[Nige]

'the masks just don’t seem to come off.'

Yes, if you never change your mask, there are probably health issues. Otherwise, no.

'But in the long term…month after month…year after year…8 hour a day…there may be fairly significant, detrimental, health effects.'

I would say the only people who have to wear masks continuously for eight hours a day are health professionals. What do you suggest people working in hospitals crowded with covid patients and sick people who are vulnerable to covid should do?

[Armchair Lawyer]

With any type of situation, a balancing of the risks is needed.

According to the occupational health and safety rules in force in Germany, healthy employees may only wear the masks for 75 minutes at a time. After that, they are entitled to a 30-minute break. The German Social Accident Insurance also stipulates that an individual risk assessment, which may include an occupational medical examination, is a prerequisite for the use of particle-filtering half masks.

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-face-mask-face-shield-ffp2-n95-kn95-whats-the-difference/a-52291265

[Nige]

That seems fair, since wearing masks for so long must be uncomfortable. Yay workers' rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That seems fair, since wearing masks for so long must be uncomfortable."

The medical masks in question are pretty tight, after wearing them you've got some serious marks on your face. We're not talking those silly face diapers that became popular, the medical ones, worn properly, ARE uncomfortable. If you're wearing one and comfortable, it probably isn't sealed properly.

There have been some cases where K-12 students required to wear masks during gym, (Do I need to point out how stupid it is to require somebody to wear one outdoors?) have passed out during vigorous exercise, such as that track runner who made the news.

I don’t mind people wearing masks, and wear one myself when I’ve got a respiratory infection. But some people take it to absurd extremes, such as while driving alone in a car, or walking at the park.

[Nige]

Wearing a mask while exercising strenuously outdoors is pretty stupid, yes.

‘But some people take it to absurd extremes, such as while driving alone in a car, or walking at the park.’

Meh, so what, you don’t know them or their reasons. Some people can tolerate masks better than others and barely notice they’re wearing them.

[OtisAH]

The important thing is Brett doesn’t want to see it. Like all these other goofballs he’s in the “It’s my right as a free person to decide whether I wear a mask, so take your mask off you virtue-signaling jerk” group.

[Brett Bellmore]

I will admit that, at the height of Covid, on a couple of occasions I caught myself wearing one in the car, just because I'd neglected to remove it after leaving the grocery store.

But the height of Covid stupidity: At the beginning of the epidemic we were camping, and as we left the camp ground they were shutting it down behind us due to Covid regs. Goes along with that skate park they FILLED WITH SAND to stop people from enjoying some exercise.

Of course, sun exposure, fresh air, and exercise, well known risk factors for respiratory illness. [/sarc]

[Absaroka]

"At the beginning of the epidemic we were camping, and as we left the camp ground they were shutting it down behind us due to Covid regs"

FWIW the stated reasons for shutting down the state campgrounds here was that they had no way to clean the shared toilets, and were worried about contact transmission. In hindsight that wasn't a good call, but I dunno I'd call it stupid in March 2020.

My preference would be that people would be sensible and careful about handwashing, etc, but ... not everyone is.

[Nige]

So what? Learn from mistakes. Nothing to do with masks.

[bernard11]

Of course, you don't know the full story.

If you are going shopping, at several stores, you might well just keep the mask on as a matter of convenience, while you walk the two blocks from one to the other.

[Gandydancer]

"Convenience" is putting it in your pocket while going from one mask nutter place to the other if you have to do that. Which, thankfully, no longer seems to be a thing,.

[bernard11]

I don't think you are entitled to tell others what they should or should not do for their own convenience.

[Gandydancer]

You are really, really stupid if you interpreted what I said was fact as a direction.

Or if knowing better you thought you could somehow score a point by pretending otherwise.

But, yes, that conclusion (you are really, really stupid) would not at this point be a surprise.

[OtisAH]

Decades of doctors, nurses, and orderlies wearing masks all day, every day, say “No, it isn’t, you stupid goddamn dumbfuck.”

[Mr. Bumble]

"Decades of doctors, nurses, and orderlies wearing masks all day, every day,..." Not in any medical facility I've experienced have staff worn masks "all day" until recently.

[Sarcastr0]

Surgeons and those on surgical rotation sure do.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure they do, but that is not what Otis said.

[Sarcastr0]

It's enough to support his thesis.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, it's not. He made a general statement about what medical personnel do "all day, every day." Surgery is only a small part of medical services, and obviously has unique exposure that other forms of medicine typically don't.

[Nige]

Perhaps in respiratory illness wards? But of course the point is, wearing masks for long periods is a thing that has happened before and which nobody died of.

[Sarcastr0]

Um, so you admit it supports the thesis, but want to discard it because he phrased the supportive evidence too broadly?

Pedantry is no way to be.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's pretty rich, given the utter pedantry you have posted on this topic.

Here is a more precise formulation: prior to COVID, the vast majority of medical services were delivered by personnel that did not wear masks, certainly not all the time. There were a few specialized, high-risk services, like surgery, where masks were used on a temporary basis.

That was the reality prior to COVID. And that reality was so far removed from what OtisAH asserted as to render his assertion highly inaccurate, if not delusional.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, you're quibbling with the specifics of his support for his larger thesis that masking for long periods is not harmful.

He's met that burden.

You're being a pedant.

[bernard11]

Is there an indication that the personnel you are talking about have suffered adverse effects from all that mask-wearing?

[Mr. Bumble]

It supports nothing.
Pedantry is no way to be.

[Sarcastr0]

Well argued.

[Gandydancer]

Actually, they don't, except when doing surgery, assuming the recent madness is past. They have to anyway change them all the time, so what would be the point?

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, in the fucking Operating Room, and more out of tradition than any evidence it prevents wound infections.

[OtisAH]

There’s no evidence that breathing germs and viruses into open wounds causes infections? It’s just some old wives tale, is it? Fascinating. That must be one helluva “med school” you “attended”…

[Frank Drackman]

There's not actually.

[Frank Drackman]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1853618/#:~:text=It%20has%20never%20been%20shown,reported%20after%20omitting%20face%20masks.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, from the 'Key Findings' section of a study titled "Use of Surgical Masks in the Operating Room: A Review of the Clinical Effectiveness and Guidelines":

"The use of surgical face masks by staff in the operating room is presumed to reduce the frequency of surgical site infections. The evidence identified and included in this report finds no evidence basis for this presumption."

It goes on to say it's not recommending changing the current practice of mask wearing.

Anyway, I think it's interesting that something we all[1] assume is true lacks supporting evidence.

[1]including me, until running across similar studies early in the covid mask wars

[Frank Drackman]

They're all for the Science until the Science doesn't say what they want it to say .

[Nige]

I would have thought surgeons would at the very least prefer to protect their mouth, nose and eyes from any, er, surgical residue that might spurt up into their faces.

[Bored Lawyer]

You've never been in a hospital or Dr.'s office have you? Because your statement is delusional. No such thing has happened before 2019.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one making a superlative point.

Consider your burden (one counterexample and you're wrong) versus OtisAH's more general statement.

This is what happens when you come in hot.

[Bored Lawyer]

Ok, where's your counterexample? Oh, you're just blowing hot air.

I have been in hospitals and Dr.'s office dozens of times for all sorts of reasons. Prior to COVID, I NEVER saw the personnel wearing masks all the time. In surgery, yes. Otherwise, no.

We do have some medical people here. Anyone here ever experience that?

[Sarcastr0]

What you've personally never seen doesn't prove anything, much less the 'prove a negative' trap you've painted yourself into.

[Bored Lawyer]

Thank you for your adolescent comment. I'll take it FWIW.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one that came in with a superlative thesis, like a dumbass.

Others around here, I wouldn't hold to this standard, but I know you know better.

[Sarcastr0]

My counterexample is above - surgeries. Some of which take quite a while.

[Absaroka]

Sure, you hear stories of 'surgeons finish 18 hour multiple transplant', but in my fortunately limited interaction with surgeons spend a lot of time on pre-op ('let's look at the xrays and discuss options') and post-op ('let's see how those drains look') appointments. ISTR (disclaimer: wasn't paying a lot of attention) hearing things like 'the doc does surgeries Tue and Thu'. And even on surgery days the doc is in the OR, then out to talk to families ('Grandma's surgery went great!') and preop chats ('How's it going? Any concerns? OK, the nurse will be in to set up an IV in a bit, then we'll wheel you to the OR, blah, blah'), then back in the OR. IMHE, those not-in-the-OR conversations were unmasked, and my sense was they weren't a trivial part of the day.

I think I'd look to maybe dental techs, who have been masked for a long time, or industrial settings, for which it sounds like OSHA has data. Which also points to something that isn't being mentioned: why does OSHA require asbestos abatement people to wear masks, even as OSHA has CO2 exposure limits? And the answer is because rational people compare the risks of unmasked asbestos exposure and CO2 exposure and decide which is the lesser risk. None of the general 'too much CO2 is bad' papers here address the covid risk. It may be wise that Granny wear a mask for her weekly subway trip (high covid risk/low CO2 exposure time), while at the same time making 2nd graders mask all day might be dumb (low covid risk, long CO2 exposure). You can't discuss one risk without discussing the other. Rando papers on generalized CO2 exposure don't cut it.

