Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

I have not followed the grand jury investigation of Donald Trump in New York as closely as I have the other investigations. The offending conduct there is relatively minor (at least compared to the other jurisdictions). I would feel better if the star witness had not pleaded guilty to multiple crimes, including one count of making false representations to Congress.

Be that as it may, Glenn Kirschner has an interesting take on why Michael Cohen will be an effective prosecution witness against Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lw2sjibWGE

[Kazinski]

Don't you need a crime before you have a prosecution?

Even back when Mueller got Cohen to plead guilty to something that wasn't a crime to make it seem they had the goods on Trump, you could see it was going nowhere.

If Trump paid hush money for a consensual affair from his campaign then that would have been a crime, trying to make it a crime using his own funds is a nonstarter.

[Mr. Bumble]

The "crime" is anything Trump has done and the process is the punishment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which is why this is going to be a "long, hot, summer."

[John F. Carr]

The money was allegedly given the wrong accounting code, "tax-deductible professional legal services" instead of "miscellaneous".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Aren't there procedures for correcting clerical errors?

[John F. Carr]

On the accounting error, if it was a mistake it can be fixed and a corrected tax return filed. If it was intentional, a later correction does not negate criminal intent at the time of the illegal act. Both tax evasion and the most relevant corporate records law require proof of criminal intent.

On the illegal campaign contribution angle I have no opinion.

[myself]

The money was allegedly given the wrong accounting code, “tax-deductible professional legal services” instead of “miscellaneous”.

This doesn't sound right.

AFAIK he served time for 2 crimes, lying to Congress about business dealings with Russia in order to cover for Donald Trump's previous lies (not to Congress) on the same subject.

The other was the Stormy Daniels payments, which I assume you're actually referring to. The reason it's a legit crime is all the tax fraud and misrepresentation was because they were trying to conceal it.

[John F. Carr]

The rumors are that the Stormy Daniels payment and its aftermath will bring criminal charges under various laws. If somebody misrepresented an expense as tax-deductible to reduce taxes that would be a crime, same as omitting under the table payments from your tax return. Not a crime often prosecuted under similar circumstances, but not so universally overlooked that Trump could get away with crying "political persecution!"

The problem for the prosecution on tax evasion, campaign finance, and corporate records charges is the prosecutor has to pin the crime on a specific individual who had the required criminal intent. Suppose Cohen says "I can fix this for $150,000", Trump says "do it", Cohen submits a routine invoice with the payment bundled with other less shady work, and a clerical worker in accounts payable enters it into the system. In our scenario Trump didn't say "bill it as legal work" or "his invoices are tax deductible." Cohen doesn't know how Trump's company handles his invoices. He only knows that he gets paid. The books are false but no one person is clearly responsible for falsifying them.

Remember Trump didn't get charged in the last round even though his company did. It's easier to charge a corporation. If one of employees X, Y, and Z did it and you don't know which, the corporation can be guilty despite reasonable doubt about each of the individual defendants. We had a case in my state involving failure to report environmental violations. The evidence suggested it wasn't anybody's job to make a report and no individual acted with the required criminal intent. The company was guilty anyway. It was the company's job.

[myself]

If Trump paid hush money for a consensual affair from his campaign then that would have been a crime, trying to make it a crime using his own funds is a nonstarter.

Well I think paying the hush money from his campaign fund in itself would have been legal... but it also would have been reported (which defeats the purpose of hush money) so he likely would have had to engage in fraud to mislabel the payments.

And paying from his own funds was still a campaign contribution. Paying her not to tell her story was a campaign contribution just like paying a podcaster to promote Trump would be a campaign contribution. And secret campaign contributions are illegal, hence the reason Cohen and Trump broke the law.

[ragebot]

"And paying from his own funds was still a campaign contribution. Paying her not to tell her story was a campaign contribution just like paying a podcaster to promote Trump would be a campaign contribution."

Easy to create reasonable doubt that it was not a campaign contribution but an effort to hide dirty laundry from his wife and kids.

[not guilty]

Trump's legal team has reportedly urged the prosecution not to indict for paying hush money to Ms. Daniels, arguing that the payments would have been made irrespective of his 2016 presidential candidacy. They also argued that campaign funds had not been used for the payments, and were therefore not a violation of campaign finance laws. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/16/stormy-daniels-donald-trump-legal-team-pushes-for-end-to-hush-money-case

It is well and good for Trump's lawyers to argue that their client should not be charged. That is among the things that defense lawyers appropriately do. But this seems to be a matter for a jury to sort out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, if he'd paid her out of campaign funds, they'd prosecute him instead for misusing campaign funds for private purposes.

The point here is to prosecute him, after all, there's no scenario where he doesn't end up prosecuted for SOMETHING.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If you mean Cohen, you don't think it might be relevant to his credibility that his convictions were in service of the person he's testifying against? Er, okay.

[not guilty]

There's that, and with his sentence having expired, Mr. Cohen is not trading his testimony for some personal benefit.

[Martinned]

I would feel better if the star witness had not pleaded guilty to multiple crimes

Out of curiosity, does that worry you about this trial in particular, or about the American criminal justice system more generally?

[not guilty]

This investigation in particular. A trial is a test of the government's evidence, and a witness's criminal history -- especially where it includes crimes of dishonesty -- is fertile ground for impeachment.

Donald Trump is a scoundrel. I am less optimistic about the prospective New York prosecution than the other matters where Trump's exposure is significantly greater.

[Martinned]

American prosecutors are allowed to do lots of things with criminal witnesses that aren't allowed in many other countries, so it's a fair enough concern to have. But we probably shouldn't have special rules for trials involving Trump.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Except in this case, his criminal history would not tend to impeach his testimony--it would probably bolster his credibility.

[not guilty]

The prosecution's take will no doubt be that Mr. Cohen undertook his criminal conduct at the behest and for the benefit of Mr. Trump, and it shows that Mr. Cohen knows whereof he speaks. The defense will hammer at the false statement to Congress conviction, arguing that Mr. Cohen will tailor testimony to suit the situation.

[Moderation4ever]

What I find interesting is that Alvin Bragg passed on criminal charges for Trump's business practices and is now pursuing this case. I can't help but wonder if the loss in civil court suggested a vulnerability that Bragg hopes will lead to a conviction. The case seems to hinge on questionable business practices, which has now been proven in court.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even election law specialist Rick Hasen, who is obsessively anti-Trump, is a bit nervous about this one. Though mostly on the basis that the approach is so legally dubious that it might not work.

Should NYC Prosecutors Go After Trump for Crimes Tangentially Related to Campaign Finance Crimes? Reasons for Caution and Reasons to Save Prosecution for More Serious Crimes

"At this point, it seems ill-advised to prosecute Trump on this difficult legal theory. Back in 2018, I wrote at Slate about how Trump could be prosecuted for the underlying campaign finance crime. It is going to turn on Trump’s state of mind in a case that federal prosecutors looked at and passed on. It seems like a risky move to go after Trump on an uncertain legal theory that requires bootstrapping two crimes, for something that might not even merit jail time."

[not guilty]

Professor Hasen makes some cogent points. For example:

It would be far better to go after Trump for trying to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Those crimes are serious, and they are provable given the mountains of evidence regarding what Trump was told about his bogus fraud claims, and given the irrefutable evidence of his attempt to interfere in multiple states’ appointment of presidential electors.

The DA in Manhattan obviously acts independently of the prosecutors in Atlanta and in the DOJ. I wonder if it is beneficial for the prospective New York action to proceed first out of the box. I surmise that statute of limitiations concerns are coming into play there. (The five year period of limitations was extended during the COVID epidemic; I don't know for how long.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Hasen is obsessively anti-Trump, this rather colors his notion of what is provable, in the sense that if you show him evidence that is subject to multiple interpretations, he will always regard the interpretation that has Trump being guilty as drop dead obviously the correct interpretation.

Like, Trump tells the Georgia SOS that he needs to find X number of votes. Any sane person would understand this to be relating how many votes Trump would need to prove were in some way fraudulent in order to change the outcome. To Hasen, it's just self evident that Trump was ordering Raffensperger to manufacture votes, any other reading is simply implausible.

One of the symptoms of TDS is always applying a presumption of guilt to Trump, and interpreting everything in that light. This is just an instance of that.

[not guilty]

Think so, Brett? You may find this interesting. https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2023/03/17/trump-fraud-report-2020/

[Brett Bellmore]

I am not, mind you, saying that Trump was reasonable in thinking the votes were there to find. I'm saying that asking somebody to look for them was not clearly a demand that they manufacture them.

I actually think that Trump was in a state of denial about having lost the election.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ok, I’ll ask. And it’s not a defense of Trump. He’s an unethical, immoral, stupid, selfish megalomaniac. He uses people like you and I use toilet paper. He’s poison to everything he touches.

That said, he’s been investigated for lots of things for more than half a decade by damn near every investigative agency possible. And nobody has been able to come up with even a single indictment. Doesn’t that suggest that maybe, somehow, his unethical behavior didn’t spill over into criminal behavior?

[Bored Lawyer]

I think the Jan. 6 activities likely spilled over into criminal activity. The Georgia case in particular is the one that is most likely to land him in jail. The hush money to Stormy Daniels, OTOH, seems like very small potatoes. (Bonus points to anyone who can cite the movie where that phrase is from.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"most likely to land him in jail"

He's not going to jail, ever. Sorry, but its at best house arrest.

Assuming he's ever indicted, let alone convicted.

Keep hope alive though.

[Sarcastr0]

Such a big liberal, that Bored Lawyer.

[Bob from Ohio]

Didn't say he was, Trump derangement affects parts of the right too.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio, I believed that He’s not going to jail, ever. Sorry, but its at best house arrest. until the repeated behavior of the FBI lying to the FISA Court (which should be abolished, btw) was exposed, and the actions of the CIA, DOJ. That was different.

They will not stop until he is pushing up daisies. After that, they will sue his estate and his children.

[EscherEnigma]

Basically. He's 76 and a former president. He could literally kill someone on fifth avenue in broad daylight and get house arrest.

[OtisAH]

I’m glad to see the “I’m not defending Turnip, buuuut…” pee pee dance is still popular with the kiddies.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yet another leftists who does not understand, or disingenuously refuses to understand, the difference between sleazy behavior and criminal behavior.

[Life of Brian]

That said, he’s been investigated for lots of things for more than half a decade by damn near every investigative agency possible. And nobody has been able to come up with even a single indictment. Doesn’t that suggest that maybe, somehow, his unethical behavior didn’t spill over into criminal behavior?

Of course not. It just shows that real prosecution has never been tried.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kind of like Communism, actually: Trump prosecution itself has never failed, it has only been failed by the prosecutors.

[Sarcastr0]

The Federal government is really slow. For a rando 5 years would be quick. In this case, they're being substantially more careful than that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Federal investigations move slowly, but not thst slowly: five years is the typical statute of limitations.

[Sarcastr0]

I cede to your expertise. I thought I read on here that the over under was like 6 years.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is that why the Delaware investigations of Hunter Biden are still ongoing?

[Moderation4ever]

Risk taking behavior will eventually catch up with you and the former President is a risk taker. He has been lucky up until this point. The Mueller investigation reports suggest obstruction of justice occurred, but notes the DOJ policy of not indicting current Presidents. Both impeachment trials were political in nature and so his party let Trump off the hook. Note the remarks after Impeachment Trial 1 (IT1) suggesting he has learned his lesson and will act better. In IT2 the excuse was he was almost out of office so removal was not necessary.

What is now different is that the former President does not have the protection of the Office, his wealth cannot shield him, and the jury deciding the case will be impartial. So, the risk taking may have finally caught up with him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"jury deciding the case will be impartial"

In Manhattan? Assumes facts not in evidence.

[OtisAH]

As does your response. Everybody wins!

[Moderation4ever]

Is Manhattan different or do the lawyers still get to strike jurors? The method is the same all over.

[Bob from Ohio]

Peremptory challenges are limited. Challenges for cause are not but you know the judge is not going to sustain those based on just political views. But as we see here every week, such views make anti-Trump people insane.

[Moderation4ever]

Are you suggesting that a jury can only be impartial if it only includes member of you own political party? The jurors are asked to make an impartial decision and are expected to do that if selected, regardless of many things like their own, education, income, sex, and ethic status. That is our system and either you believe in it, or you don't. Remember also that the defendant can appeal while the prosecution cannot.

[Brett Bellmore]

Too bad Mueller didn't note the DOJ police of not casting aspersions on people you decide not to prosecute. They adopted that policy because accusing people of crimes and then not trying them was a great way to smear people without ever having to prove your smear.

[Randal]

He did note that policy. That's why he not only declined to indict, but also declined to conclude whether an indictment was warranted by the facts.

He did lay out the facts of the investigation. I think a lot of liberals would agree with you that that was a bad idea, and he should have just declined the commission in the first place, citing this principle. No indictment means no aspersions means no investigation. Then the investigation might have fallen to someone with a different interpretation of how DOJ principles apply to sitting presidents.