(n.b. much of this is a general rant, not specifically in response to your comment, Sarcastro)

[Sarcastr0]

I have some friends from HS who went through med school, and while this was a decade ago now, they described their surgery rotations as being masked all day.

I know next to nothing about asbestos stuff.

There are not a lot of papers on masking, and masking in school strikes me as overcompensating. But I am also not prepared to assume it's bad like some above are aiming for.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I have some friends from HS who went through med school"

Of course you do.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you not only didn't go to high school with anyone who became a doctor, but find the very idea so alien and outlandish that you assume someone who claims they did is lying about it, you might want to keep that to yourself.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's always claiming to know something from talking to someone. They always seem to support exactly his point. Weird.

[Sarcastr0]

Because I don't say shit I don't have some experience or evidence is true, Bob.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don’t have some experience or evidence is true"

Unverifiable anecdotes are not "evidence"

My high school friends who are doctors say you are wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

Then find evidence to dispute what I said, Bob.

Just calling me a liar with zero contradictory evidence is not an argument, it's just you being an asshole.
And maybe some projection, since you've said before lying is on the table for you.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I know next to nothing ...". Stopping there would be a more accurate statement.

[Bob from Ohio]

He should start every comment with it. Its implied from his comments but he could make it clear for newbies.

[Ben_]

"Is long term masking detrimental to your health?"

If it’s found to be harmful, Dems will push for it to be mandatory.

[Nige]

If Dems are pushing them, Republicans will lie about them being harmful.

[Moderation4ever]

My wife and I went to a local presentation of the Immersive Van Gogh Experience. I am not an art expert, my rule with art is if I like it, I like. That extends to a range of art in both form and style. I will go to an art museum but only for a few hours before I am burned out. I found the Van Gogh Experience very interesting and did open my eyes to the range of work of this disturbed man. While the exhibit it is more for the proletariat than the elite, I do think it has purpose. I think I will be more open to Van Gogh work than just sunflowers and starry nights.

[OtisAH]

Fun fact: The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam is across the street diagonally from the House of Bols…

https://bols.com/cocktail-experience/house-of-bols

…which provides a nice one-two punch for a day of museum going.

[apedad]

Here Are Some of the Biggest SCOTUS Cases Coming in 2023 That Have Fallen Under the Radar

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/here-are-some-of-the-biggest-scotus-cases-coming-in-2023-that-have-fallen-under-the-radar/

The Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States case is (and is going to get) ugly.

From one of the links in the story, "In his book 'The Room Where It Happened,' former National Security Advisor John Bolton suggests a more personal camaraderie between the two leaders, describing Erdoğan as one of the 'dictators [Trump] liked.' Bolton wrote that Trump pulled foreign policy 'favors' for Erdoğan by trying to scuttle the criminal prosecution of Turkey’s state-run Halkbank, in a money laundering case allegedly tied to Erdoğan’s family and ruling Justice and Development Party."

[Bob from Ohio]

Turkey is a NATO ally and Erdoğan [while horrible] is not a dictator.

[Don Nico]

Under Erodgan Turkey is a NATO member that likes to play both sides of the game as plays up to Putin whenever possible. Edogan is an authoritarian who has inflicted constant violations of civil rights on Turkey's citizens

[Kazinski]

Well as someone who spent 2 months traveling in Turkey last winter I can tell you their concept of civil rights is a lot more restrictive than ours.

I was going to say random stops and searches and computer checks or ID's of pedestrians and vehicles are common, but that isn't quite true, the stops are systematic and ubiquitous.

For instance walking (out for some donner kebab and beer) from my hotel in Tuzla in the eastern suburbs of Istanbul there were 2 policeman stopping every pedestrian and checking ID. And taking an intercity bus between Bodrum and Antalya, the bus was stopped not once but twice and where they set up impromptu checkpoints, gathered the ID's of everyone on the bus (except my wife and I, they handed our passports back to us immediately), and spent 20 minutes in their van checking the IDs before we.got underway again.

But I will say I saw almost no homelessness in Turkey, in fact while street dogs and cats are ubiquitous there, they seem better taken care, and mentally and physically healthier, than our homeless population.

[not guilty]

Walgreen's has announced its intention to become a certified pharmacy to offer mifepristone for sale in states where it's legal. https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-abortion-pill-mifepristone-cvs-walmart-walgreens-unlikely-stock-2023-1 It is the first national pharmacy chain to do so.

I hope that others follow suit, if only to prevent price gouging.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Anyone remember when the Woolworths in the North were being picketed because of their segregated lunch counters in the SOUTH?

Why drive all the way to the distant abortion clinic when you can picket your local Walgreens?

And on a more legal note -- how much did they just wind up paying for diverted opioids? Think these pills won't also be diverted?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What NO ONE is thinking about is that about 10% of pill abortions have a "complication" -- some minor and some requiring medical attention. What's gonna happen when Red State Rosie takes the abortion pills she got in the mail and then has a life-threatening complication?

If Massachusetts can sue Walgreens for the costs that Massachusetts incurred as a result of the opioid diversions, why can't Mississippi for the abortion pill diversions?

If I remember correctly, these pills are made in China because no US drug company wanted the liability.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, usually when your medication causes a fetal death it's a bad thing.

[John F. Carr]

From the article: "The steps to become certified include being able to receive prescriber agreement forms by email and fax, being able to ship the abortion pill with a shipping service that provides tracking information, designating a representative to carry out the certification process, and ensuring that representative oversees compliance with the federal mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program."

Why so complicated? Is this a political compromise? To avoid administrative overhead it should be stuffed into an existing regulatory bucket:

OTC - You walk in and get it, no questions asked.
Cold medicine - You get put on a list of potential sluts and the pharmacy and the government check to make sure you aren't getting pregnant too often.
Regular prescription - If your doctor says you can have it, they give you the pill and ask if you have any questions.
Controlled substance - Like a regular prescription but the prescription needs a DEA control number and the pharmacy needs to be as vigilant as if you were buying cold medicine.

[Brett Bellmore]

While birth control pills remain prescription only...

[John F. Carr]

Mifepristone is still prescription-only. It is easier to have your prescription filled. "Mifepristone may only be dispensed by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber, or by a certified pharmacy on a prescription issued by a certified prescriber." https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/information-about-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation

[bernard11]

Hey Brett.

If it were up to Clarence Thomas they would be illegal.

[not guilty]

In the last Congress the House passed the Right to Contraception Act during the summer, with 195 Republicans voting no. Republicans in the Senate blocked consideration of the bill.

[Bored Lawyer]

Still don't understand the difference between "it's illegal" and "it's not a Constitutional right," do you?

Picking your nose in public should not be illegal. Nor is it protected by the Constitution if some jurisdiction is stupid enough to outlaw it.

[bernard11]

OK, B.L.

I will amend my comment.

If it were up to Republican legislators they would make it illegal, and Thomas would find no Constitutional issue, and would ignore precedent to uphold their law.

[Bored Lawyer]

Except the first part of your revised comment is not true. There is very little interest in banning contraceptives. (And spare me the few outliers, they are by far in the minority in the GOP.) In fact, the Republicans have for a long time been pressing for allowing contraceptives without prescriptions, which is the opposite of your comment.

[not guilty]

"There is very little interest in banning contraceptives. (And spare me the few outliers, they are by far in the minority in the GOP.) "

Do you contend that mainstream Republicans favor access to contraception? How then do you explain 195 House Republicans voting against the Right to Contraception Act and Republicans blocking Senate consideration of the bill last summer?

In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, particularly with its adoption of rational basis analysis of state regulations of abortion rights, I can easily envision a state prohibiting distribution of Plan B, or other contraceptive devices which are (mistakenly) believed to act as abortifacients. Such a prohibition would not pass constitutional muster so long as Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), and Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), remain good law. The current Supreme Court, however, with its hostility to stare decisis, would likely cast aside those precedents.

[Frank Drackman]

If I kill someone by putting a Cyanide Capsule in their drink, they're just as dead as if I'd shot or stabbed them, same with the "Abortion Pills" it's either murder or it isn't.

[not guilty]

Uh, a lawful abortion and a murder are mutually exclusive, like red and green or a circle and a rectangle.

[MoreCurious]

Don't confuse the poor man. When all you have is a middle-school education, it's hard to grasp complicated concepts.

[Nelson]

"it’s either murder or it isn’t"

That's an easy one. It isn't.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Your basis for this claim being what exactly?

[not guilty]

I surmise that the basis for bernard11's claim is Justice Thomas's concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___, ___ (2022), wherein he called for reconsideration of all of the Supreme Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Isn't it odd that Justice Thomas did not specifically mention Loving v. Virginia? Reconsideration of all of the Court's substantive due process would of course necessarily entail revisiting Loving. If the Court did so, would it opine that substantive due process, like affirmative action, is a really crappy idea for anyone whose first name is not Clarence or whose last name is not Thomas?

FWIW, Professor Blackmun wrote on this blog in December of 2019 that Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 remained on the books. https://reason.com/volokh/2019/12/06/virginia-legislature-to-repeal-the-racial-integrity-act-of-1924/ (I don't know whether it has since been repealed by the Virginia legislature.)

[David Nieporent]

Isn’t it odd that Justice Thomas did not specifically mention Loving v. Virginia? Reconsideration of all of the Court’s substantive due process would of course necessarily entail revisiting Loving. If the Court did so, would it opine that substantive due process, like affirmative action, is a really crappy idea for anyone whose first name is not Clarence or whose last name is not Thomas?