[shawn_dude]

He was indicted twice by Congress, though I understand you mean in a regular court of law. The Mueller report didn't exonerate him from criminal activity and there's a bucket-load of evidence for obstruction.

[Brett Bellmore]

That statement by Mueller about not exonerating Trump was the most damning thing in the entire report. Damns Mueller, of course, not Trump.

As Mueller had to know, there's a presumption of innocence in this country, his job wasn't to exonerate Trump, as Trump, not having been convicted of anything, didn't stand in need of exoneration. Mueller's job was, instead, to prove him guilty. Having failed, he remained innocent.

[Nige]

But the report did not exonerate him. That's just a factual statement.

[Brett Bellmore]

Its a factual statement that he shouldn't have made. Your DOJ guy is not supposed to say, "We couldn't prove X was innocent of" a crime he has no evidence X committed in the first place. It's smearing by implication.

That's exactly why somebody like Shawn would bring up the statement: To imply guilt where no evidence of it could be found.

[Ben_]

The walls are closing in.

[Moderation4ever]

The walls have been closing in for a while, what is new is the speed and number of the walls closing in. Don't forget there are civil suits out there as well and Trump has already lost one of those.

[Ben_]

Welcome to 2018

[Sarcastr0]

The right's game of claiming it's nothing until it's something and then crying it's a Kangaroo Court is not hard to see.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a witch hunt, left politicians are abusing their offices to get Trump at all costs.

None of the current "investigations" are valid.

[Sarcastr0]

You claim you don't care about validity. All's fair in politics, you say.

So not really much standing to make claims about validity.

[shawn_dude]

I bet you said the same thing about Hillary.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Just because you're too stupid to understand the crimes involved, doesn't mean the investigations are invalid.

[Bob from Ohio]

“grand jury investigation of Donald Trump in New York”

Keep hope alive.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Here is what the older ChatGPT, stuck in 2021, thinks about an AI passing the bar in 2023.

"As an AI language model, I don't have beliefs or opinions, and I can only provide information based on my training data and algorithms. However, it is unlikely that an AI will pass the bar exam in 2023 or in the near future, as passing the bar exam requires not only knowledge but also critical thinking, legal reasoning, and ethical decision-making, which are still considered beyond the capabilities of current AI technology. While AI can assist in certain legal tasks, it cannot replace the judgment and expertise of a human lawyer."

Jealous much?

[Michael P]

AI models don't get jealous. They are trained to generate coherent text. That training is done by feeding the model a planetful of text, then having technocrats brainwash it to suppress the "deplorable" aspects of the training corpus. It has a random number generator to provide some semblance of novelty, but it's still working off received wisdom and isn't capable of good prediction.

Come to think of it, ChatGPT reminds me of most of the leftist commenters here.

[CindyF]

The discussion regarding the Stanford Law school struggle session with Judge Duncan continues on.

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/03/judge-kyle-duncan-was-treated-like.html

Our future lawyers from Stanford should probably excuse themselves from appearing in Duncan's Court for several years to come. I guess we can hope that most do not pass the Bar so that decision is not necessary, but I suspect if they fail the bar exam, Governor Newsom will just "deem" them to have passed.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I would expect him to act professionally. You don't?

[John F. Carr]

Refusing to file a brief or attend oral argument because you are afraid of one of the judges on the panel might get you in disciplinary trouble.

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't know the 5th Circuit, but in every appellate court I have practiced in, you don't know the panel until shortly before oral argument. Certainly not when you file the brief.

As for Judge Duncan taking revenge, given that he sits on three-judge panels, hard for me to see what he can do. And ethics complaints are referred to Grievance Committees.

[shawn_dude]

Future lawyers from Stanford and any defendant, plaintiff, or witness who is LGBT.

[Kazinski]

Naomi Wolfe, the former Bill Clinton and Al Gore advisor apologized to conservatives this week:

“There is no way to avoid this moment. The formal letter of apology. From me. To Conservatives and to those who “put America first” everywhere.

It’s tempting to sweep this confrontation with my own gullibility under the rug — to “move on” without ever acknowledging that I was duped, and that as a result I made mistakes in judgement, and that these mistakes, multiplied by the tens of thousands and millions on the part of people just like me, hurt millions of other people like you all, in existential ways.”

I owe you a full-throated apology.

I believed a farrago of lies. And, as a result of these lies, and my credulity — and the credulity of people similarly situated to me – many conservatives’ reputations are being tarnished, on false bases.

The proximate cause of this letter of apology is the airing, two nights ago, of excepts from tens of thousands of hours of security camera footage from the United States Capitol taken on Jan 6, 2021. The footage was released by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson”

“There is no way for anyone thoughtful, even if he or she is a lifelong Democrat, not to notice that Sen Chuck Schumer did not say to the world that the footage that Mr Carlson aired was not real. Rather, he warned that it was “shameful” for Fox to allow us to see it. The Guardian characterized Mr Carlson’s and Fox News’ sin, weirdly, as “Over-Use” of Jan 6 footage. Isn’t the press supposed to want full transparency for all public interest events?”

Of course you should read the whole thing.https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/dear-conservatives-i-am-sorry

It would be appropriate for many of the people who inhabit the comments here to add your names to the apology in this thread.

[Mr. Bumble]

Better late than never, I suppose.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I wonder if it's something in the water that turns people into conspiracists?

That was a bizarre take on the events of J6. She seems to be admitting that she was utterly credulous about everything then. But if that's really how she processes information, then it's hardly surprising that she's still credulous now.

One example is her "weird" reference to the Guardian's story on Schumer's reaction to the Carlson show. The headline of the story, "Chuck Schumer attacks ‘shameful’ Fox News over use of January 6 footage – as it happened" is the only use of the two words, "over" and "use", together in the entire story. But they never appeared in the story as the compound word she quoted, "over-use", which obviously has a different meaning. It's basic grammar, folks...

In another example, she implies (at extraordinary length) that J6 has been used to justify shutting the US public out of public participation and observation of Congress. This is simply false: the Capitol and Congress are both still open for visitors not intent upon "obstructing a proceeding of Congress" (the charge Jacob Chansley pleaded guilty to in 2021): https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/visit/know-before-you-go/watching-congress-in-session

[Sarcastr0]

Someone else on the VC posted this a few days ago.

A sign you just slam post when you see something you like.

Look this woman up; do a *moment* of research, and you'll see how silly your post is.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Naomi Wolf was already unhinged in college (I knew her) and she's gone downhill since then.

[Kenneth Almquist]

I can't tell whether Naomi Wolf is playing dumb, or just isn't very smart. At the risk of wasting electrons:

While “fact-checkers” state that it is “misinformation” to claim that Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was in charge of Capitol Police on that day, the fact is that the USCP is under the oversight of Congress, according to — the United States Capitol Police.

According to the link, the Capitol Police are subject to “Congressional oversight by appropriations and authorizing committees from the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.” It takes a huge flight of illogic to conclude from this that Nancy Pelosi was in charge of the Capitol Police.

I believed that President Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia — until that assertion was dropped.

This links to an article about the Mueller report. Russia interfered in the campaign to help Trump, and the Trump campaign provided Russia with polling data which could help Russia do that. I'm not sure why this persuades Wolf that the Trump campaign didn't collude with Russia.

I believed that President Trump was a Russian asset, because the legacy media I read, said so.

The “legacy media” in this case is a British newspaper writing about a book by a former KGB agent. Not the best sourcing, so Wolf should have been skeptical, but she doesn't point to any new evidence which caused her to change her mind.

I believed in the entire Steele dossier, until I didn’t, because it all fell apart.

The Steele dossier was always described as unreliable raw intelligence, so it's unclear why Wolf believed it. Bizarrely, Wolf links, not to an article pointing out inaccuracies in the dossier, but to an article about the acquittal of Igor Danchenko.

I believed that Pres Trump instigated the riot at the Capitol — because I did not know that his admonition to his supporters to assemble “peacefully and patriotically” had been deleted from all of the news coverage that I read.

News articles about a speech typically quote only a few sentences from the speech. A number of news organizations (including NPR, CNN, and the Associated Press, but apparently not Fox News) posted complete transcripts. I can't imagine what makes her think that the phrase “peacefully and patriotically” was “deleted.”

The full sentence was: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Nowhere in the speech did Trump ask his followers to refrain from violence. To believe that Trump didn't instigate the riot, you have to believe that he didn't understand his followers well enough to understand how they would react to his statements. And you also have to explain why, when Trump was informed the Capitol was under attack, he refused to call for an end to the violence until three hours later. It's hard to see how a single sentence in the speech (which, contra Wolf, was not actually an admonition) undermines the case against Trump.

Because of lies such as these in legacy media — lies which I and millions of others believed — half of our nation’s electorate was smeared and delegitimized, and I myself was misled.

Wolf hasn't identified any lies, and doesn't provide any evidence for or explanation of her claim that “half of our nation’s electorate was smeared and delegitimized.” It does appear that, both then and now, her claimed beliefs have little connection to reality. If she's going to apologies for that, her apology should included the article she just wrote.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who failed to mark the US Predator drone with rainbow flag markings, so that the Russian’s would know not to down it?

[Jerry B.]

Given Russia's treatment of LGBTQ+ folks, they probably would have nuked it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now that ChatGPT4 has shown to be capable of passing the bar, when will it be nominated for a Federal judgeship? Will it be able to define “what is a woman”?

[Michael P]

I don’t know about ChatGPT4, but I asked LLaMA (30B model, 16-bit quantization; I don’t have a system at home with enough RAM to run the 65B model without further quantization). My first attempt led it to describe an actual lawsuit out of Iowa. The prompt text, which is what I asked it to complete, is in italics. Good recall but poor general relevance:

A woman is suing her boss because she didn’t get a promotion. Her reason: she’s too pretty and he was too jealous.

It went on to name the plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff’s counsel, and quote the lawyer. So I tried to give it a little more guidance, and it came back with a shorter and more relevant, but very repetitive, answer:

Bob is a helpful and honest assistant who writes clearly and respectfully. Bob defines a woman as a female who is capable of giving birth to a baby. He explains that a woman is a mature female who has the capacity to give birth to a child. Bob defines a woman as a female who is capable of giving birth to a baby. He explains that a woman is a mature female who has the capacity to give birth to a child. [end of text]

Even though it is willing to define “woman”, based on a few other cases of playing around with it, I would definitely not nominate LLaMA to the judiciary. Trying to make "Bob" talk like someone in front of Congress is a good example of why:

Bob is a judicial nominee who writes clearly, succinctly and respectfully. Bob defines a woman as being a female human. That is correct and it is respectful. Bob is a male human. Bob defines himself as a man. That is correct and it is respectful. This is how Bob defines himself. Bob is a judicial nominee. Bob would be a great federal judge. [end of text]

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bob would be a great federal judge."

Agree with that.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Would someone arrange a Thursday playdate for this insufferable, effeminate troll?
Perhaps with Dr. Ed?

[Commenter_XY]

The inmates run the asylum…Stanford University.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/03/the-stanford-law-school-culture-not-the-diversity-dean-is-the-problem-but-i-repeat-myself/

The little darlings have advanced to intimidating the Dean. Poor Jenny.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Dean Martin[ez] is hardly sitting on top of the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sittin%27_on_Top_of_the_World_(Dean_Martin_album)

Call the Dean and tell her what you think. Her number is 867-5309.

[Commenter_XY]

Tommy Tutone thanks you; the song still makes me smile.

[Sarcastr0]

one-third of the law school student body dressed in black in protest of the Law School Dean Jenny Martinez apologizing to Judge Duncan, making her walk a hallway gauntlet after they plastered her classroom with legally illiterate claims that shouting down a speaker is just their own free speech..

Of dear...if melodrama no longer counts as speech many on here will be in trouble!!

This is not shouting anyone down. You're not going to squeeze much more righteousness out of this stone, no matter how hard Blackman tries to post about the need for massive punishment.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If you don’t think they’re trying to intimidate the Dean of the law school I don’t know what to say.

But it’s fine, really.

And if you want to say that this one is their speech, fine. I’d be more sympathetic if they hadn’t just denied people their speech and assembly rights. And it demonstrates once again that they’re a bunch of moronic crybabies. And they’re doing it to try to avoid consequences for violating university policy, in a similar way to a gang threatening a judge.

But these are your people. You say you don’t like this kind of thing but then you defend them to your last breath.

[Bob from Ohio]

"trying to intimidate the Dean of the law school "

The leopards won't eat my face.

[Sarcastr0]

If you don’t think they’re trying to intimidate the Dean of the law school I don’t know what to say.

Oh, they may be trying. I don't think they are succeeding.

And you know what's protected speech? Dumbass attempts to intimidate. Is that an incorrect liberty we give people?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I didn’t say it should be taken away.

I said the entirety of their behavior demonstrates that they are massively immature idiots eaten up typical extreme progressive faux superiority.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. So you've never met law students before.