Once again: While SDP was discussed, Loving was an equal protection case. You could eliminate the entire SDP canon and it would not require overturning Loving.

[not guilty]

You know better. Loving was both an equal protection case and a substantive due process case. It was cited as an important SDP precedent in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015),

As Justice Thurgood Marshall opined in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383 (1978):

The leading decision of this Court on the right to marry is Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967). In that case, an interracial couple who had been convicted of violating Virginia’s miscegenation laws challenged the statutory scheme on both equal protection and due process grounds. The Court’s opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause; id. at 388 U. S. 11-12. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. The Court’s language on the latter point bears repeating:

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

[Loving,] at 388 U.S. 12.

If that is unpersuasive, please note Chief Justice Rehnquist's language from Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997): "[W]e have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right[] to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967)[.]"

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure what your point is. You're proving mine:

In that case, an interracial couple who had been convicted of violating Virginia’s miscegenation laws challenged the statutory scheme on both equal protection and due process grounds. The Court’s opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause; id. at 388 U. S. 11-12. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry.

There were two bases for the holding of Loving. First, it violates EP. And also, EDP. Eliminate SDP and Loving still protects interracial marriage.

[not guilty]

My point is that any reconsideration of all of the Court’s substantive due process -- which Clarence Thomas has expressly invited -- would necessarily entail revisiting Loving. Your gainsaying that Loving. is a substantive due process decision is simply inaccurate, as evidenced by the language I quoted above from Zablocki and Glucksberg.

[Bored Lawyer]

Notably, you don't cite the actual decision, but what others said about it later. Which is the very point that NP is alluding to. Loving stands on its own as an Equal Protection decision (EP being explicitly in the 14th Amendment) without substantive due process.

[not guilty]

There is nothing at all notable about later quotations reaffirming that Loving is in the substantive due process pantheon, but if it will make you feel better, Chief Justice Warren wrote for the Court in Loving:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

388 U.S. at 12.

[Bored Lawyer]

You are again avoiding the point. Your original snark was:

Isn’t it odd that Justice Thomas did not specifically mention Loving v. Virginia? Reconsideration of all of the Court’s substantive due process would of course necessarily entail revisiting Loving. If the Court did so, would it opine that substantive due process, like affirmative action, is a really crappy idea for anyone whose first name is not Clarence or whose last name is not Thomas?

But as NP correctly pointed out, and as an honest reading of Loving reveals, it stand on two independent bases, Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process. You can completely excise the latter and the former is sufficient to sustain the decision.

So it is not at all "odd" that Thomas did not mention Loving. What is odd is your obstinate insistence that Loving has to be overturned if substantive due process goes out the window. It doesn't.

[not guilty]

What is your point? Mifepristone requires a prescription.

[Frank Drackman]

As they should be.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes! Abortions for all of our Lower Socio-economic (i.e. "Black") peoples!!!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does a single Volokh Conspirator have the guts to print a representative collection of the bigoted comments precipitated by this blog, take them to that Conspirator's law school dean, and ask whether the school would prefer that the Conspirator leave the faculty?

Even one of you?

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like the perfect job for you. What are you waiting for?

[Sarcastr0]

This guy really gets to you.

And yet you don't mute him.

Glutton for punishment?

[Mr. Bumble]

Unlike you he will on occasion have something intelligent to say.
Also, unlike you, I grew up and stopped putting fingers in ears and and saying lalalala.
I don't mute anyone, even you.

[Sarcastr0]

Then quit complaining.

[Mr. Bumble]

Mute me or fuck off.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, it's been a while but I've seen you make some insightful points. I may mute you, if you get annoying. But for now, nah.

You seem to be one of those that hates me extra, or maybe you just use some hot rhetoric. Regardless, I don't think about you very much.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have no interest in interfering with anyone's employment.

Calling out hypocrisy, bigotry, cowardice, and the like in public -- especially with respect to partisans who constantly and misleadingly nip at the ankles and heels of others -- seems worthwhile, though.

[defaultdotxbe]

Your article says CVS is also doing it, in my area at least those 2 have a large enough footprint to swing the entire pharmacy market. I expect Walmart will have little choice to follow suit as well.

Only caveat is that as long as anti-abortion states can ban the drug it won't really expand access much, just make it more convenient in states where it was already pretty convenient.

[Nelson]

There will continue to be new plans to undermine the Republican assault on personal medical decisions because it is fundamentally wrong.

Republicans will continue to try to restrict any means of people who want abortions of getting one (travel bans for abortions is the most patently offensive, but there are plenty of contenders for the title).

Sooner or later Republicans (as opposed to cultural conservatives) will figure out that abortion is not the hill they want to die on and it will go the way of alcohol, contraception, interracial marriage, desegregation, gay marriage, and all the other existential threats to our culture that turned out to not be a threat at all. Another couple election cycles chasing the wishcasting by anti-abortionists and Republicans will come to their senses.

Cultural conservatives will always lose in the long run because no one wants to stagnate in stale, outdated values that have been exposed as arbitrary.

[not guilty]

Allowing states to regulate abortion rights didn’t work so well for the fetus fetishists in the midterm elections (as even Donald Trump has recognized).

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is this century's Buck v. Bell.

[defaultdotxbe]

Republicans are already finding themselves in the position of the dog that caught the car when it comes to abortion. I've noticed several in my state already softening their stance from total bans to the more generally acceptable 16-24 week bans.

This would be the best move on the part of Republicans too, as it would force Democrats to fight explicitly for late-term abortions, which are far more unpopular among the general voting public.

That said, I don't see it happening, Republicans are perennially convinced some magic "silent majority" supports them, so they pander to their base allowing Democrats to sweep up the moderates. Of course Democrats suffer the same flaw, so it tends to even out over time, allowing the status quo to continue unabated.

[Jerry B.]

In the Doors' song "Soft Parade" Jim Morrison states that "You cannot petition the Lord with prayer." This brought up a question from my wife, as to whether a petition has to be accepted for consideration by the person being petitioned to be an actual petition.

Any opinions?

[Frank Drackman]

Another "Doors" fan???
I prefer the "Mother, I want to (redacted) you, all night long, yeah, baby!"
OK, I shudder to think what I just revealed about myself, let me call mom.

Frank "Has anyone seen my "Killer" boots??"

[Commenter_XY]

The answer is no = does a petition has to be accepted for consideration by the person being petitioned to be an actual petition.

The petition comes from the individual's heart. Example, I see someone sick, and I ask God to bless that person and heal them in body, mind and spirit. The petition to The Almighty is quite real. Whether The Almighty chooses to answer Commenter_XY is a different matter.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ben Franklin had quite a bit to say about that. None of it to the effect that rejected colonial government petitions were not actual petitions.

By the way, for fans of the notion that Bill of Rights guarantees apply only to individual rights, Franklin's frustrations trying to prevent colonial government petitions stand as counter-examples, and notably important ones. Franklin said rejection of those petitions was Britain's most serious goad to war for the colonies.

[SRG]

Part 2 of Balko’s interview with defence investigator Andrew Sowards.
https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/on-broken-brains-a-broken-system
They go into some depth on the appalling Barry Jones case, where he was convicted for what was not in fact a crime and sentenced to death. He finally got to Federal court to provide evidence that the girl he was accused of murdering had actually died from natural causes and won the appeal. Arizona then appealed to the Supreme Court, which said, 6-3, in effect, you’re innocent but fuck off, you have no right to produce that evidence, because states’ rights are more important than your life. Back to Death Row with you.

The insane position that the Constitution does not prevent the execution of an innocent man continues to be upheld by these slime.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Many low-quality people walk among us.

The good news is that the marketplace of ideas and the culture war have produced beautiful progress against the efforts and preferences of the lessers.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Jerry, we can't all be 5 star recruits with a 46" vertical leap and Fo-Fo in the Foaty, and don't be so hard on your Low-Quality Ed-jew-ma-cated old ass, not everyone can get into an SEC school.

Frank

[not guilty]

Here is the SCOTUS opinion in Barry Jones's habeas corpus proceeding. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1009_19m2.pdf Enactment of AEDPA was the nadir of Bill Clinton's presidency.

There is serious question about Mr. Jones's guilt, but six members of SCOTUS cavalierly denied him the opportunity to litigate that question in federal court. Congress could of course provide relief by amending 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Will there be a hue and cry for that remedy by those who (in other contexts) yap and yammer about how "pro-life" they are?

[LawTalkingGuy]

That footnote in Shinn is the worst:

"Ramirez alleges that Arizona forfeited any §2254(e)(2) argument
in his case because it did not object to some evidentiary development in the District Court or before the Ninth Circuit panel. But Arizona did object to further factfinding before the Ninth Circuit panel, see Respondents-Appellees’ Answering Brief in Ramirez v. Ryan, No. 10–99023 (CA9), ECF Doc. 37, p. 58, and, in any event, the Ninth Circuit passed upon §2254(e)(2) when it ordered additional factfinding on remand, see United States v. Williams, 504 U. S. 36, 41 (1992). Further, because we
have discretion to forgive any forfeiture, and because “our deciding the matter now will reduce the likelihood of further litigation” in a 30-yearold murder case, Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 557 U. S. 1, 14 (2009) (plurality opinion), we choose to forgive the State’s forfeiture before the District Court."