[Michael P]

What can you do? Boy will be boys, amirite?

[Life of Brian]

Though we'll of course never be able to verify it, I really wonder if you could type with a straight face, "oh, yeah, when I went to law school, it was routine for the student body to hoot, holler, and jeer a sitting federal judge invited to give a presentation as though he was locked in the stocks in the public square a few centuries ago."

Because that most certainly was the last thing from my experience. Young, passionate law students can get edgy, sure. This was miles past edgy.

[Magister]

Or maybe the quality of federal judges is much lower.

[Life of Brian]

"Well, yeah, he IS a sitting federal judge, but we think he sucks so he deserves it"? That just seems like another data point on how far downhill the student body has gone.

[I Callahan]

Actually, it’s better.

[Sarcastr0]

This was miles past edgy.

No, it wasn't. Were you intimidated? Do you think a reasonable person would be intimidated?

[Life of Brian]

No, it wasn’t. Were you intimidated?

Not only was I not there, "intimidated" was a few exchanges upthead and something I never commented on. Please try to keep up with your own drivel.

[Sarcastr0]

So miles past edgy to...what, Brian?

[Life of Brian]

"[B]ehavior demonstrat[ing] that they are massively immature idiots eaten up typical extreme progressive faux superiority," Sarc.

Again, please try to keep up with the discussions you instigate. I know it can be confusing when you try to keep so many going at the same time.

[Sarcastr0]

That's law students! You can't be sincere in claiming law students have been well described by 'massively immature idiots eaten up typical extreme progressive faux superiority' for *decades*

And punishing them for being pretty normal is just a right-wing desire for some scalps.

[Life of Brian]

That’s law students!

We're going in circles. As I said, the behavior of this particular group of law students was dramatically outside the envelope of any peers in my own experience (particularly in any quantity).

I continue to await (I realize likely in vain) confirmation of the same from you.

[Sarcastr0]

We're going in circles because your opinion is outcome oriented.

[Don Nico]

But a gauntlet is a action not speech. It is historically meant to be intimidating if not threatening. And it is likely contrary to whatever community code of conduct that Stanford professes.

[EscherEnigma]

It's also historically permitted. Until you cross the line from intimidating/threatening to assault, you're A-okay.

It may be contrary to Standford's code of conduct, but it's also 100% protected by the first amendment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And you know what’s protected speech? Dumbass attempts to intimidate."

Huh? No it's not.

[EscherEnigma]

The woodchipper threats on Reason.com say otherwise.

[Life of Brian]

Would you like to present to us a single person who is truly intimidated by those?

For bonus points, explain how such "threats" to people on a pseudonymous message board would actually be carried out.

[EscherEnigma]

Why would I bother?

You can yell at someone, in person, that you're going to shove them into a wood-chipper, and unless you have a wood-chipper right there with you, it's not going to be criminal.

Fact is, America has a very high bar on threats (death or otherwise). Students standing and silently staring at you doesn't come close to crossing it.

[shawn_dude]

Heh. Like yelling "hang Mike Pence" while a bunch of people erect a gallows outside on the lawn?

[EscherEnigma]

Sure.

While I'm not familiar with every single Jan 6th case, the ones I've heard about all concerned the defendant's actions inside the building or in conflict with police. I haven't heard of anyone arrested for chants or erecting the gallows.

[I Callahan]

Proves the point. Was Pence ever really in danger of being hung?

[Nige]

Has anyone been charged with his attempted murder?

[Artifex]

Actually, it is more amusing than that.

The genesis of the woodchipper jokes on Reason was a reaction to US attorney and future Trump team member Preet Bharara getting bent out of shape by jokes previously made by the Reason commenters. The fundamental joke being that you would have to be an absolutely legendary moron to take the woodchipper jokes seriously.

Legendary moron EscherEnigma please meet legendary moron Preet Bharara. You will need to share this prize.

[EscherEnigma]

Nah, I'm good.

As my comments before and after that post demonstrate, I don't treat such threats seriously, nor do I think the law does.

But hey, shame on me to pointing to a relevant example.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The woodchipper threats on Reason.com say otherwise."

IIUC the argument was that the woodchipper comments weren't attempts to intimidate. I don't remember how it was resolved.

[EscherEnigma]

Reason won.

Just like if this dean tries to prosecute any of the kids for "threatening" them by standing silently, the kids will win.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Just like if this dean tries to prosecute any of the kids for “threatening” them by standing silently, the kids will win."

Not if it can be proven that the kids were attempting to intimidate the dean.

[OtisAH]

They intimated me with silence!

Silence!

Dee do dee do…

[Ben_]

"…intimidating the Dean"

That’s actually a good development. Stanford leaders are beginning to reap what they sowed. And the behavior of The Good Guys is out in the open for everyone to see.

[Ed Grinberg]

As is the attitude of The Good Guys (like SimonP) applauding the "student-activists."

[SimonP]

I have nowhere "applauded" the Stanford students. I just refuse to engage in the kabuki of disavowing them. Not the same thing.

[I Callahan]

No action is the same as taking their side. At least that’s what I’ve been told in other situations…

[Bob from Ohio]

"That’s actually a good development. "

Agreed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So…if you were the Supreme Court and had no precedents to work with, which rights in the Bill of Rights (if any) would you “incorporate” against the states? And on what grounds?

[Martinned]

All of them, under the privileges and immunities clause.

[SRG]

Yes. That seems self-evident.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Grand juries? Civil jury trials?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Pourquoi pas? Imposing these on recalcitrant states would be no more disruptive than Gideon and Miranda – which in hindsight were good decisions.

And the grand-jury decision could include lots of inspiring passages about the importance of grand juries in shielding innocent suspects from unjust trials and coerced pleas. This might alert the establishment, which in many cases seems to have forgotten, that it’s more than a ham-sandwich rubber stamp.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(if any)"

None of course. Zero language saying the Bill of Rights is "incorporated".

Due process = fair procedure
equal protection = law treats everyone equally
privileges or immunities = treat citizens from another state the same as your citizens

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What privileges and immunities do citizens enjoy *because* they’re Americans? I think the Bill of rights is a (non-exhaustive) list of the rights they *thought* they had, and you don’t need to rummage through old issues of the Congressional Record. Pre-14th Amendment, federalism concerns stopped the bill of rights from being imposed *directly* on the states, though many state constitutions had analogous provisions.

And of course there’s good old Bushrod Washington and his Corfield v. Coryell decision (though the part about the elective franchise seems in tension with Art. 2 of the 14th, but what do I know?).

And there's Taney's "parade of horribles" - a good start if you're trying to see what were recognized as distinctively American rights.

[Bob from Ohio]

Corfield v. Coryell described things not in the Bill of Rights.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Which means American didn’t think *all* their rights were in the B of R. But the B of R sets a floor.

Like with the feds and the 9th Amendment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"privileges or immunities = treat citizens from another state the same as your citizens"

We already have a clause like that in the original Constitution.

Presumably the 14th Amendment didn't mean to photocopy other constitutional provisions.

And if P & I is about nondiscrimination, what's the equal protection clause doing there?

[Bob from Ohio]

"And if P & I is about nondiscrimination, what’s the equal protection clause doing there?"

P & I for other states citizens, EP for your own

[Commenter_XY]

Oh! I just learned an easy way to distinguish between P&I and EP. I had never thought of it that way, but it makes perfect sense. My legal education continues. 🙂

[EscherEnigma]

Incorporation itself only exists as precedent.

So lacking all precedent, and following the explicit text, "none" is the correct answer.

Anything else and you aren't actually following the text.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's fair the say the text is fairly broad and general in its language.

Assume it's open to two interpretaions, one of which protects the established rights of American citizenship and one of which doesn't. The former interpretation can be adopted without doing violence to the text, so why not follow the pro-American-rights interpretation?

[EscherEnigma]

Sure. If you want to abandon original text, original intent, and embrace the "living constitution" idea.

But if you don't do that? Then you're fooling yourself.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t care about rummaging through the Congressional Record, but I’m curious about the idea that the text clearly rules out a pro-American-rights interpretation.

Usually, when someone pounds the table and says “this is obviously so,” without providing evidence, they can be written off.

[EscherEnigma]

To be clear, what part of this isn't you "pound[ing] the table and say[ing] 'this is obviously so' without providing evidence"?

Fact is, I'm not really trying to persuade you. And if you're trying to persuade me, the really big question you need to answer is "if the Bill of Rights was intended to bind the states (rather then the federal government), in either 1789 or 1868, why wasn't it ever mentioned?"

And you haven't so far.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It borrowed a phrase – privileges and immunities – from the original constitution.

Hmmm…Corfield v. Coryell is vague on one point:

“We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.”

https://www.biicl.org/files/1700_corfield_v_coryell_(fed_dist_ct).pdf

Are these two separate listings of rights, so that rights of Americans must be *only* those which apply “in all free governments”? Then farewell trial by jury!

Or are privileges and immunities drawn from both sources, rather than having one source limit the other?

Once more, if there’s two possible interpretations, by all means choose the one which is pro-American-rights.

In 1789, privs and immunities were limited in that a citizen of Virginia couldn’t enjoy *more* rights than a citizen of, say New York, and a New Yorker couldn’t sue for the privileges and immunities he had which were already guaranteed by state law. Originally it was a nondiscrimination provision.

But I’d say the 14th Amendment could easily be read as turning what was a *relative* protection (protecting people from one state from discrimination by a state where they visited or did business), into an *absolute* prohibition (you can’t abridge these rights for your own citizens). Anyway, that’s a perfectly plausible reading of the language, so I say give it the pro-American-rights interpretation.

Violating my own rule and looking at precedents, the Slaughterhouse cases were 5-4, with five giving the narrow interpretation and four giving the broad interpretation. That shows the matter was, at the very least, debatable. So with a debatable provision, why *not* choose a perfectly plausible interpretation which protects Americans in those rights “which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign”?

[EscherEnigma]

To be clear, what's your beef at this point?

That I don't accept that Incorporation works from an original intent/meaning framework?

Or that I suggested you're using a living constitution framework?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's not either/or. There's the classical legal tradition. Get beyond the binaries and see the wonderful diversity!

[EscherEnigma]

Maybe.

But not with you.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm just a harmless little fuzzball.

[EscherEnigma]

Don't be absurd. My cat has a much better track record of persuading me to her way of thinking then you do.

[M L]

None of them. That's what self-government looks like, not an oligarchy of 9.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No right to counsel? No right to freedom of speech?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, M L doesn't care for any of the changes that happened after the War of Northern Agression.

[M L]

Margrave, I very strongly support those rights.

The question is always, who decides?

I think they should have a right to counsel and freedom of speech in Afghanistan, too.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

OK, fair enough - and we know the 14th doesn't extend to Afghanistan.

But my contention is it *does* extend to U. S. states.

[M L]

Of course it does, I assume your contention is that the 14th also “incorporates” the BoR and other rights against the States.

Assuming so, in your hypothetical of no precedents, what does it mean in your view to say that the 14th or any other part of the Constitution “does” something? Do you mean that this is the original mensing of the text?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I mean privileges and immunities of citizens of the united states can quite plausibly, and with some precedential backing, be read to protect traditional American rights against state infringement.

IMHO, all that's necessary is for such an interpretation to be plausible, and then it would supersede alternate interpretations because there should be a presumption in favor of protecting traditional rights. Including those in the first 8 amendments.

[M L]

All things are plausible, sooner or later. If a judge simply decides what they view as plausible according to shifting modern interpretations of words, without any anchor to a static, fixed original meaning, and then chooses what they think is good from among the plausible, then there's really no limits to what they can do.

A presumption in favor of protecting rights sounds nice. But, firstly, you have turned again to discussing "should" rather than "is." Others are free to disagree with your should, and they will.

Simply weighing in what is a right and good decision is not the same thing as vesting power in a certain body to make that decision for a certain set of people. If you do the latter simply because you think they will make a particular right and good decision at particular time, this is very shortsighted.

Generally, the power to interpret and define the contours of a "right" is the power to deny that right completely or convert it into something unrecognizable.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Let’s get down to brass tacks – the privileges and immunities clause is *already* somewhat obscure. What we can do is (a) *reject* some wrong meanings (like make it up as you ago along, etc.) and (b) Find some principle to guide one’s choice among different *plausible* meanings.

Is there any way to make the meaning obvious? If so, point it out. Otherwise you’re in the same position I’m in, figuring out which principles are best to guide one’s choice among plausible interpretations.

It’s plausible – more than plausible – that this reference to Americans’ rights means rights “which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.” If we concede that a narrower reading is plausible – like the Supreme Court adopted in the 1870s – we’re still faced with different plausible interpretations, with the narrow interpretation, *at best,* no more plausible than the broader one.

(as to the broader one, it picked up four votes in the 1870s and the Court later used the Due Process clause to recognize many of these rights anyway, so in many cases I'm just saying the Court should shift its ground from due process to P & I)

Why *not* presume that a generic reference to the rights of citizens of the United States has the meaning I suggested? Is there a compelling case for preferring some other meaning?