All errors from the lawyer are attributed to the incarcerated defendant. But the state which employs thousands of lawyers gets their errors and forfeitures forgiven. Just a complete trashing of the concept of equal justice under law and the adversarial system.

[SRG]

Another case of actual innocence here: https://theintercept.com/2023/01/02/richard-glossip-execution-clemency/

One common theme is that claims of innocence are dismissed because each new exculpatory piece of evidence doesn't by itself persuade the courts or state officials and they have no intention of looking at the overall picture.

Of course, another one is that pro-execution officials are more concerned at protecting reputations than lives. Or perhaps they're such moral cripples that their fervent belief in the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent leads them to be willing to accept the occasional execution of the innocent.

[Sarcastr0]

Reading Truman by David McCullough.

It's fun, though it gets bogged down now that he's got all this Presidentin' to do.

Just a catalogue of some incredible twists of fate.

[Frank Drackman]

Love the part where he threatened bodily harm on the critic who umm, "Criticked" his daughter's singing (I hear it was pretty dreadful)

Frank

[Dan Schiavetta]

Amazing how well he did under pressure after FDR died. Thrust into that situation totally unprepared.

[Sarcastr0]

He was just a really good dude (machine politics aside), and super diligent. Could that be all it takes?

Though I've only gotten to him assuming the Presidency.

I've read about the great scene where he is notified he's the President a number of times in other books as well:

*upon hearing that the President is dead*
-Long, shocked pause
-Truman, to Mrs. Roosevelt: "Is there anything I can do for you, ma'am?"
-ER: "It is we who should be asking if there is anything we can do for you, because you're the one in trouble now!"

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed!

Eleanor herself was an asset to our Republic.

Aside from being (irresponsibly) kept in the dark about the atomic bomb and other vital matters, Truman did not have the advantages FDR had. FDR, besides having been in the office 12 years and known a number of world leaders, grew up well-connected. When he couldn’t do things “by the book”, he had a back channels available. Truman had nothing but intelligence, diligence, integrity, and a certain amount of unpolished charm. Also courage.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm a big fan, but FDR does *not* come off well in this bio.

[Dan Schiavetta]

No, he doesn’t. Though actually in those days most Presidents treated their Vice Presidents as nonentities and didn’t keep them in the loop. This business only ended with Carter and Mondale. It was irresponsible, in my view.

FDR and HST met exactly once before they got elected. It was August 1944 and even in the carefully retouched public photo you can see FDR is not well. Truman noticed that his hands were shaking so bad he couldn’t even stir his coffee.

[Absaroka]

I liked the anecdote where Boss Pendergast gives him a job overseeing county road repairs. Truman proceeds to hire the lowest bidder, not Pendergast's crony. Pendergast calles Truman in and asks 'what will it take for Crony to get a contract'. Truman answers 'Be the lowest bidder and do a good job'.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: George Santos
compare:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/who-is-julia-salazar

[SRG]

Oh, the "they've got one too!" defence.

[Frank Drackman]

More like the D's have 20 or 30, lets see, Poke-a-hontas, "Danang Dick", Serial Sex Offender NJ Senator Menendez, First Son (One who didn't die in Iraq) Hunter, Mullah Omar and her Brother/Husband, and and oldy but Kreepy Eric "I'm not gay, just like tickling my male interns" Massa, Anthony "Danger" Wiener, Weird Al Franken, Katie Hill, Barney Frank-en-fag, William Jefferson, AlGore, John Con-yers, Keith Ellison, Ruben Kihuen, Alcee Hastings, Andrew Cuomo (definitely "no Homo")
Frank

[Sarcastr0]

1) A *candidate* for *state senate*

2) She hasn't lied about her background...it seems she's changed her mind regarding support for Israel?

Wow, this is weak.

[Noscitur a sociis]

She did win the election, but I agree that the scale of her deception is more Blumenthal-level than Santos.

This guy on the other hand...

[Don Nico]

Yes, Just like Sen. Blumenthal. (D-Ct)

[Voize]

To be fair, she has been accused of lying about her birthplace.
In an interview in 2018 she did say

My family immigrated to the US from Colombia when I was a baby

and only later corrected in a Village Voice interview that

“I was born in Miami but it’s kind of complicated,” Salazar told Whitford. “Basically my parents were living in Colombia at the time but my mom was a flight attendant when my parents met so they were sort of transient when my brother and I were really young. So we lived in Colombia and then my mom raised my brother and I in South Florida.”

Maybe Ed thinks that is the moral equivalent of forging checks.

[Bored Lawyer]

One good thing that has come out of the McCarthy-for-speaker affair is that it has shown how impotent Donald Trump has become. He can't even persuade 20 of those closest to him to do his bidding.

Time to hang it up Donald. Find a golf course near Mar-A-Lago.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh dearie, the Congress can't pass any more bullshit laws, raise taxes, ban "Assault Weapons", give money to a Uke-ranian Comedian, until we get a new Speaker,
hoping we never get one,

Frank

[Gandydancer]

He couldn’t persuade the Executive Branch to do his bidding when he was President so, ignoring the nonsensicality of calling anyone your wild imagination imagines ought do his bidding “those closest to him”, why is that supposed to be a change?

[Bored Lawyer]

The Executive Branch was mostly hostile to Trump. The 20 or so Congresspeople who are resisting McCarthy consider themselves politically close to Trump. So, no, the two are not the same.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The executive branch consists largely of educated, reasoning, decent, civic-minded people residing in strong, modern, successful communities. It was natural, even unavoidable, that those people would disrespect Donald Trump and his supporters.

[Gandydancer]

Bored Lawyer-1: "He can’t even persuade 20 of those closest to him to do his bidding."
Bored Lawyer-2: "The 20 or so Congresspeople who are resisting McCarthy consider themselves politically close to Trump."

Really? Did his PACs give them any money? He is their patron and they owe him obedience only in your ignorant and deluded imagination. They all want Trump's voters, but voting for McCarthy is not the way to get them.

[jb]

Trump couldn't convince the executive branch to do his bidding at least as much because he had no interest in understanding how it worked as because it was actively hostile to his agenda.

[Nige]

I'm not so sure. A small number of extremists with bizarre beliefs taking control of the party seems like an evolution of Trumpism. They're basically his acolytes, which doesn't mean they obey him, but that they emulate him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That seems true. McCarthy and plenty of other Republicans appeased and enabled these disaffected, unpopular, delusional, antisocial, low-grade losers for years; predictably, this is being revealed to have been foolish and counterproductive.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. McCarthy played stupid games while Boehner and Ryan (among others) would not; as a result of the lack of competition, he has won a life-size stupid prize.

[Frank Drackman]

And the current regime of Senescent Joe is the Booby prize of all Stupid Prizes, pretty bad when his "Signature" accomplishment is getting Amurica closest it's been to WW3 since 1962.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

His signature accomplishment was ridding the White House and executive branch of former Pres. Donald J. Trump and the associated band of downscale, bigoted, disaffected, right-wing losers. That is why so many Americans -- the educated, decent, accomplished, reasoning Americans, especially -- voted for Pres. Biden.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, Senescent J won 99% of that "Educated, decent, accomplished, reasoning "Afro-Amurican Women (Also known as (redacted) vote, heck, even Afro-Amurican men are starting to figure out voting for Mass'a ain't gonna get you out of dose' chains.
And throw out California and New York, Pussy Grabber in Chief wins in a landslide.

Frank "Take California and New York, Please!"

[Brett Bellmore]

"He can’t even persuade 20 of those closest to him to do his bidding." coexists badly with "He was a power mad dictator and the object of worship for a cult of personality."

Just noting that. Worst. Dictator. Ever.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He was not a dictator. He was Judge Smails prancing around in that silly captain's hat . . . until Joe Biden dropped anchor.

(This clips -- hell, the entirety of the movie -- helps me understand why the Volokh Conspiracy doesn't seem to like me. I'm the Al Czervik to this blog's Judge Smails, Bushwood, and Flying Wasp.)

[Frank Drackman]

Only thing Al Czervik about you is your general obnoxiousness, hey watta ya know, you're right!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some people like Al Czervick.

Some prefer Judge Smails.

Not Ty’s father, of course.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett actually makes the 'do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?' argument.

[David Nieporent]

“He can’t even persuade 20 of those closest to him to do his bidding.” coexists badly with “He was a power mad dictator and the object of worship for a cult of personality.”

Just noting that. Worst. Dictator. Ever.

That his coup attempt failed because of his incompetence does not mean he wasn't a power mad dictator and the object of worship for a cult of personality.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was not his coup, if you even can say it was an attempt at a coup; The people who did it weren't acting on his orders. (If you can prove otherwise, feel free.) If the truth be told, it appears to have been organized by the FBI as an entrapment effort gone wrong. Not the first time they've set up some stupid terror plot to get some group they didn't like on conspiracy charges, and screw up and have it actually happen.

A "coup" is an attempt to violently overthrow the government. Trump was pursuing a legal/political strategy. A stupid legal/political strategy, an obnoxious one, even evil, if you like. But legal/political, NOT violent. His protest on the Mall was intended to put members of Congress in fear of their political careers, not their lives.