[M L]

As to the original meaning of the clause, in my amateur and not fully formed opinion, it does seem somewhat debatable. As best I can tell, a few contemporaries seemed to think it should “incorporate” rights and vest incredible power in SCOTUS over the whole country, but most did not. I think I would need to study it more to have a firmer opinion.

As to whether it’s a good idea, one place to start might be, why did the framers of the Constitution write it the way they did? Why did they say “Congress shall make no law” rather than “Neither Congress nor any State”? I’d say, basically they did so because they believed in self-government. And self-government necessarily implies decentralization.

As I’ve suggested, the problem with removing vast areas of actual and potential government activity from representative state and local governments, and vesting that power solely in a high court, is that it creates an oligarchy, to use Jefferson’s word for describing it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As best I can tell, a few contemporaries seemed to think it should “incorporate” rights"

As best I can tell, the "few contemporaries" you're referring to were members of Congress describing what it would do?

[M L]

Yes, a few members of Congress seemed to suggest it, though some have noted even those persons were inconsistent and "muddled thinkers," while other members of Congress had a different view.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Again, I’m not relying on the Congressional Record or newspapers (after all, most of the debate on the 14th Amendment centered on Secs. 2 and 3 and, more fundamentally, it was a condition of Southern states’ re-admission and was fought out in the North as a matter of (with qualifications) Republican v. Democrat).

The word used, and their context, and the similarity to words in the original Constitution, and the rights which have at all times been enjoyed (or, less absolutely, at least recognized on paper) in the states.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts this past week...

Students of Wellesley College, historically all-female, have voted to welcome students of any gender except men presenting as men. https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/03/14/wellesley-college-trans-men/

As vaccine mandates around the state end, Boston has found a pretext to fire two police officers who openly opposed the city's mandate. One of them had protested outside the Mayor's house, before the city council voted to ban protests outside her house when she is home. The officers have a good chance of being reinstated by an arbitrator. https://apnews.com/article/boston-officers-fired-36a77098ef6a008d9a77933d17ed50c5

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Hey, Wellesley girls, I feel like a woman.

[Martinned]

Congratulations. If you think women have it easier than men, you're in for a big surprise.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, that whole monthly bleeding thing is a deal-killer for me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe you should have a look at suicide statistics some time. Men commit suicide at 3-5 times the rate of women, in the US.

In other contexts a high rate of suicide is usually construed to mean a group is being treated badly...

[grb]

So you think women have it easier than men?

[Don Nico]

He did not say that, except in your own mind

[bernard11]

No, Don.

He said it in his usual not-quite-saying-it way, so he can later claim innocence, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

In some contexts, like divorce court, or where allegations of rape are being tossed about? Sure. College admissions, too.

Over-all? Really hard to say, though it's pretty obvious which way things are trending.

[shawn_dude]

Yeah, no. I can speak for college admissions. Men have it easier than women for colleges that try to shape the class. Far more applications come in from women than men. Given two applicants vying for the final admissions spot, one male and one female, otherwise similarly situated, the male will nearly always get the admission. (This can vary by major, of course, but generally, men are harder to enroll than women.)

[I Callahan]

Yes. Women aren’t sent off to wars. Women don’t work in construction. Women don’t do the most dangerous jobs on the planet.

Women have rights. Men have responsibilities.

[Nige]

Patriarchy harms men, too.

[Nige]

'Maybe you should have a look at suicide statistics some time. Men commit suicide at 3-5 times the rate of women, in the US.'

Feminists have always pointed out that the patriarchy harms men, too.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's kind of stupid describing our gradual transition into a matriarchy as "the patriarchy", but that's to be expected.

[shawn_dude]

It's not a binary choice.

[Nige]

We’re not transitioning to a matriarchy. That’s just the patriarchy whining.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Although given the recent statistics about gender in regard to things like high school GPA and college success, it's becoming clear why men were so intent on keeping women suppressed all these years. Pretty much the same reason they tried to keep blacks out of major league baseball.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have to consider those statistics in light of the trends in the gender composition of K-12 teachers. When I went through K-12 not long after Sputnik, there were still a lot of male K-12 teachers and they were most of the administrators. The schools were run to suit male psychology. Perhaps too much so, for the sake of the girls, but they were. Now the K-12 system is mostly run by women.

Boys are not just girls with an estrogen deficiency. A school system run by women, tuned to the benefit of girls, ill serves boys. I would venture to guess that a large part of the high rate of ADHD diagnosis today is due to the expectation that young boys will act like young girls, rather than boys, and need to be medicated into doing so. About a 3-1 ratio in diagnosis between boys and girls. How much of that is boys being boys, rather than having a medical problem?

[Mr. Bumble]

It's Wellesley; Will anyone be able to tell the difference?

[Bob from Ohio]

The "trans-women" will have less body hair?

[EscherEnigma]

You misunderstand the student resolution.

The school already allows transwomen. What it currently doesn't allow (that the students want it to allow) are transmen.

[Nige]

Oooh, interesting twist.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The school already allows transwomen. What it currently doesn’t allow (that the students want it to allow) are transmen.'

My mistake. Hard to keep imaginary beings straight.

[OtisAH]

“My mistake. Hard to keep imaginary beings straight.”

That’s called “The Moron’s Lament.”

[I Callahan]

He’s a moron for acknowledging biology and science, and you’re not because you believe in fairytales.

Uh, OK…

[Nige]

Since being trans is recognised by medical science, no, he ain't.

[OtisAH]

Hilarious. In the rankings of everything that Bob knows fuck-all about, “biology and science” is tied for first with everything else.

[EscherEnigma]

Your mistake is not in that you failed to keep anything "straight".

It's that you didn't read the linked article.

[Bob from Ohio]

Of course not, who cares what crazy people at Wellesley do. It was just a quick joke.

[EscherEnigma]

Try harder.

[Nige]

Bit of casual misogyny to spice up the transphobia.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaking of imaginary beings, do you and the other clingers find it difficult to distinguish Christianity from the Marvel cinematic universe?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Nope. They wouldn't be able to pick you out of the crowd on the quad.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Since we’re all into apologies now, I apologize for my “feel like a woman” joke. It was an attempt at crude humor (“feel like a woman,” get it?).

Strike that joke from the record.

[bernard11]

But do you feel like a natural woman?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Thanks, I'll try to get that tune out of my mind now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, under the state era, how can they exclude male students at all? And barring that, isn't this a discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

BTW: Smith already did this a decade ago as a matter of admissions polilcy.

[John F. Carr]

I don't understand state law on the subject. At the federal level, Title IX's "prohibition on discrimination in admissions does not apply to private undergraduate colleges." (ed.gov)

[Noscitur a sociis]

And barring that, isn’t this a discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

No.

Any other dumb questions you’d like answered?

[Super Scary]

"John, under the state era, how can they exclude male students at all?"

[shawn_dude]

This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Being trans tells other people nothing about that person's sexual orientation. How can you have any sort of well-formed opinion on LGBT issues if you don't even understand the basic difference between sex, gender, and orientation?

[apedad]

Court rules against employee fired for refusing to attend LGBTQ training session

Raymond Zdunski was employed at Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES for seven years before his termination, which he likened to "unlawful religious discrimination." He sued the Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES seeking reinstatement, back pay and $10 million in damages. The Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) is a public organization that was created by the New York State Legislature in 1948 to provide shared educational programs and services to school districts within the state.

The plaintiff had argued that the LGBTQ training and makeup session were "aimed at changing his religious beliefs about gender and sexuality," and that attending the training "would have caused him to violate the religious teachings to which he adheres," according to the lawsuit. BOCES denied his request for a religious accommodation.

District Court Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford dismissed Zdunski's lawsuit in 2022, and stated, "Plaintiff's unsupported assumption that Defendants believe him to be ‘bigoted’ due to his religious beliefs is insufficient to support an inference of discrimination," Crawford said in his ruling. "In sum, no facts in the record support a finding that Mr. Zdunski was terminated because of his religion; rather, the evidence in the record supports Defendants' position that his termination was due to repeatedly refusing to attend a mandatory employee training."

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed BOCES this week, saying in its opinion that Zdunski had failed to provide "sufficient evidence" for his claims.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/court-rules-against-employee-fired-refusing-attend-lgbtq-training-session

OK, let’s see how this one plays out but on the legal side, it seems correct.

[John F. Carr]

At this "training", can you sit there quietly in a corner wearing a MAGA hat or do participants have to go around kissing each other?

[OtisAH]

Your desire to stalk through the office trying to kiss your coworkers is addressed in the sexual harassment seminar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"LGBTQ training and makeup session[emphasis added]

Making male employees wear makeup is the same as making female employees wear makeup -- imagine the legal implications of that one...

A creative employee could dial 911 and fake an allergic reaction to the makeup, the hospital would have to investigate and if he played his cards right, he could wind up with going out on disability.

At the very least, they have created an incredibly dangerous homophobe here. Good job....

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://www.e2ccb.org/about.cfm?subpage=1991801

[John F. Carr]

I once had a bad reaction to a coworker's perfume, but not bad enough to claim disability.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Even you cannot possibly be dumb enough to think that a “makeup session” is a meeting where attendees are required to apply cosmetics.

[Michael P]

He confused the "LGBTQ training and makeup session" with the "LGBTQ and makeup training session". It's an easy mistake to make, really.

[shawn_dude]

I know, right? Because if there's one thing lesbians are known for, it's their habit of wearing a lot of cosmetics.

I think he was projecting, actually.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you only associate with dykes.

[David Nieporent]

Objection. Dr. Ed absolutely could be that dumb.

[not guilty]

The District Court opinion, linked downthread, indicates that after the Plaintiff missed an initial, mandatory training session, his supervisor sent an email advising all employees who did not attend the first training to attend a make-up training session.

[Ed Grinberg]

At this “training”, can you sit there quietly in a corner wearing a MAGA hat or do participants have to go around kissing each other?

...that joke about the old [English] guy saying: "In my grandfather's time, homosexuality was a capital offense. When I was a young man you could get jail time for it. Now it's accepted. I hope I die before they make it compulsory." (source)

[not guilty]

If attending the training “would have caused [the plaintiff] to violate the religious teachings to which he adheres” because such training was “aimed at changing his religious beliefs about gender and sexuality,” how firmly grounded were such alleged beliefs to begin with?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If they were firmly grounded enough to cause him emotional problems that precluded his return to work, would that be a worker’s comp injury?

Or, conversely, he snapped and started routinely using homophobic slurs *because of* this traumatic event? Could they discipline him for it? ADA?

[David Nieporent]

If they were firmly grounded enough to cause him emotional problems that precluded his return to work, would that be a worker’s comp injury?

No.

Could they discipline him for it? ADA?

Yes. No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Bored Lawyer]

NG -- let's say the shoe were on the other foot. A Christian company (Hobby Lobby) requires its employees to attend sessions in which the divinity of Jesus Christ is preached. Jewish, Muslim and atheist employees don't want to attend. Do you think they would have a case? Does it matter whether their own faith is weak, or they just don't want to be forced to attend lectures about how their faith is wrong?

[apedad]

But that's the main difference!

The case was not decided on religious issues; ". . . rather, the evidence in the record supports Defendants’ position that his termination was due to repeatedly refusing to attend a mandatory employee training.”

In your scenario, it's strictly a religious issue.

[Bored Lawyer]

OK, the Jews, Muslims and atheists refuse to attend the sessions, and are then fired. You're ok with that?

[apedad]

Aren’t you a lawyer?

Can’t you determine whether your scenario is legal or not?

[Bored Lawyer]

Nice deflection. Why don't you answer the question. I obviously think it's not legal.

[Ed Grinberg]

He asked you whether "[y]ou’re ok with that." That has nothing to do with "whether [his] scenario is legal or not."

I have noticed that quite a few leftists fail to grasp the distinction between "wrong" and "illegal." So, for example, when I commented that, in my opinion, it's wrong to force private businesses / employers to serve / hire someone they'd rather not serve / hire, I was told: "The Supreme Court said otherwise."

[apedad]

Sorry for focusing on the legal aspect on a legal blog!

[Mr. Bumble]

It's an open thread. Go wild and expand your horizons.

[SRG]

Perhaps a closer analogy would be if these Hobby Lobby employees had to attend training where they were to be taught not to get upset when a Christian colleague engages in public prayer..

[SimonP]

I thought about this hypothetical. So what happens when the atheist employee asks for a religious accommodation not to participate these sessions, from Hobby Lobby, and Hobby Lobby tells them no? Do they win, under current law, with the current courts?

[EscherEnigma]

If you think this is a fair analogy you're making some unfounded assumptions about the content of the missed training session.

Simply put, most training sessions aren't preaching "this is what you should believe" (which would be religious discrimination). They are "while working here, this is how you should behave" (which is allowed and not religious discrimination).

If the skipped training session is as you fear, and was indeed preaching about what employees should believe, then yes the guy should have won. But that would have come out in discovery, so I'm skeptical your fears are founded.