The attack on the Capitol actually terminated Trump's efforts to contest the election, by making them politically radioactive. It predictably ended them. It was utterly incompatible with what he actually was doing. It was so clearly predictable that it would have that effect that I suspect it was more of a Reichstagg fire than a coup.

Trump was the last President who could have pulled off a successful coup, and knew it. He barely had any control over the executive branch on a good day, the military bureaucracy treated him with contempt, a coup would have just given the feds an excuse to shoot him instead of letting him retire.

Only leaders who have the loyalty of the military and bureaucracy have any chance of carrying out a coup.

[David Nieporent]

It was not his coup, if you even can say it was an attempt at a coup; The people who did it weren’t acting on his orders.

Sure, in the same way that the knights who killed Thomas à Becket weren't acting on Henry II's orders.

(If you can prove otherwise, feel free.) If the truth be told, it appears to have been organized by the FBI as an entrapment effort gone wrong.

Not to any sane human being.

A “coup” is an attempt to violently overthrow the government. Trump was pursuing a legal/political strategy. A stupid legal/political strategy, an obnoxious one, even evil, if you like. But legal/political, NOT violent. His protest on the Mall was intended to put members of Congress in fear of their political careers, not their lives.

Sure it was. Which is why when he found out it was a violent attack, he gasped in horror and immediately called out the National Guard, and then rushed to a microphone to denounce the criminals, thugs, and vandals who were attacking the Capitol, and said, "When the looting starts, the shooting starts."

The attack on the Capitol actually terminated Trump’s efforts to contest the election,

It did no such thing, and of course his reaction was not to act chagrinned and drop the matter; his reaction was to contact various allies on the Hill and ask them to use the attack as an excuse to stall the vote so he could try to phony up some electoral votes for himself.

Trump was the last President who could have pulled off a successful coup, and knew it.

Trump was the only one who could have pulled off a coup, and he spent plenty of time trying to, and succeeding in, installing loyalists who would obey him rather than the constitution.

[Voize]

Trump was the last President who could have pulled off a successful coup, and knew it.

One of the documents Trump tried to keep the Archives from releasing to the Jan 6 committee was a draft executive order mobilizing the military to seize voting machines. He didn't sign the order, but it isn't clear whether he he held off because he realized it wouldn't work or someone else talked him out of it.

So no, he couldn't pull off a classic military coup, which is why he relied on his mob that was at once more excitable and incitable to storm Congress.

[Nige]

'Trump was the last President who could have pulled off a successful coup'

Most of your defences of Trump involving detailing what an utter failure he was.

[bernard11]

“He can’t even persuade 20 of those closest to him to do his bidding.” coexists badly with “He was a power mad dictator and the object of worship for a cult of personality.”

Verb tenses. How do they work?

[Brett Bellmore]

Just fine. He could hardly get people he'd personally appointed to do his bidding, while President. He NEVER had the level of control you fantasize.

[Nige]

And to think you all thought his managerial style was going to be the greatest thing to happen to US politics since Lincoln freed the slaves.

[LawTalkingGuy]

FTC is proposing a rule to ban all non-compete clauses in employment contracts using its Section 5 Authority to prevent "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

This is awesome.

Non-competes are already highly disfavored in the common law of contracts and difficult to enforce. They are only supposed to be for people with truly unique skills and proprietary knowledge and have limited geographical and temporal scope.

But that hasn't stopped employers putting them into all sorts of contracts anyway. Everyone from hairdressers to nurses. Jimmy Johns had clauses that "had barred departing employees from taking jobs with competitors of Jimmy John’s for two years after leaving the company and from working within two miles of a Jimmy John’s store that made more than 10 percent of its revenue from sandwiches." This is obviously unenforceable and Jimmy Johns likely wouldn't waste time enforcing it, but it is enough to scare employees into not leaving Jimmy johns or not seeking other food service employment after they left. Talk about an unfair practice. Eventually state regulators forced them to get rid of these.

And even in the areas that might plausibly have enforceable clauses, like tech, it stifles innovation and competition by keeping people in the same place or out of the market. And companies can still enforce NDAs and trade secret clauses in these contexts even with a ban on non-competes.

Banning non-competes will also reduce government involvement in the market place. When non-competes exist, enforcing them requires government intervention from the judicial branch! TROs, preliminary injunctions, lots of litigation and interference in the market for things that aren't always enforceable under common law anyway. A straightforward ban is easier to enforce from regulators and gets the judicial branch out of the market totally and lets more people be market participants.

I assume this ends with some stupid non-delegation/commerce clause/first amendment/ decision by the federal courts. But this is great policy nonetheless. If the FTC fails, Congress should act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/01/05/ftc-noncompete-ban-lina-khan/

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compete-clauses-following-settlement.html

[Frank Drackman]

Like with Abortions,
if you don't like Contracts with Non-Compete clauses, don't sign one,

Frank

[bernard11]

So says, "I've never actually needed a job" Drackman.

[Frank Drackman]

Not one I've had to sign a Non-compete for, I've tried getting out of the Gas Passing Biz, but just when I get out, they pull me back in!

[Brett Bellmore]

I've never had to sign one. "Oh, you mean I have to change careers if I stop working here?" Like anybody's going to try that in this industry, and expect to hire a decent engineer; The work's too specialized, you're hiring people who only have your competitors as alternative job options.

Now, NDA's, sure. THOSE I've signed.

[defaultdotxbe]

Unfortunately I think draconian NDAs are going to be the result of this, largely emulating the effect of non-compete clauses, especially in fields that provide a lot of employer-funded training.

[bernard11]

So neither Brett nor Frank has ever been asked to sign a non-compete as a condition of being hired. That's nice.

But what does it have to do with the discussion?

Frank says if you don't like it don't take the job. But, I suggest, some people might, as a practical matter, not have that choice. So they sign, and not knowing it's BS, let it constrain their behavior.

Are they really saying that because they haven't been asked to sign, that scenario never happens? If not what's their point?

[Brett Bellmore]

What it has to do with it is that these non-competes aren't universal, there are industries in which you don't see them.

I expect they're mostly seen in lines of work where particular individuals end up with personal followings, where if you went to work for a nearby competitor, the customers might follow you there.

No customer is going to follow a design engineer from one employer to another, so it's not an issue.

[Martinned]

Yes, we understand why employers might want them. But that doesn't tell you whether society as a whole would be better off if they didn't exist.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think society would be better off if they were restricted to a narrow range of jobs, where, as I said, employees end up with personal followings among the customers.

I'm not so sure we'd be better off entirely rid of them, because that discourages employer investment in making the employee more valuable.

But "not sure" ≠ "sure not"; My employer is glad to invest in making me more valuable, because I have a long term relationship with them. So non-competes are hardly the only way to see that sort of investment.

But I'm not at all confident that local non-competes in a limited range of businesses, such as hair dressing, that would stop you from taking your clientele across the street, but not stop you from getting a job in another town, are a bad thing.

Really, I think there might be a defensible use for them, just very limited.

[defaultdotxbe]

My experience is that they aren't applied to jobs where employees have a customer following, but to industries where only certain employees have a customer following. So even non-customer-facing employees get saddled with the same clauses. I had one when I worked for a mortgage company, even though it was only the loan officers with their large rolodexes they benefitted from retaining (I worked in the IT department).

They are also used in businesses that rely on trade secrets (even when such secrets only exist in the imaginations of management, e.g. Jimmy Johns)

[Martinned]

The FTC thought of that. From the definitions section of the proposed rule:

The term non-compete clause includes a contractual term that is a de facto non-compete clause because it has the effect of prohibiting the worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person or operating a business after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer. For example, the following types of contractual terms, among others, may be de facto non-compete clauses:

i. A non-disclosure agreement between an employer and a worker that is written so broadly that it effectively precludes the worker from working in the same field after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer.

[jb]

Agreed, this is a really positive development. As you say there's some cases where they are arguably reasonable, but on balance they'd clearly become more of a bludgeon against workers than something being used to legitimately look after the proprietary interests of employers.

Noncompetes were already disallowed under California (and some other states') laws, which made them less of an issues in tech than they might otherwise be.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Right. Also should have mentioned that a good way to tell that noncompetes suck is that lawyers won’t let themselves be bound by then. In fact they say it’s unethical to do so!

[bernard11]

As a practical matter, they are generally a lousy idea.

IME they are not just difficult to enforce, they are resented by employees, and get the working relationship off to a bad start.

"Glad you've accepted our job offer, Ms. Jones, now just sign this three-page legal document and we'll get you right to work."

"Um. Could I take a day to show it to a lawyer?" (Wonders what the fee will be.)

Jones finds out it's unenforceable BS, shrugs and signs, but wonders why the company is doing this.

Great start.

[defaultdotxbe]

The only time I can see them being useful is if you employer spends a lot of money providing training, but that can just as easily be accomplished by a limited non-compete from the date of training, so you keep working for the company that paid to train you for 2 years, then you can leave for a competing company immediately.

[Frank Drackman]

José Inez García Zárate (or Juan Francisco López-Sánchez),[18] of Guanajuato, Mexico, is an illegal immigrant who was deported from the U.S. a total of five times, most recently in 2009.[19] He was on probation in Texas at the time of the shooting.[20] He had seven felony convictions, none of them for violent crimes. When he was apprehended, García Zárate was listed as 45 years old by police, but as 52 in jail records.[21]

[bevis the lumberjack]

Lawyers are bound by professional non-disclosure rules (aka privilege). No need to put a lawyer on a non-compete.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Actually those have nothing to do with each other.