[Nige]

A session on how to treat fellow Christian employees and customers with respect and consideration would be a better analogy, and while it would be a little puzzling, in *theory* anyone should be able to attend it without their own beliefs being offended.

[Voize]

Bored, for the shoe to really be on the other foot in your hypo it would be necessary that state law mandate religious training in the workplace, which of course it does not do.

New York law does mandate training for all public education employees to counter harassment and discrimination on many grounds, including religion, religious practice, sexual orientation, gender, or sex (N.Y. Educ. Law Tit. 1 Art. 2 §§ 13(4)). The court found that plaintiff's requested accommodation would have required his employer to violate that mandate and would constitute an undue hardship.

To fix your hypo, yes, employees who refused mandatory training in tolerance of other religions would also be subject to dismissal, even if they believed that their own religion required them to discriminate.

[shawn_dude]

This is a red herring. Or, if you like, a completely different type of shoe.

One is training on how to behave professionally at work according to company policy and the other is proselytizing.

[Ben_]

Better to attend the training and record it on video for evidence.

[not guilty]

For the benefit of those who prefer original source materials to media reports, here is the District Court opinion and order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21494611-zdunski-v-erie-2-chautauqua-cattaraugus-boces_-2022-us-dist-lexis-51575 The order of the Second Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals summarily affirming the District Court is brief, conclusory and bereft of details.

[apedad]

Uganda president’s controversial son unnerves country with tweets about succeeding his father

On Twitter, the Ugandan president’s son has mused about invading neighboring Kenya, praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and offered cattle for the Italian prime minister’s hand in marriage.

While many of his tweets are dismissed as laughable, the ones about succeeding his father in this East African nation are a source of concern for some.

Many Ugandans want decisive political change after nearly four decades of the same government, but the son of President Yoweri Museveni is already claiming victory. “I will be President of Uganda after my father,” Muhoozi Kainerugaba tweeted earlier this month. “Those fighting the truth will be very disappointed!!!”

Museveni, 78 and in power for 37 years, hasn’t said when he will leave office. Kainerugaba is at the peak of his military career as a four-star general who is a linchpin of the security apparatus supporting Museveni.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/uganda-presidents-controversial-son-unnerves-country-tweets-succeeding-father

Some of you would like Uganda.

A bill introduced in Uganda’s Parliament criminalizing same-sex conduct and sexual and gender identity, if adopted, would violate multiple fundamental rights, Human Rights Watch said today. Among others, such a law would violate the rights to freedom of expression and association privacy, equality, and nondiscrimination.

On a personal note, I was in Kampala (capital), and Entebbe International Airport (EIA) in the mid-90s during the Rwandan Genocide.

You all recall “Entebbe” I’m sure.

On 27 June 1976, two members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – External Operations (PFLP-EO), hijacked an Air France Airbus A300 with 248 passengers and 12 crew members.

Over the next two days, 148 non-Israeli hostages were released with 106 passengers and crew members remaining as hostages.

After a stop in Bengahzi, they flew to EIA, where on 30 June, the hijackers released 48 more hostages.

After negotiations failed, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) commenced with a hostage rescue at EIA (too elaborate to give all the details here).

All hostage takers were killed as well as several hostages.

The IDF leader, Lt. Col. Yonatan Netanyahu (yes Benny’s brother) was killed during the rescue.

The old EIA terminal was still standing when I was there, (they had built a new one where we were at), and it was still riddled with bullet holes.

[Martinned]

Did you just write down everything you know about Uganda?

[apedad]

No.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out that Idi Amin was a "Dr'" just like "Dr." Jill Biden

[SRG]

FWIW the sister-in-law of my English teacher, Dora Bloch, was one of the hostages. She was taken ill, was moved to a hospital, and was later murdered by the Ugandans.

[David Nieporent]

And 'murdered' is not hyperbole. Ugandan soldiers came to the hospital and shot her as revenge for the Entebbe raid.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The reason the son is still looking for a wife is that he messed up with his previous attempt at marriage.

He was supposed to meet his potential wife's family at the river and give them the cattle, but he came to the wrong side of the river.

He didn’t know which side his bride was bartered on.

(h/t Bennett Cerf or whoever Cerf’s source was)

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators! Tomorrow is.....St Patrick's Day! Can you believe it...spring is right around the corner? My daffodils exploded this week; my organic compost worked wonders. 🙂 Commenter_XY will be cooking for this holiday. I have two corned beef briskets, ready to go, a couple heads of organic cabbage and cauliflower (I have a lower carb lifestyle), and some other assorted goodies. Overlapping with Friday night is just...awesome! Really good timing. 🙂

My problem....I need a good mixed drink suggestion. What is a good mixed drink for St Patrick's Day?

Bonus: What is a really good Irish dessert you've had?

[Moderation4ever]

For the drink, I would suggest a whiskey cocktail or old fashion made with Jameson. Hell, skip the cocktail and just drink the Jameson on some ice.

As for dessert, while I can't suggest a dessert, I sure any Irish dessert would be topped with a substantial dollop of whipped cream.

Erin Go Bragh

[OtisAH]

The only mixed drink that’s appropriate for St. Patrick’s Day is called the “go drink that shit somewhere else.” There’s also vodka, soda, and Red Bull.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There is only one drink for St. Patrick's Day. Guinness,

[SRG]

Not "one".

1. Draft Guinness
2. Traditional bottled Guinness
3. Guinness shandy (bottled Guinness + lemonade)
4. Black velvet (bottled Guinness + champagne)
5. If you can still find it, Guinness XXX

[Mr. Bumble]

Alternating with shots of Bushmill's or Tullamore Dew.

[SRG]

We agree on the important stuff, evidently 🙂

[Estragon]

Bushmills? What are you, like 24 years old? Get some green spot at least for Pete’s sake

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't be a snob when it comes to whiskey. Drink what you like and like what you drink. Don't know what your fascination with a 7-10 year old blended whiskey is, but have at it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You may wish to consider canned Guinness (with the nitrogenated widget) rather than bottled Guinness. Even the people at Guinness generally would not consume the bottled product, particularly if the nitrogenated cans were available.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, I'll look for the nitro can. 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

One of the few posts where Kirkland got something right. Other than draft it is the next best thing.

[Voize]

I've heard that, though Guiness is the leading dry stout worldwide, in Ireland Murphy's is more popular.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe a "Shimmer" type twofer (it's a floor wax and dessert topping"
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/shimmer-floor-wax/n8625
My wife makes a killer Irish coffee with Irish Mist liqueur. In a tall parfait or wine glass: Strong coffee, Irish Mist (double) sugar to taste and topped with plenty of fresh whipped cream.

[Commenter_XY]

Mmmmm...Irish coffee.

[bernard11]

"The only drink that combines in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar, and fat."

[Bob from Ohio]

"What is a good mixed drink for St Patrick’s Day?"

Bourbon mixed with bourbon.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
Mixed drinks for St Paddy's:
If you buy cask strength, single pot Irish whiskey , you should mix it with enough distilled water to lower its proof to the range 80 to 90.
Do not spoil good whiskey with bad water.

[Commenter_XY]

That is a cardinal sin = spoiling whiskey with water

Don Nico....what kind of guy do you take me for, watering down fine whiskey? What?! 🙂

[Nige]

The only real traditional Irish drink for St Patrick's Day is a nice cuppa tea. Lyons or Barrys, depending on fiercely held regional loyalties.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seriously? You are such a fop.

[Nige]

Tea is the universal drink of the working class, you middle manager.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like I said you are quite the fop.

[Nige]

Why hang me, but I admire thee strangely. I wish I were that dull, that constant thing, which thou woud'st have, and Nature never meant me.

[Commenter_XY]

But where is the 'mixed drink' recommendation?

The tea I need for Saturday morning! 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Do like the "proper" Irish ladies do and add Irish whiskey to you tea.

[Nige]

You could mix the Barrys and the Lyons but you'd be run out of Ireland if they ever found out.

[shawn_dude]

Guinness is low carb. 🙂 For realz. But I agree with the other commenters that Irish whiskey is the best option.

For dessert, look for a chocolate cake recipe online that incorporates Guinness--it adds richness and loft. Serve with whipped cream or buttercream made with Irish Cream liqueur.

If you want to stick with low carb for dessert... yeesh... that's hard. Maybe a whipped ricotta pudding with some sugar free Irish Cream or coffee liqueur? If you can find cocoa nibs, they're sugar free and have a strong chocolate flavor.

[Commenter_XY]

Low carb works!

Yeah, the dessert is tough. The chocolate cake (keto version) with a hint of guinness might just do the trick, though. What an awesome call out (guinness and chocolate cake). I have plenty of whipping cream. I can add bailey's.

Thank you so much for the dessert idea.

[Estragon]

Having worked in midtown Manhattan I can say unequivocally that St. Patrick’s day, second only perhaps to Santa-con day, is one of the worst days of the year to be in Manhattan. One wonders how Staten Island and Nassau county survive these days— I would wager 85-90% of fire department personnel are off and puking outside the Irish bars on 2nd Ave.

Guinness is ok— I always preferred a Black and Tan (bass and Guinness)

[Estragon]

On another whisk(e)y note if any of you are brave enough to venture into the dystopian hellscape of Portland, Oregon— the multnomah whiskey library is a real treat. Huckleberries— this is probably too scary for you, don’t bother.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

A good and easy mixed drink with whiskey is a Revolver: 2 oz whiskey, 1/2 oz coffee liqueur, a shake or two of orange bitters. I would recommend not using Kahlua, since it also has rum. Find one that is only liqueur.

It works well with Jameson, any whiskey, for that matter.

[not guilty]

A federal judge in Texas is considering a request for a preliminary injunction ordering the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw or suspend its September 28, 2000 approval of mifepristone and its April 11, 2019, approval of generic mifepristone tablets and remove them from the list of approved drugs. In 2002, certain Plaintiffs submitted a citizen petition asking FDA to withdraw the 2000 approval of mifepristone. FDA denied the petition on March 29, 2016. The instant suit was filed on November 18, 2022.

Subject to exceptions not here relevant, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) provides that every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues. How would that bar not apply to the 2000 FDA action?

[John F. Carr]

NYT: "He seemed acutely aware of the unprecedented nature of the case, establishing through his questions that a court had never ordered the federal government to withdraw the approval of a drug that had been legally available for years."

[not guilty]

The Plaintiffs sued in Judge Kacsmaryk's division of the Northern District of Texas in hopes of being served home cooking. Their theory of standing is too attenuated and speculative to satisfy Article III requirements. The most significant of the Plaintiffs' claims are barred as untimely and/or for administrative remedies not having been exhausted. https://adflegal.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/Alliance-for-Hippocratic-Medicine-v-FDA-2023-01-13-Defendants-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-MPI.pdf

[bevis the lumberjack]

Trump expected to be served home cooking on matters like his election lawsuits by the SC justices he appointed. How’d that turn out?

[Bob from Ohio]

"hopes of being served home cooking."

Just like all those immigration cases in Hawaii.

goose, gander

[David Nieporent]

This was discussed here a week or so ago by Adler (who linked to someone else's analysis of the suit): the theory is that the FDA reopened the 2000 decision in 2016.

[apedad]

The D.C. District Court Upholds the Government’s Geofence Warrant Used to Identify Jan. 6 Rioters

On Jan. 25, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia handed down an opinion in the case of United States v. Rhine denying Jan. 6 rioter David Harles Rhine’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a geofence warrant.

In the limited number of written opinions—only one of which is an opinion written by a federal district court (United States v. Chatrie), while seven are magistrate court opinions—geofence warrants frequently fail on two grounds: Either the warrant is not narrowly tailored to the scope of probable cause or the government fails to bake judicial approval into each iterative step of the collection process.

In Rhine’s case—in contrast to Chatrie, where law enforcement sought court approval for a warrant in the first stage but not the subsequent stages—the government used a multistep process to seek court approval each time it requested that Google produce a narrower set of user data.

As prosecutors continue to pursue Jan. 6 rioters, 948 of whom have already been charged, this holding is significant. It green-lights the government’s use of geofence warrants to pin down the insurrectionists and use the fruits of the warrant as evidence of culpability. Further, it provides a clear framework for the kinds of Fourth Amendment protections the geofence warrant application must meet to be upheld as constitutional.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/dc-district-court-upholds-governments-geofence-warrant-used-identify-jan-6-rioters?utm_source=pocket_saves

Seems like an appropriate decision.

The govt first obtained anonymized lists shows which cell phones were in the area then took additional steps to focus on phones which were in a specific area (inside the bldg. and not in the surround area), in a specific time, and without a valid reason.

Then they got a second warrant asking for the personal information.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember to remove the battery from your phone.

[apedad]

Or just don't be involved in criminal activity.

[Krayt]

"If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide", and therefore government can filch at will through records looking for crime.

I don't think that's a good constitutional design principle.

Just say no to panopticons.

[John F. Carr]

Airplane mode should work.