The duty of confidentiality and avoiding client conflicts would still exist if lawyers had non-competes. Non-competes would say Firm X lawyers can't go to similar firms or do similar work in certain area for a certain time period.

The reason lawyers give themselves for banning non-competes is that it deprives the public of the right to their services because it interferes in their ability to maintain the counsel of their choice. Which is nonsense of course.

[defaultdotxbe]

“store that made more than 10 percent of its revenue from sandwiches.”

I would love to see Jimmy Johns vehemently enforce this solely because it would inevitably result in a judicial decision settling the “is a hot dog a sandwich” debate.

[bevis the lumberjack]

This isn’t awesome at all. In certain positions employees/managers get great exposure to company trade secrets and strategic things and product designs, both current and future. To generate that knowledge on company A’s nickle then run out and sell it to company B is unethical. That’s not competition, it’s theft.

Not to mention that the FTC has no legal basis on which to do this. Which of course doesn’t bother those of you that don’t mind being governed by politically driven unelected bureaucrats.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"In certain positions employees/managers get great exposure to company trade secrets and strategic things and product designs, both current and future."

NDAs and trade secret clauses can still exist without non-competes. If someone sells proprietary information you can still sue them. Non-competes prohibit merely working for someone else.

"To generate that knowledge on company A’s nickle then run out and sell it to company B is unethical. That’s not competition, it’s theft."

Again, that's stealing and selling trade secrets, a separate thing.

"Not to mention that the FTC has no legal basis on which to do this."

They absolutely do under Section 5 of the FTCA.

"Which of course doesn’t bother those of you that don’t mind being governed by politically driven unelected bureaucrats."

This is what happens when federal judges make decisions. In fact as I stated, allowing non-competes requires more government interference in business and employment decisions than simply banning them.

[jb]

"NDAs and trade secret clauses can still exist without non-competes. If someone sells proprietary information you can still sue them. Non-competes prohibit merely working for someone else."

Yes, see Google and Anthony Levandowsky as an example of this. They did not have a noncompete with him (because they're not enforceable in California) but that did not prevent them from taking action when he stole their proprietary information.

But (responding to bevis here) as I pointed out above--even if there are a few situations in which noncompetes are legitimate, they've become so overused in places where they are clearly not being used to protect an employer's proprietary interest that it's a small price to pay to lose these small handful of legitimate uses of noncompetes in order to generally make people more mobile and for it to be easier for new companies to come into existing markets.

[David Nieporent]

they’ve become so overused in places where they are clearly not being used to protect an employer’s proprietary interest

My complaint is that they're unethically used to leverage outcomes that the law wouldn't allow. For example, Employee X starts work at Company A and signs one that is obviously (to a lawyer) unenforceable because it is overbroad in time and subject and geographic scope.

Employee X eventually tries to move on to Company B. Company A contacts Company B with a C&D, threatening a suit for tortious interference if it hires the employee. At that point, B has two choices:

1) Talk to its lawyer, determine that the non-compete is unenforceable in this context, and ignore A's threats.

2) Say, "You know what? We don't need this grief. We don't want to risk being sued. X, thanks but no thanks; we'll hire Y instead."

So A gets the benefit of de facto enforcement of an unenforceable non-compete.

[Ridgeway]

I agree.

Perversely, this affects people for whom non-competes are least necessary.

For high-level people w specialized skills, the prospective employer is much more likely to investigate and proceed with the hire. It is the lower-level hires, where there are plenty of other similarly-qualified candidates, for whom the prospective employer is more likely to drop the matter once he receives the nastygram from the former employer.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It could also be possible for the FTC either on this proposed rulemaking or a later rulemaking after the ban to decide certain non-competes are okay. But the default should be they're not allowed given how ripe they are for abuse. Make it so that employers really have to justify it and confine it to situations where they might be dealing with a really sophisticated (and represented) employee. Maybe there could be a compensation threshold or something that would limit it to C-suite or similar employees.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s not stealing and selling. It’s stealing and using. Getting a sweet position with company B because of what you know about company A based on your employment with A. That can’t be prosecuted, or punished civilly, outside of a contractual agreement.

So you’re claiming that having an employee sign a non-compete is an unfair method of competition? Seriously? I’d argue that the opposite - poaching a competitor’s employees to access their knowledge - is unfair competition.

[David Nieporent]

That can’t be prosecuted, or punished civilly,

It can if it's a trade secret

outside of a contractual agreement.

Like an NDA.

[bevis the lumberjack]

An NDA is much more difficult to enforce than a non-compete.

See my post a few posts down for more clarification. Don’t want to type it twice.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. You're still thinking about this too narrowly as if they're used exclusively to prevent a genius inventor going from IBM to GE. That's why I noted that in some cases they're plausibly legitimate.

The reality is, these are very often used by employers in all sorts of contexts to unfairly force unsophisticated and low wage workers into thinking they can't leave their jobs ever, or negotiate better wages for fear of being fired and boxed out by the noncompete. These are workers who don't actually have any special proprietary knowledge.

You can have non-competes for:

nurses,
mechanics,
accountants,
hairdressers,
sandwich shop employees, etc.

None of these people have special secret proprietary information. A hairdresser who learned her craft at cosmetology school leaving one employer to go rent a chair at another shop down the street or to work for another shop offering a better wage is just the market in action. A non-compete for her artificially constrains the labor market and she either doesn't think she can leave or can't make more money doing hair for an arbitrary period of time. Additionally her employer might not even bother enforcing it in court if she does go somewhere else because their lawyers might say its not actually enforceable. But they achieved the chilling effect nonetheless. Putting a clause of questionable enforcement into a low wage workers contract to scare them into not looking for better opportunities is absolutely an unfair and deceptive trade practice. Banning them would prevent this unfair practice.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Getting a sweet position with company B because of what you know about company A based on your employment with A. That can’t be prosecuted, or punished civilly, outside of a contractual agreement."

Companies will still be able to use contracts - NDAs specifically - to protect trade secrets. The real purpose of non-competes is to enforce labor discipline and suppress wages, not merely protect proprietary information.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Let me be clear - I’m talking about non competes at the executive and technical levels. People who are already very well compensated.

I agree that non competes for lower paid staff is bad. It’s also something I’ve never seen done. FWIW. Every one I’ve seen was VP level and/or senior technical level. And they’re compensated with packages that kick in should separation occur so they don’t have to work right away. These contracts cut both ways.

[Bored Lawyer]

Non-competes have their place in certain, specialized situations, but most times they are garbage and largely unenforceable. Only when there is a real danger of taking trade secrets, or where there is a close association between the person and clientele (e.g., someone buys a business from a person in a service industry) might there be a justification.

But a blanket ban by the FTC seems overreach. There should be an exemption, perhaps for high-salaried persons or those with significant equity. Or in connection with sale of a business.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sure. And maybe some comments on this rule or future rules will make some well-crafted exceptions. But I think it should be the default position that they're banned because of how broad the current overreach is.

[Bored Lawyer]

How about the ban does not apply to anyone making a salary of over $ 300k? (The common law disfavor of non-competes would still be in place. IOW, even if you the employer pays someone over $ 300k, they still have to convince a court that the non-compete is enforceable under state law.)

[AtR]

How about them Twitter files?

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-the-fbi-hacked-twitter-lee-smith

[Sarcastr0]

This appears to be an opinion piece that draws a lot of conclusions that have been well debunked already.

Repeating stuff that's wrong does not make it less wrong.

[AtR]

I agree that it's an opinion piece (I did not suggest otherwise!) ... but claiming that the points have been debunked without any explanation seems a bit lazy.

Human beings don't debunk anything ... at best, they provide evidence against the point.

[Sarcastr0]

It draws unsupported conclusions that have been addressed as unsupported around here many times.

Do you have any particularly damming conclusions you'd like to highlight? Those that remain around here don't mind repeating ourselves.

[AtR]

I think that he paints a picture of general federal circumvention of the first amendment that (i) is gravely injurious to the constitution, and (ii) has no clear remedy or recourse.

I agree that he takes liberties with some of his conclusions (e.g., regarding the reason for the $3.5 million payoff to Twitter, which is really very little in the grand scheme of things), but the broader picture seems to be more or less on target, and very disconcerting.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

DEBOOONKED!

lmao no they haven't. The Federals were colluding to violate our constitutional rights.

[Ben_]

Note that Sarcastr0 doesn’t refer to anything specifically being "debunked".

Someone, at some time, got at least one thing partially wrong, so Sarcastr0 is using that to pretend facts are lies and lies are facts. It’s a pattern for him.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hell yeah, Ben. I didn't point out any of the tons of bullshit because it's all true. I see below, some folks have already found some favorite lies. I'm a bit lazier than them, I guess.

I invite you - if you think there's a specific smoking gun in the article, point it out. Rather than just attacking me personally.

[Ben_]

"…if you think there’s a specific smoking gun in the article…"

Euphemistic goalposts don’t even need to be moved.

[Sarcastr0]

Full retreat then.

Did you even read the linked article?

[Ben_]

No. Nor did I comment on it.

[David Nieporent]

Lee Smith is a Russiagate hoax hoaxer.