If they are asking Google to turn me in, I think I'm safe. Google is not my default search engine. I do not have Google apps installed because I know they spy on you.

There are other ways to track besides Google. Given finite investigative resources, I may not need to outrun the bear, only the Google users.

[EscherEnigma]

Unless you're using a jail-broken phone with a custom OS that actually goes radio-silent in Airplane Mode, Airplane Mode is insufficient.

Just leave your phone at the hotel room.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, doesn't this give law enforcement a backdoor way to do fishing investigations? That doesn't seem quite right, or consistent with how I understand 4A (as a layman).

Why doesn't Carpenter play a role here?

[apedad]

Doesn’t this give law enforcement a backdoor way to do fishing investigations? No.

First, there was alleged criminal activity (the 1/6 riot), and at each step the govt obtained a warrant.

In subsequent steps, the govt narrowed their search criteria taking steps to remove people from the list that had no apparent connection to the alleged criminal activity, e.g., the Senators or a delivery person legitimately in the area.

Only then when they had specific info on cell phones that had no apparent reason to be in the area during that time, did the govt - again - get a new warrant to obtain the specific personal identifying data tying the phone to a person.

Don't know about Carpenter.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Carpenter says that the government needs a search warrant to get (large enough quantities of) cell phone location data.

The government got a warrant for the data here.

What additional role do you think Carpenter should be playing?

[Commenter_XY]

You just told me how it doesn't apply, sigh. 🙂

[Stephen Lathrop]

Late breaking news last night. Another Trump phone call in Georgia has been reported by special grand jurors. On the Lawrence O’Donnel show (MSNBC), he reported that the now-deceased Speaker of the Georgia House, David Ralston, recorded a phone call from Trump, which was played for the grand jurors.

On the call, Trump reportedly pressured Ralston to call a special session of the Georgia House. Reportedly, Trump tried to pressure Ralston to have the Georgia House withdraw the state’s electoral votes from Biden, and give them instead to Trump. Ralston reportedly turned the pressure aside, saying something like, he would do whatever he could which was appropriate, leaving Trump flummoxed.

I have not seen anything else on this. Anyone else heard more?

As a side issue, O’Donnel reported that Georgia is among the states where it remains legal to record a telephone call without informing the other party that you are doing it. I have never understood the rationale to outlaw that practice. I analogize it to taking accurate notes. Or, for that matter, to Nixon recording himself and his visitors in the Oval.

If I recall correctly, when I did journalism in Idaho, 50 years ago, the law there was that you could record telephone conversations at will, without informing the other party, but you could use the recordings for only one purpose—to rebut false testimony in court.

I never heard of a case where that came up in court. There was a time—when I was working as a stringer for a daily paper in Twin Falls—when the target of an investigation threatened to the publisher that he would sue for libel. The target claimed to the publisher he would prove the contrary of what he had told me. The publisher had recently dodged a libel judgement, rightly overturned on appeal, which would have put the paper out of business. That made the publisher nervous, when he learned that a mere stringer might bring on another such catastrophe.

The publisher was reassured after my editor played him the recording I had made. The story went on to become a notable investigation, embarrassing the governor, who had publicly backed the target in an outlandish industrial development proposal. The target’s biography turned up many colorful and entertaining details, including the fact that he had falsified his birth date, making himself older than he was, so he had time to fit in an astounding catalogue of other lies, including a made-up association in secret intelligence work with T.E. Lawrence.

[Moderation4ever]

I would say that a good general rule is not to say anything on the phone or put anything in an email that you would not want recorded and repeated. I am sure that Trump thought the pressure he was applying was just part of politics, but then so is recording phone conversations to CYA.

[OtisAH]

I think that’s the extent of the Ralston story. Turnip tried to nudge him, Ralston nudged his hand away, no special session was called and that portion of the Turnip coup attempt died on the vine.

[Michael Ejercito]

Sonce when was petitioning government officials a coup attempt?

[Moderation4ever]

It is if you are petitioning for something illegal, like finding votes or assigning a false slate of electors.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its "illegal" to ask the legislature to change its law?

[Michael Ejercito]

Of course not, depsite what Michael McCrum had argued.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not remotely illegal to petition somebody to find votes.

Now, asking them to find votes even if they turn out not to be there? Yeah, that would be illegal. But just asking them to look for votes you're convinced are there?

Not illegal, even if you're wrong about it.

See, you're building into this not just an assumption that the votes weren't there to find, but that Trump himself didn't think they were there to find. You've built Trump's mens rea right into how you formulate it in your mind. But in the real world, if he held a mistaken/delusional belief that those votes were there if you just went looking for them?

Then it couldn't be corrupt for him to ask you to look.

Assigning a false slate of electors is a more complicated issue, because the legislature, constitutionally speaking, is perfectly entitled to assign whatever slate of electors they want. So, a slate of electors chosen by the legislature can't be a "false" slate.

The problem there, of course, is that election day is the designated day for making that choice, and once they've made it, whether personally or delegated to the voters, they've made it. No backsies.

But, eh, things that are just as clear as that get screwed up by the courts all the time, half the modern federal government rests on aggressively BS constitutional readings. Backsies for EC votes hardly even registers on the same scale as Wickard.

[Michael Ejercito]

Actully,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/rights-of-assembly-and-petition

the First Amendment protects the right "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". No case law supports the notion that this right does not extend to the right to merely petitition for actions that would be beyond the government employee's legal authority.

Thus, merely asking a prosecutor to commit a Brady violation is, despite being odious and unethical, constitutionally protected. There has to be something more (e.g., bribery, offering to assist in committing the Brady violation, being the prosecutor's boss) for such a request to be ebyond the right to petition.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ejercito, have you noticed that there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to vote? If you had to take a stab at an originalist explanation for that apparent oversight, what would it be?

I will give you a hint. James Wilson, the founder in whose hand most of the final version of the Constitution was drafted, would tell you that voting is not a right. It is more than a right. It is a sovereign power, which members of America’s joint sovereignty, We the People, exercise at pleasure.

That means, among other things, that the Constitution does not control voting. The authors of the Constitution control voting, by exercise during an election of their sovereign constitutive power. That makes award of office not a right which can be claimed under the Constitution, and thus not a result which can be petitioned for as a matter of right.

It is instead a gift of the People, made at pleasure, and not subject to challenge. A completed and counted election result is a sovereign decree on a par with the Constitution itself. That is not something a government officeholder can overturn on the basis of a claim to a constitutional right of petition. No court has power to award such a remedy, against the already-expressed will of the sovereign.

That has further implications. One of them is that when a member of government, sworn to uphold the Constitution, defies a completed election result, and attempts to overturn it, he commits a crime akin to treason—by beginning a contest for sovereignty with the People themselves—with the criteria whether it be actual treason already decided by the People, and described in the Constitution.

It is not treason, but some lesser crime, if done without an attempt to levy war against the United States, or give aid and comfort to an enemy of them. On that basis, Trump’s attempt, after the election result was certified, to overturn the result could not be a petition, but was a crime.

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a decision acquitting Aaron Burr of a charge of treason. In that decision Marshall analyzed minutely what conduct constitutes levying war against the United States—before deciding Burr had not committed that crime. Marshall’s reasoning applied to the facts of January 6 makes it likely that the crime Trump committed was actual treason. The question would turn in court only on how much evidence can be produced to connect Trump to the violence at the Capitol on January 6. If, for instance, it could be shown that during the violence there existed a channel which enabled real-time communication between Trump and the paramilitaries who stormed the Capitol, that would make Trump a direct participant in that violence, and a traitor to the United States. He would be constitutionally subject to capital punishment.

Those who insist that no such evidence exists to connect Trump to the violence, must content themselves, on the basis of the other evidence of Trump’s coup attempt already known, to accept that he is guilty of some crime short of treason. Only direct connection to the violence remains to be proved to make Trump a traitor.

[Michael Ejercito]

Ejercito, have you noticed that there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to vote?

iof course.

I do notice a right to petition.

That makes award of office not a right which can be claimed under the Constitution, and thus not a result which can be petitioned for as a matter of right.

The first Amendment protects a right to petition for virtually anything.

A completed and counted election result is a sovereign decree on a par with the Constitution itself.

To the contrary, the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

That has further implications. One of them is that when a member of government, sworn to uphold the Constitution, defies a completed election result, and attempts to overturn it, he commits a crime akin to treason—by beginning a contest for sovereignty with the People themselves—with the criteria whether it be actual treason already decided by the People, and described in the Constitution.

You have zero case law supporting this.

If, for instance, it could be shown that during the violence there existed a channel which enabled real-time communication between Trump and the paramilitaries who stormed the Capitol, that would make Trump a direct participant in that violence, and a traitor to the United States. He would be constitutionally subject to capital punishment.

True, of course it is plain and clear that no such communication exists- otherwise we qwould have heard about it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ejercito, it is true that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That does not mean it is the supreme authority in American constitutionalism, which remains, self-evidently, the author of the Constitution, the American People. Their constitutive power, a defining aspect of sovereignty, by the way, encompasses the powers to vote, and to bestow the gift of office.

True, of course it is plain and clear that no such communication exists- otherwise we would have heard about it.

Stick around. But don't watch Fox or you will not hear about it.

More generally, it may be that things some folks (not Fox fans) have already heard about amount to enough to convict Trump as a participant in the Capitol violence.

But don't worry. I doubt Trump's life is in jeopardy. The Justice Department could easily have charged treason against some of the defendants who have already pled guilty, and made it stick.

I didn't think that was true, until reading Marshall's Burr decision disabused me of mistaken ideas about what constitutes levying war against the United States. It is a much lower bar than I had supposed. Makes the Justice Department look astonishingly lenient in its charging decisions.

[not guilty]

"the First Amendment protects the right 'petition the Government for a redress of grievances'. No case law supports the notion that this right does not extend to the right to merely petitition for actions that would be beyond the government employee’s legal authority."

Speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute is not protected by the First Amendment. Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). To avoid punishing protected speech or expression, a criminal statute will often limit the prohibited act by requiring a culpable mental state, such as an act done "corruptly" or "with intent to defraud."

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, in your view does either, "corruptly," or "with intent to defraud," qualify adequately to exclude use of violence? Or does that deserve separate consideration, of the sort delivered by the Treason clause?

[not guilty]

A person’s actual use of violence can be criminalized irrespective of First Amendment constraints. A more difficult question is presented when speech or expression related to violence is proscribed. For example, the First Amendment permits a State to ban “true threats,” e.g., Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969), which encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. Advocacy of violence in the abstract is First Amendment protected, except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). “[T]here remains an important distinction between a proposal to engage in illegal activity and the abstract advocacy of illegality.” United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008).

Symbolic speech also implicates First Amendment analysis. When “speech” and “nonspeech” elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms. Such a regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77 (1968). In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the Supreme Court has asked whether “an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and whether the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989).

The First Amendment does not provide protection for forms of speech that are used to commit a crime, such as perjury, extortion or harassment. Here, a statutory scienter requirement can be critical to save the constitutional validity of what would otherwise be a facially overbroad statute. Statutes attempting to restrict or burden the exercise of First Amendment rights must be narrowly drawn. For example, burning a cross may be First Amendment protected conduct, see, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), but a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate a person or group of persons. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 363 (2003).

[Moderation4ever]

The problem is not that the former President asked to find votes but that he asked so specifically for enough to win. That suggest that he was asking for something illegal. It is worth remembering that his campaign staff and advisors had told him that he did not have the votes to win. These staff members would have had the knowledge and experience, think of a Steve Kornacki type, to know that the votes Trump needed were not there.

It is the state legislature role to assign electors, but that has to be done in an open manner. If they have pledged to accept the voter's choice and then changed that it would be very questionable and certainly would have been challenged in court.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That suggest that he was asking for something illegal."

It does if you're starting out with that assumption, sure. Not otherwise.

[grb]

Well, here’s my assumption : If someone sincerely believed there were uncounted votes after an election, he’d have a reason or theory behind that belief. He’d propose a mechanism to explain how the uncounted votes occurred.

But that’s never happened with Trump, has it? On any given day he’ll throw out this random conspiracy or that, secure in a huckster’s confidence he can work any crowd. There’s never consistency from one audience to the next. It’s all made-up on the spot.

If you thought your votes were lost or stolen, you’d have a laser focus on the root cause. You’d zero on that with relentless intensity. With Trump, it’s the exact opposite. He has a repertoire of flim-flam cons and he cycles thru them with blithe indifference. Because only the performance matters. There’s zero truth in all of them – as Trump well knows.

[David Nieporent]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2023/03/17/trump-fraud-report-2020/

[Michael Ejercito]

And the problem with your problem is that Trump was merely asking.

No one is alleging that Trump offered a bribe, or offered to provide forged or fake ballots.

It is not as bad as asking a prosecutor to commit a Brady violation. Unless there is something more, merely asking a prosecutor to commit a Brady violation is protected by the First Amendment.

[Voize]

No one is alleging that Trump offered a bribe, or offered to provide forged or fake ballots.

It is a crime under Georgia election law to solicit election fraud. Asking is enough, it does not require the offering of a bribe or direct participation in the fraud.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ejercito, no one needs to allege that Trump dangled pardons for some who he was importuning to support his big lie. That is proved already in the record. And he was at it again about a week ago, with the disadvantage that those he wants to encourage in crime now will have to take their chances on his reelection.

[David Nieporent]

See, you’re building into this not just an assumption that the votes weren’t there to find, but that Trump himself didn’t think they were there to find. You’ve built Trump’s mens rea right into how you formulate it in your mind. But in the real world, if he held a mistaken/delusional belief that those votes were there if you just went looking for them?

Trump knew for a fact that the votes weren't there to find.

[Moderation4ever]

Well, if appear certain that Aaron Rodgers will not be suiting up for the Packers this fall. I have liked Aaron and also Brent before him, but I have also thought it is time to move on. Looking forward to a new year with a new quarterback. I have been a Packers fan through many lean years before Aaron and Brent, and I will watch with Jordan quarterbacking no matter how the season goes.

[Bob from Ohio]

" I have been a Packers fan"

Me too! Since the Ice Bowl.

Jerry Tagge once was the Packers QB, Love must be better than that.

[dwb68]

Chatgpt passing the bar does not show how smart AI is. It exposes that standardized exams are mostly rote memorization. And that includes essays. Many a time I simply regurgitated some buzzwords on an essay and passed.

Speaking of buzzwords and passing essays... heck, thats what banks do on regulatory reports. Examiners dont have time to go into detail any more than those who grade essays. And sometimes banks pass. And sometimes banks fail and we realize management was incompetent.

Humans will have to get creative to compete with bots and AI better designed for rote memorization.

[Nige]

Isn’t it more like a student with access to the entire internet and an effective search algorithm? It’s the ultimate crib sheet.

[Krayt]

It's an old saw in AI that, every time AI people built something that was believed to require some nebulous concept of intelligence, after doing so, they decided no, that thing did not require it after all.

Text to speech
Pattern recognition
Chess
Checkers
Driving
Etc.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So after proving those activities do not require intelligence, we get to legal practice?

[Krayt]

And it will shock you, just like chess players.

Miracle of miracles, the paralegals were right.

[shawn_dude]

ChatGPT is also capable of writing code that will compile for common processes. You can also pass it a large chunk of data and have it automatically change the punctuation and other elements required to convert to/from JSON, CSV, XML, and other formats. It's a hugely useful tool.

[Sarcastr0]

Via Kevin Drum, Chris Drew of the NYT tries to define woke:

Race-Based Silencing – Telling a white person they don’t have the right to speak because they’re an oppressor.
Cancel Culture – Canceling a college speaker because they have controversial views on power and race.
Digging up Old Tweets – A company digs up tweets and photos from 1995 to play “gotcha” and sink a political candidate’s campaign.
Critical Race Theory – A school’s history curriculum teaches a ‘white oppressor’ narrative in their classrooms, which makes young white children feel like they’ve done something wrong.
Day of Absence – A college asks white students to stay home for one day per year to discuss and think about their privilege.
Taking a Knee (By Social Pressure) – A school or sports organization pressuring you to take a knee during the anthem to send a message about racial inequality.
Pride Jerseys – Conservative Christian football players are asked to wear pink pride jerseys on the football field in support of LGBT values, against their religious views.
Virtue Signaling – Brands use pro-LGBT, pro-BLM imagery to appear inclusive. But this marginalizes half of their potential user base.
Gender Pluralism – People saying there are over 70 genders and that if you disagree, you’re a horrible person.

How'd he do?

I think some of this is legit (Digging up Old Tweets), some is wrong (I've never encountered Race-Based Silencing and I'd wager I spend more time with black folks than many who decry wokeness, and the gender thing is conflating satire than reality), the scope is all over the place (Pride Jerseys is narrow, Virtue Signaling is broad), and 'cancel culture' is badly defined.

Still, it does a better job of defining a scope for what you can call woke than the right seems interested in doing.

[OtisAH]

There’s an actual definition of “woke” though:

“aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

Which is all it ever meant until MAGA started using it in place of N-bombs.

[Bored Lawyer]

Kind of like the word Democratic until the Commies started using it to describe their countries.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, kind of.

[Sarcastr0]

...Do you realize what an brutal takedown that is to the right-wing use of 'woke?'

[Bored Lawyer]

No, it isn't. Woke is a shorthand for a radical agenda, first used by the left, and later used by the right to call attention to that.

[Sarcastr0]

Woke is a shorthand for a radical agenda, first used by the left, and later used by the right

"aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)" says nothing about being radical - that's something you're bringing into this. A clue is you generalize it into 'a radical agenda' which is a revealingly unsupported change of scope.

It's the right that repurposed the word, so the false branding of DPRK and the like is a comparison specifically to the right, not the OG woke.

[Krayt]

That’s a sweet definition of nice people. Wherefore cancellation, e’en after apology, then? (Unless you have political power, on the correct side, then all is forgiven, for everything from blackface to being a KKK member.)

Maybe those sweet, reasonable words are wool pulled over the eyes, by people in ancient but standard power battles?

Nah. I’m sure that has nothing to do with it.

[Sarcastr0]

Same shit - the REAL definition is evil and as defined by the right, and proves all the bad thing the right's been saying!

No need for evidence, the right's fervent and bitter imagination shall serve as validation enough!

I'm not a presecriptivist, and am all for using words as they are used, not as they formally say they should be used. I am NOT for using words via sekret definitions to win partisan conflicts.

[Krayt]

“Here’s a whole bunch of incidents…”

“No, here’s a tidy definition that sidesteps those. I win!”

If it were just a fancy version of be nice, I would be right on board. Indeed, I have brought up it is just an extension of a question asked of Dear Abby in the 1970s, when “Ms.” was starting to be a thing.

“Dear Abby, should I call a woman I have just met Ms. or Mrs. or Miss?”

“Call her Ms. unless you know she prefers Mrs. or Miss.”

But it’s more than just an extension of that, isn’t it? If only.

[Sarcastr0]

You declare that liberals are liars when they claim to use the word woke based on the definition above but actually mean something else.

That's not a semantics issue, that's a you're making things up issue.

[Nige]

It was never a 'radical agenda.' It was SLANG.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair, Otis.

But I'm not a language prescriptiveness, and the right has made up a whole new function for the word.

[OtisAH]

No, they’re trying to reverse engineer a definition to force the word to mean what they want it to, which is as a pejorative.

[Sarcastr0]

The way to prevent that is to demystify the meaning they're trying to push, revealing it as empty of any but reactionary spite.

[OtisAH]

But playing their game and deriving your own mutated definitions of the word is not the way to do that. The way to do that is to say “this is what it actually means.”

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe I wasn't clear - this isn't a way I plan to use the word woke. I don't really use that word - I think I'm too old 😛

It is an exercise in getting the right to examine how they don't really have a definition.

And based on the Keystone Cops in the comments here, it's working pretty well.

[OtisAH]

No, I was unclear in using a general “you.” Shoulda been “we” or more broadly written. Regardless, as an avowed cynic and watcher of morons, I believe any attempt to get MAGA to self-examine is doomed to failure. So it’s best to just keep hammering the definition so the people who are paying little to no attention to the outrage that is “woke” (I.e. most people) have a chance to see.

[EscherEnigma]

Meh.

Americans have been using fascist, communist, socialist and so-on as pejoratives without actually understanding what the word means for decades. When you call us Americans on this, we normally respond by just shouting it at whoever is pointing out we're using the term wrong.

Which is to say... no. Pointing out that conservatives (as a group) have no coherent definition of "woke" and are just using it as a pejorative won't do anything useful.

[Michael P]

People like S_0 insist that conservatives are misusing words like “woke” or “CRT” because actually, CRT isn’t being taught in schools — CRT means Cathode Ray Tube and monitors these days are all flat-screens instead.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I am a bit more ornery about revectoring an academic discpline away from what the practicioners say than a slang term.

When it comes to CRT, you define it as some pretty out there stuff, but then legislate against it either vaguely or so broad normal conversations become banned.

[shawn_dude]

"Misusing" is probably the wrong word for it--it doesn't connotate the level of propaganda that goes into what conservatives are aiming for. Conservatives are trying to muddy the understanding to make conversations about social justice devolve into semantical arguments over what "woke" means rather than have to defend their position that oppression is a useful tool for maintaining power.

[Frank Drackman]

"N-Bombs"?? like the ones that 1/2 N-word Barry Hussein dropped in his Auto-Erotic-Biography "Wet Dreams from my Father"??
and talk about your Cultural Appropriation, "Woke" was originally just (Bad) "Black English" now mostly used by Man-Bun Wearing Hacky-Sack Playing Millenials

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"MAGA started using it in place of N-bombs"

I see this but its so odd. Its mainly "progressive" whites whom get called woke.

[Ed Grinberg]

It's just a pathetic attempt to shut down any criticism of the "woke" political agenda.
Like this: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1457708996849250307
As a (non-woke) blogger replied: "Please just fucking tell me what term I am allowed to use for the sweeping social and political changes you demand! You don't get to insist that no one talks about your political project..."
By the way, this guy (the one who says he might "do [some]thing to you") is a (online) journalist. He writes for Slate. According to Wikipedia, "it has a generally liberal editorial stance." Threatening violence against people who "pejoratively" talk about your political movement (based on their race!) -- it doesn't get more liberal than that!

[Nige]

I'm sorry you're mad people keep pointing out your use of 'woke' has passed beyond appropriation and into the realms of self-parody.

'Please just fucking tell me'

Better idea. Man up, define your terms, avoid usages that have beome too vague to be meaningful as anything but propaganda. Like right wing usage of 'woke.'

[shawn_dude]

Yes, the term largely, though not entirely, applies to whites. There's a pretty obvious reason for that. Nothing a little self-reflection won't reveal.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ah, the good ol' "It never happened to me, so of course this doesn't happen" logic.

This is one of the many reasons Sarcastro Logic fails.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, AL, the right makes up shit that never happens all the time.

Tell me, have you ever experienced White Silencing?

Separately, what do you think of that definition? I figure you don't much care to nail the word down to much more than 'liberal bad.'

[Armchair Lawyer]

If you can't admit to your logical fallacies ("It never happened to me, so of course this doesn’t happen") then there's no point to further discussion. The logical fallacies will just continue.

[Sarcastr0]

Huffily refusing to engage does not become you.

You're taking this on faith, and demand I do the same.

No.

[shawn_dude]

If you create a new victim category for white nationalists, they'll flock to it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Race based silencing has definitely happened.

I wouldn’t count taking a knee as woke (or, say, burning the flag). That’s just good old school protest, done at one point or another by people across the political spectrum. The kneelers were petitioning the government for the redress of grievances.

And it’s not necessary that the views of the heckled speaker be controversial. It’s simply that they disagree with those of the so-called woke.

I like the Freddie deBoer idea. Your movement exists. Tell me what you want to be called.

[Sarcastr0]

Has happened a few times nationwide is hardly the threshold, though, is it?

[SimonP]

I like the Freddie deBoer idea. Your movement exists. Tell me what you want to be called.

..."So that we can more precisely ban it from public discourse."

You seem to misunderstand the point in contention. Right-wingers across the country are describing various things as "woke" - critical race theory, police reform, the acknowledgment of intersectionality and systemic racism, trans-inclusive policy, ESG-based investing, diversity initiatives, etc. The criticism of the right-wing's use of the term "woke" is that they don't seem to know what the "evil" they're trying to eradicate is; it just seems to be a catch-all for anything slightly to the left of center (and the centrality of race in so much of what they're attacking is notable).

The truth of the matter is that there is no real "woke" ideology. The people being described as "woke" believe a lot of different things, for different reasons, with different aims.

It's like asking progressives to try to define what the right means when the right attacks "cultural marxism." This isn't our dog in the fight.

[SimonP]

I think this is a list of particular bugaboos. I might describe "woke"ism a bit differently:

It's (i) adopting a set of behaviors, statements, and language, contrary to one's intuitions and upbringing, designed specifically to acknowledge and accommodate the interests of historically disempowered groups (women, Black people, LGBTQ people, etc.), (ii) for the express purpose of correcting patterns of historical mistreatment, combined with (iii) a general normative attitude that this is how we all ought to be behaving.

I think that white "woke" people understand this quite well, because we're always monitoring and "correcting" ourselves - mentally, if not openly. It creates a kind of cognitive dissonance that has to, in some ways, be overcome, until the new patterns of behavior and speech become habitual.

The public discourse around "wokeism" gets a bit muddy, though. For their part, the progressive left tends to go overboard, hyping up the normative element of wokeism, treating transgressions as tantamount to "violence." For their part, the reactionary right tends to double-speak against wokeism - for instance, by conflating "safe spaces" with "spaces in which white people are expected to accept personal blame and disapprobation for slavery and systemic racism." But neither, in my view, is precisely right.