[M L]

I love this. A bunch of files get dumped about whatever, and within hours, mouthbreathers are all "been well deboonked already."

Well let's have it. Link to the deboonkings from Politifact or whoever please.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read the piece? It’s not talking about any action or policy we haven’t addressed in discussions here, at least in principle.

If you think it has new insights, then *you* can point them out.

The right has now reached the ‘if it it’s all BS, why do I keep insisting it’s true?!’ levels of disengaged outrage.

Noscitur points out a concrete lie, and no one has replied. Y'all just try and shift the burden on me.
I admit to being a softer target than he is, but your choices of where to engage are telling, seems to me.

[M L]

My bad. I assumed the article was about the recent information dumps. Looks like it's a lot more general. May include the recent revelations too, though. Regardless, would still like to see the deboonks you are claiming.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Records from the Twitter files show that the FBI paid Twitter nearly $3.5 million, apparently for actions in connection with the 2020 election and nominally a payout for the platform’s work censoring “dangerous” content that had been flagged as mis- or disinformation.

I think this tells you all you need to know about the credibility of the article.

[David Nieporent]

Right; either he's an outright liar or he's a writer who doesn't know what the word "nominally" means. And a liar.

[M L]

"I think this tells you all you need to know about the credibility of the article."

Can you explain what you think is inaccurate here? I genuinely can't tell, unless it is just poor writing and word choice.

My understanding is the amounts paid reflect reimbursement of reasonable expenses, and this is supposedly standard procedure and required by law.

[jb]

The payments have nothing to do with either the 2020 election or with censoring anything. They're payments to Twitter for the production of evidence in response to subpoenas. Anyone attempting to tie the payments to anything else is either not making any attempt whatsoever to understand what the government is paying Twitter for or lying.

[David Nieporent]

Correct, and moreover it's statutory, not something the FBI came up with. Federal law says that the government shall reimburse companies for the cost of complying with the subpoenas.

[bernard11]

Meanwhile, free-speech zealot Musk bans left-wingers and others he dislikes, while hastening to restore Nazi accounts.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I can't see any good reason to ban Antifa accounts, especially since they told the reporter specifically that they were doing nothing wrong. /sarc

At least they banned the "Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club, a group that provides armed security for LGBTQ+ events in Texas."

A bunch of Texas gun nuts - sounds violent to me!

[bernard11]

What will/should/might happen to Southwest as a result of their meltdown?

[defaultdotxbe]

Assuming all the threats from the Biden administration are nothing more than bluster and posturing I think they face two options.

1: Implement massive company-wide upgrades to their systems to prevent this from happening again, however this will likely force them to increase their fares to cover the additional costs, resulting in a larger loss of market share than they already have, and difficulty in getting customers back.

2: Lower their fares to attract customers back, however this will reduce their capital to implement the needed upgrades and likely cause an even bigger meltdown in the future.

Given their status as the budget airline, 1 will prove to be a much larger hurdle and unfortunately they will probably choose 2.

[defaultdotxbe]

Personally I stopped flying Southwest when my waistline exceeded their seat sizes, luckily that was around the same time that my bank account exceeded their competitors fares.

[bernard11]

It seems they had the money to upgrade their technology. They spent billions on share buybacks instead.

To some, including me, it looks like a simple case. Execs with compensation tied to short-term share performance buy back shares to boost the price, increasing their pay, and leaving long-term needs unaddressed, hoping to be out the door when problems hit.

[jb]

The US really ought to adopt EU-style consumer protections for air passengers. That would create a much stronger incentive to avoid situations like this, and make passengers more whole when there are problems.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Protections like what?

[jb]

1) Airlines are obliged to provide accommodations, meals, etc. during delays or cancellations.
2) For delays for which the airlines are at fault, they also owe monetary compensation tied to the length of the flight and delay, capping out at 600 EUR per passenger.
3) They're also obliged to arrange alternative transportation in the event of a cancellation if the passenger opts for that, as opposed to just being able to cancel and walk away from the contract.

[Bored Lawyer]

All of which would make tickets much more expensive. As Milton Friedman used to say, there is no free lunch.

(That being said, there have been too many bailouts of failing industries, which is a market distortion. I once flew an airline that really annoyed me, and I resolved never to fly them again. Then a couple of years later, their chairman appeared at some Congressional Committee hearing begging for a bailout.)

[bernard11]

I don't think you can back up the "much" part of "much more expensive."

Further, your argument fails on its own terms. No free lunch, remember. So if the passenger is SOL when problems arise, then those costs are part of the "ticket price." The ticket costs $500, say, except every now and then it's going to cost $1500, and you have no way of knowing if this is the time.

And that doesn't even take into account the non-monetary cost of the disruption of your travel.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, your way of knowing in advance is "paying for travel insurance".

[jb]

Please look at airfares in Europe and tell me how much more expensive they are than in the US. We don't need to speculate about the costs of these protections--they're actually existed for some time so we can observe the actual effects.

There's been studies on this and the do come at a cost, which is roughly 1-2% of the plane ticket. That's considerably less than what you could privately insure for against these risks. (Once again if you don't believe me just go try to buy a comparable travel insurance policy next time you buy a plane ticket.)

Most importantly, it better aligns incentives. Airlines right now get to externalize the costs of their shoddy operations onto their customers. In the European model they bear much more of the costs themselves and as a result Europen airlines have tended to be significantly more reliable than their US counterparts. (At least until Covid, but most of the blame for that is on airports rather than airlines.)

[Ben_]

"What will/should/might happen to Southwest as a result of their meltdown?"

Southwest will hire diversity DEI staff and fliers will be called racist when they complain.

Air travelers will be told to check their privilege and serving customers will disappear as a goal, just like serving students is no longer a goal at universities and serving the public is no longer a goal at any level of government.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You sound disaffected, Ben. Why do you hate modern America and most Americans?

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

[Ben_]

Here’s what one of The Good Guys said about free speech advocates in a recent public meeting:

…Corkins saying there are “abusive” faculty that “we have to continue to cull.”

“Got them in my livestock operation and that’s why we put a rope on some of them and take them to the slaughterhouse. That’s a fact of life with human nature and so forth, I don’t know how to say it any clearer,” he said

The free speech advocates were making the special people feel unsafe, you see.

[Sarcastr0]

Kern Community College District Board of Trustees member?

Quit nutpicking.

[Ben_]

There are a lot more guys like him in positions of authority than there are white supremacists.

He’s just another one of The Good Guys.

[Sarcastr0]

Handwaiving does not make your picked nut any less picked.

[OtisAH]

McCarthy goes down an eighth time. Boebert and Gaetz abandon their performative support for Donalds (her for Hern from Oklahoma; him for Big Baby because he has to try to undo his perfidy and back-talk from yesterday). Turnip is now losing elections he hasn’t even entered.

[Ben_]

"Turnip is now losing elections he hasn’t even entered."

You’re so obsessed with Trump that you think everything is about him. And you’re doing the childish name-calling thing that tells everyone you’re not a serious person.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

you’re doing the childish name-calling thing that tells everyone you’re not a serious person

You must be new here. Welcome, newbie!

[OtisAH]

Who are you again?

[Ben_]

Who is anyone?

[ReaderY]

One would think that non-compete agreements, especially for low-wage, low-skill workers, would be an area where traditional pro-competition conservatives and progressives could find some agreement.

It also reflects the type of situation where government simply isn’t the only source of coercive control over other people’s lives, but rather is needed as a counterweight to, or at least needs to stop enabling, private sources of coercive control.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And the private coercion of the non-compete relies on the threat of government coercion anyway: judicial enforcement.

[M L]

I'd be open to whatever regulation of non-compete agreements. I would not be open to the idea that unelected bureaucrats in D.C. have the authority to regulate non-compete agreements in a state. Similarly, Congress was not delegated any enumerated power to regulate such private activity in a state.

[gallinalg85]

When SCOTUS overturned Roe, they should have ruled that state supreme courts are prohibited from finding protections for abortion in their state constitutions as well. They underestimated how many leftist judges sit on state supreme courts.

[LawTalkingGuy]

When SCOTUS overturned roe they should have also done something blatantly unconstitutional and unenforceable. Good take.

[gallinalg85]

At this point, I don't really care. We're living in an extraconstitutional, illegal regime. The ends justify the means.

[not guilty]

Whether you care or not means bupkis. All federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are courts of limited jurisdiction.

[Ben_]

No, the problem with Roe was always that it was made-up nonsense that justices were pretending appeared in the constitution. It was always rightfully a concern for the states.

The federal government has no business being involved in any way.

[not guilty]

"When SCOTUS overturned Roe, they should have ruled that state supreme courts are prohibited from finding protections for abortion in their state constitutions as well. They underestimated how many leftist judges sit on state supreme courts."

Uh, a state court of last resort is the final authority on interpreting that state's constitution. ""It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by [the U.S. Supreme Court] in interpreting their state constitutions." Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 (1983), quoting Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551, 557 (1940). SCOTUS jurisdiction to review state court decisions by certiorari, 28 U.S.C. § 1257, does not extend to judgments of state courts that rest on adequate and independent state grounds.

[gallinalg85]

That doesn't mean that state courts should be allowed to use the same perversion of the language as the Roe court did.

[not guilty]

Your claim above is that SCOTUS "should have ruled that state supreme courts are prohibited from finding protections for abortion in their state constitutions as well." That Court, however, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to do so.

Do you have any authority that SCOTUS can abrogate a state court decision resting upon the adequate and independent state grounds of the state's very constitution? If so, please cite specifically to the statute(s) or decision(s) authorizing it to do so.

[gallinalg85]

Again, I no longer care about the rule of law, because left has decided to eliminate it. At this point, it should be "Do whatever you need to, by whatever means necessary, including violence."

[not guilty]

IOW, you agree with Donald Trump's call for "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” because you are seriously butthurt?

As for your admonition to “Do whatever you need to, by whatever means necessary, including violence[,]” how did that work out for your ideological forebears in 1861?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Again, I no longer care about the rule of law

Prof. Blackman is always looking for co-authors.

[not guilty]

In a splintered 3-2 decision, the Supreme Court of South Carolina has invalidated the legislature's so-called "Fetal Heartbeat Act," with the majority opining that the Act effects an unreasonable invasion of privacy in contravention of the state constitution. https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/28127.pdf

This is the first time a state Supreme Court has found a right to abortion in its state constitution since the overruling of Roe v. Wade last year. Similar state constitutional challenges are pending in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Utah, and Wyoming.

[bernard11]

Is this some sewage seeping in from the main Reason site?

[gallinalg85]

The only sewage is what comes out of your tuchis when your "husband" gets done poking you.

[Absaroka]

Goodbye.

[gallinalg85]

Bye.

[glorfindel]

At what point should big tech's partisan at the behest of government employess become an in kind campaign contribution to the candidates that benefitted?

[John F. Carr]

If you can get control of the FEC, you can decide the answer.

[Martinned]

The FEC can't even decide what stationary to buy without permission from Congress, the President, and/or the judiciary.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's so funny watching the Federals screech about the minority, The Patriotic 20, are subverting the will of the majority the Republican clan of the Federals, as if the Federals haven't spent the past six decades ignoring what the majority of people want to endlessly funding wars, family members, and paying off lobbyists.

[David Nieporent]

What on earth are "the Federals"?

[FishBait05]

It's indisputable that Obama and Biden were gay lovers in the Oval Office. The only question is, who was the pitcher and who was the catcher? Was Obama pitching his chocolate love deep into Biden's b*tthole, or was Obama grabbing the edge of the desk while Biden plowed him good and hard, leaving a massive load of creepy old man cream to drip out in front of Michelle?

[David Nieporent]

Poe's law. Can't tell if this is a parody of the people here obsessed with gay sex, or a loon.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

As always, Prof. Volokh's ostensible "civility standards" -- which censor comments using terms such as "sl_ck-j_w" and "c_p succ_r" to describe conservatives, but allow this one (and those calling for liberals to be gassed, shot in th face, placed in landfills, sent to Zyklon showers, raped, shoved into woodchippers, etc. -- are quite something to behold.

No wonder he doesn't want to discuss this subject. He lets his censoring finger do the talking.

Carry on, clingers.

[WideBody]

Can someone please explain to me Supreme Court Docket 22-380 Brunson v Adams. Tomorrow docket.

How could this case get to the supreme court?
Thanks

[Bored Lawyer]

If you look at the docket, all that has happened is that someone petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. It's called a petition for writ of certiorari, which is a fancy legal way of saying, please review my case.

SCOTUS can take the case or not. Most of the time they don't. Acc. to one site I just looked at, less than 3% of such petitions are granted. So it means little.

[David Nieporent]

"Get to the Supreme Court" is a meaningless statement. It's like mailing your manifesto about how Froot Loops should be the sole food that members of the Marine Corps should be allowed to eat to your Congressperson, and then saying, "How could this proposal get to Congress"? It got there because you mailed it. Nobody is taking it seriously.

Similarly, anyone who pays a filing fee can submit an appeal to the Supreme Court. That's all that happened here. Someone mailed it. They're asking the Court to hear the case. The Court will not hear the case, because the people involved are mentally ill.

[Bored Lawyer]

"It’s like mailing your manifesto about how Froot Loops should be the sole food that members of the Marine Corps should be allowed to eat to your Congressperson, and then saying, “How could this proposal get to Congress”? "

Good one.

[David Nieporent]

Wait: good proposal, or good example?

[Bored Lawyer]

Not sure. Didn't eat my Fruit Loops yet today. I'll get back to you when I do. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”).

Proceeding was for the purpose of counting votes under the 2020 Presidential election for the President and Vice President of the United States under Amendment XII.

During this Proceeding over 100 members of U.S. Congress claimed factual evidence that the said election was rigged.

The refusal of the Respondents to investigate this congressional claim (the enemy) is an act of treason and This fraud by Respondents.

A successfully rigged election has the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the victor wants, which in this case is Biden, who, if not stopped immediately, will continue to destroy the fundamental freedoms of Brunson and all U.S. Citizens and courts of law.

[jb]

Was not surprised to see that this guy is representing himself.

[Bored Lawyer]

This just in:

Palestinian claims Israel training cattle to spy on Palestinians

A Palestinian villager is claiming that Israel has been training its cattle to go and spy on Palestinians.

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-726825

Wow, what us Jews can't do. Space lasers, dolphins and now cows!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“And those sheep are all liars!”

Wait, that’s the punch line to a different joke.

So anyway, moo-zel tov.

Why do you have a beef with the Palestinians?

[Bored Lawyer]

The cows work for the Moosad.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, Munich, to start with.

[Martinned]

Can someone explain to me what the point is of these endless rounds of voting that all end the same way (plus or minus a vote here or there)? Why don't they just adjourn until the Republican caucus has figured out who should be Speaker?

[Brett Bellmore]

The people who voted against McCarthy can't back down, because as Speaker he'd be in a position to effectively neuter them, denying them any committee assignments, making all their amendments and proposed bills DOA. They've struck at the King and must kill him.

McCarthy still thinks he has a path to victory. So he's not backing down.

And they have adjourned each night to privately negotiate.

This is just going to go on and on until one side folds, or the Democrats decide to make McCarthy speaker, which would settle the matter, but leave him utterly radioactive with his own caucus.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another prospect: Plenty of Republicans attended conservative-controlled, backwater religious schools, so enough of them might whiff on the math, miss a vote, and enable Jeffries to be elected with 212.

[David Nieporent]

Yawn. It's not just that you're a troll; it's that you're a bad one.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, he's not just a Troll, he's All American Defensive Coach Jerry Sandusky!

[Martinned]

Even if that did happen, the Republicans could always kick him out again.

[Martinned]

Yes, I get all of that, but why do they come back every day to hold votes that everyone knows won't result in the election of a Speaker? Why don't they just stop voting until someone knows they can win? That way most Representatives can stop wasting their time and go back to doing their real jobs: calling people to raise money for their re-elections.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe everyone DOESN'T know the outcome of the vote? Maybe they're hoping somebody will fold, and that will start a general cave?

[Martinned]

How is that working out for McCarthy after 11 votes?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not well, but we're early in this game.

As I've explained, the holdouts have good reason to be intransigent, McCarthy WILL punish them if he prevails. Unless they can get nailed down rules changes that would prevent that, (And that's where the negotiations seem to be heading.) it would be suicidal to back down at this point.

McCarthy is holding the threat of a Democrat replacing him over their heads: All he has to do is get the vote held with enough Republicans absent, and, presto: Democratic Speaker. But if he's seen as arranging that, he becomes radioactive. So it's a last ditch move.

I think at this point they're just negotiating in the background who will replace him, and holding votes to mark time. But that's just a guess.

[Commenter_XY]

If Congress does absolutely nothing for the next month except hold fruitless votes for a Speaker...is that actually bad? 🙂

And, would anyone outside of the Beltway even notice (or care)?

[David Nieporent]

As I’ve explained, the holdouts have good reason to be intransigent, McCarthy WILL punish them if he prevails.

You didn't "explain" that; you asserted that. Mistakenly.

McCarthy is holding the threat of a Democrat replacing him over their heads: All he has to do is get the vote held with enough Republicans absent, and, presto: Democratic Speaker. But if he’s seen as arranging that, he becomes radioactive. So it’s a last ditch move.

It's a thing happening only in your head, so nobody can possibly ever see him arranging that.

[Gandydancer]

Reason’s software fucked up the urls, and I ran out of time trying to unfuck them.

And I see there's a "Your comment is awaiting moderation" message. AFAIK that's a new feature.

So here's the comment w/o the urls:

Google is evil and never your friend.

And if you want me to believe that the BELIEF that the ammo loading in a bathroom stall occurred you’re going to need better evidence than DuckDuckGo provides: url#1 url#2

Why would someone leave his AR-15 outside but go into a stall to load other weapons? Surely the counter around the sinks would be more convenient if for some reason the weapons couldn’t be loaded before entering the store?

Anyway, why does Artie imagine that this event took ten yors to “precipitate into this discussion?

And I repeat my observation that generalizing this once-in-a-lifetime incident to “the mere ‘appearance of an armed person… caus[ing] fear and panic’” is lunacy.

[Gandydancer]

OK, this window was still open:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/an-atlanta-shopper-believed-he-heard-someone-loading-guns-in-a-bathroom-stall-police-arrested-a-man-with-6-guns-1.5364226

The other article was on CNN.com.