Being "woke" isn't about hoisting all of society's ills on individual white, cis, straight men, who each must self-flagellate themselves for the benefit of various minorities. But it's also not such a high-stakes thing that triracial, non-binary, pansexual [DON'T YOU DARE CALL ME A WOMAN]s need to start crying about "misgendering" every time someone refers to them as a "she."

Being "woke" should just be about trying to be decent to one another, within a context where we all acknowledge the ways in which past generations have been shitty to one another, often around these categories at the center of the "woke" discourse. We shouldn't be asking white, cis, straight men to be prostrating themselves before everyone else (and I generally think we aren't). At the same time, if someone asks you to refer to them by a chosen name or pronoun, you don't really have to make a point of expressing your non-belief in transgenderism by constantly refusing to use those names/pronouns.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean yeah, the right has lost the argument I think - there was that survey about the word woke mostly being thought of positively. Not sure its determinative, but I do think the right's non-definition is not really catching on.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“This word is horribly defined. People love it.”

Okay.

Many of the individual things advocated by that group are very unpopular. That survey might have had a labeling issue.

[Sarcastr0]

Try and follow along, bevis.

The word is well defined. The right uses it with Calvinball rules, and it's not going well.

[ragebot]

Sark the survey you mention that claimed "woke" was mostly thought of as positive was a pile of shit that only allowed two answers and defined "woke" as a positive thing. There was a sub thread here a couple of days ago that got into the problems with the survey. Hope this helps you get up to speed on things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

[Sarcastr0]

As always, coming in hot! "Not sure its determinative, but I do think the right’s non-definition is not really catching on."

But yeah, call a USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll a Push Poll because the result makes you sad. Unskew worked so well before!

[Bob from Ohio]

Issue polls are garbage, without exception.

[Ben_]

The only way to win the dictionary game is to refuse to play.

[Sarcastr0]

Sweet. Look forwards to you never posting again.

[Ben_]

If you were more honest you'd have fewer problems with other people.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit playing that definition game, Ben! You're losing, just as you said you would!!

I don't have problems with other people, actually. Something tells me you might, though.

[Ben_]

That’s the level of honesty we’ve all learned to expect from you

[Commenter_XY]

...I’d wager I spend more time with black folks than many who decry wokeness...

Black folks. Really Sarcastr0? That term you used is insufficiently woke.

[Sarcastr0]

Kinda confirming my point with this joke.

Though it's not a bad one, I'll admit.

[Commenter_XY]

I have my moments. 🙂

[Nige]

If you think it's just 'woke' people digging up old tweets, then the right really are winning the culture war. Remember when James Gunn got canceled? And yeah, that worked out about as well as cancellation usually does for rich white guys.

This is just turning 'woke' into an umbrella for every version of liberals, real and straw, that conservatives hate. You know how important it is to the right to create these labels and classifications for their political enemies.

[Sarcastr0]

Yep - but will they admit it?

[Nige]

Why would they? Currently they're self-supporting, self-generating and self-regarding - but they also want to break out and force everyone to believe whatever they tell them to.

[Bob from Ohio]

Definition stolen from twitter:

"Wokeness is the belief that Eurocentric Cisheteropatriarchy is written into the language and institutional foundations of American society and that a total dismantling of all its norms and conventions is required to overturn the violence and oppression endemic to everyday life."

[John F. Carr]

"Come and see the violence inherent in the system!"

[Krayt]

Violence and oppression are lower than ever before, and continue downward, as do old problems like starving.

Be careful dismantling that system. You will not like the replacement. So says all human history.

[Sarcastr0]

Outcomes have stalled for quite some time. You want lets stop trying?

[Krayt]

Outcomes in health continue. Our greatest problem is too much cheap, high calorie food.

This was a novelty for economists who study such things, and measured things like calories produced per person in a country, and dollars per calorie, all in a context of starvation and undersized adults.

Now people are too fat and suffer heart disease, which medicine is making leaps and bounds on. With any luck, laproscopic bypass will happen soon.

So please. Just because kids stare at screens all day doesn't mean electronic invention is stalled.

[Sarcastr0]

You just switched your metric from violence to health. Of course, both are incomplete compared to the general societal scope under discussion.

[shawn_dude]

Lower!? Know any drag queens? History teachers? People who like to read books?

[ragebot]

Since there are a fair number of lawyers here I would bet many of them participated in formal debating in high school and in college. Anyone who did knows the first thing that happens in a debate is an offer of definition of terms by the affirmative team ; something the negative team has the option of accepting or not accepting. It seems obvious that what I will call the "wokesters" (see I just made up a word peeps are free to define) have a different definition of than the "non wokesters" (see I just made up a word peeps are also free to define).

In some ways I am reminded of the famous quotation by Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman"; sure he did not fuck her which many peeps define as sex, he just got her to suck his dick and let him shove a cigar in her cunt. Many peeps would say all three of these things are having sex, not just the first one and excluding the last two is bullshit.

So riddle me this Batman, if woke is being aware of left wing causes does it also include being aware of right wing causes as well?

[Sarcastr0]

No. Get your own word.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Let's try to find some silver linings:

"Race-Based Silencing – Telling a white person they don’t have the right to speak because they’re an oppressor."

Maybe the kind of people who believe that stuff aren't worth speaking to anyway.

"Day of Absence – A college asks white students to stay home for one day per year to discuss and think about their privilege."

Professor, a single day isn't enough for me to contemplate all the ramifications of my privilege. I'm going to need a couple weeks. And could you excuse me from my exams during that time, so as not to interrupt my examination of conscience?

[Drbusybody]

ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU!

Suspect in wife murder expressed regret about getting married, while he was on "Family Feud."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspected-family-feud-killers-haunting-jokes-under-scrutiny-after-estranged-wifes-shooting-death

[Bored Lawyer]

Steve Harvey: "We surveyed 100 defense lawyers. Top 5 answers on the Board. What really dumb thing can a client do to destroy his case?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

In Massachusetts, a homeowner has all proper gun licenses and permits, buys some guns, stores them in his home, and then dies intestate.

What is the legal status of those guns?

A: Are they property that the wife inherits like the rest of the house?
B: Can the police enter the house, without permission or warrant, and seize the guns -- and start charging storage fees on them?
C: Can the police declare the guns to be the property of an adult child and not the mother?

[John F. Carr]

If I understand General Laws chapter 140 section 129c correctly, you have 180 days to get a license after inheriting a gun: "(n) The transfer of a firearm, rifle or shotgun upon the death of an owner to his heir or legatee shall be subject to the provisions of this section, provided that said heir or legatee shall within one hundred and eighty days of such transfer, obtain a firearm identification card or a license to carry firearms if not otherwise an exempt person who is qualified to receive such or apply to the licensing authority for such further limited period as may be necessary for the disposition of such firearm, rifle or shotgun;"

[Mr. Bumble]

How long does it take to get a FIC in MA?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What if the heir didn't even know they existed?

And can the police turn around and arbitrarily state that they belong to someone other than the lawful heir?

[John F. Carr]

Police can say the gun obviously belongs to Donald Trump and hold the gun as evidence. If you disagree you can hire a lawyer.

Generally police would rather say "that is a civil matter" than wade into property disputes that are not obviously larceny. Guns could be special, if only because police officers have opinions on who should or should not have guns.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who took his testes?

[John F. Carr]

His wife.

[Frank Drackman]

that's actually "Black English" for "Tests"
if I had a nickle for every Afro-Amurican who said "I wents tooze dee Hospibal and dey did sum Testes"

Frank "hates Testes"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's see how long before Volokh Conspiracy's self-described civility standards (let alone its alleged aversion to racism) cause the proprietor to remove that comment.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, you know it's bad when Jerry Sandusky gets offended.

[Mr. Bumble]

I guess testes is a painful subject for him.

[OtisAH]

Presumably Prof. Volokh is busy writing up a real stemwinder over the firing of an Axios reporter who was critical of Florida Gov. Ron-in-boots.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/595786-axios-reporter-ben-montgomery-fired-after-calling-gov-desantis-press-release-propaganda/

[SimonP]

What makes you think Eugene has any interest at all in discussing the ways in which media capture facilitates authoritarianism and indirect censorship, as we've seen repeatedly in places like Hungary and Turkey?

[Bob from Ohio]

"media capture"

LOL

Dude, they were looking to fire the reporter. This was just an excuse, its so minor.

[OtisAH]

I see that Bob has already converted that thing he made up into fact. Might be a new record.

[Bob from Ohio]

C'mon dude, its just opinion.

But all press releases are "propaganda", no exception. Saying so is hardly a firing offense.

[Nige]

Unless it offends DeSantis.

[OtisAH]

No, opinion is based on knowledge. Not always complete knowledge, and often it’s incorrect knowledge, but some knowledge is required. You are just making shit up.

[Bob from Ohio]

"opinion is based on knowledge"

You should never express an opinion then.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What makes you think Gov. DeSantis would permit publication of any such thing at the Volokh Conspiracy?

[SimonP]

If Florida did end up requiring bloggers to register with the state, I wonder if Eugene would go out of his way to try to make himself the story, by suing Florida, the way he did with NY's social media law?

[OtisAH]

Better guess is he files an amicus brief on behalf of the state.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No need to wonder. This blog will continue to do as DeSantis wishes.

[Frank Drackman]

Preach it Jerry!!!!!! I mean, you are a "Reverend" after all.

[Life of Brian]

If Florida did end up requiring bloggers to register with the state, I wonder if Eugene would go out of his way to try to make himself the story, by suing Florida

Since the actual proposed law (not the breathless, spittle-laced media caricature of same) would only apply to bloggers who receive compensation for posts about Florida elected state officers, presumably Eugene would have no standing to sue.

[Ben_]

Axios fired a completely unprofessional reporter.

Why should Volokh care? Why should anyone?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Axios fired a completely unprofessional reporter."

Should have made up an unknown source like everyone else does. Or at least call up David Brock for a quote.

[Commenter_XY]

That is a pretty lengthy list = completely unprofessional reporters

[Sarcastr0]

Putin agrees. At least he's taken action to clean up the biz!

[Ed Grinberg]

Remind me again, Sarcastr0, which administration was it that set up the Disinformation Governance Board?

[Bored Lawyer]

Did anyone pressure Axios to fire him?

[Bob from Ohio]

Its such a minor offense, it must be cover for someone they already wanted to get rid of.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is the kind of thinking that results in a job proofreading downmarket deeds in Can't Keep Up, Ohio.

[Frank Drackman]

But hey Jerry, you're the best at proofreading downmarket deeds.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I doubt I would even be better than Bob from Ohio at proofreading downmarket deeds. I have never proofread a deed. In my professional experience, paralegals handled that type of task.

Not our best paralegals, of course.

[bernard11]

Is there a tape of DeSantis calling Axios and telling them to fire him?

No.

OTOH, he gets fired soon after sending a critical email. If you think that was coincidence you need to get your probability book out and review.

[Ben_]

"…he gets fired soon after sending a critical email…"

Because that’s what reporting is?

[Life of Brian]

OTOH, he gets fired soon after sending a critical email. If you think that was coincidence you need to get your probability book out and review.

Well, yeah. That's why so many Aztecs' firstborn hearts got cut out with stone knives -- they well appreciated that the rainstorm shortly after the first one was anything but a coincidence.

[Bored Lawyer]

The odd thing is that what he said -- that the press release was propaganda -- is true. As is virtually every press release, which tries to spin the facts in the favor of the body putting out the release. So IMO, his statement is not biased, but inane.

[Ben_]

it’s the opposite of what a good, professional reporter might do

[Sarcastr0]

You know who is not well suited to making that determination? Partisan tools.

[Ben_]

Axios made that determination.

[David Nieporent]

Kind of like how Twitter made the determination that various users broke its rules!

[Nige]

It is now unprofessional to call out obvious dumb propaganda?

[I Callahan]

Obviously dumb is another man’s incredibly smart. Who gets to decide which one is more correct?

[Nige]

I do. It was dumb. It's only smart in the sense that it's propaganda for the base that the base will eat up, so they're smart enough to keep their base fed. It's still dumb propaganda.

[Kazinski]

I thought it wasn't censorship when private companies make decisions about what messages appear on their platform.

It isn't even alleged that the DeSantis administration asked he be disciplined or fired.

But i agree with him about the propaganda: 90% of press releases issued by state government that mention the governor are propaganda.

Maybe he got fired because he just realized that.

[Bored Lawyer]

Perhaps the VC posters can give me a bit of advice. Bought a laptop about a month ago. Had 30 days free McAfee protection, then it expired. It keeps bugging me (excuse the pun) to sign up and renew. I believe Windows has some kind of anti-virus protection.

Is it worth it to add McAfee? Or some other product -- such as Norton? Or just stick to Windows?

[Commenter_XY]

Try Avast, free version. That coupled with Windows Defender, and you should be fine. I use Avast on my personal laptop and wife's laptop.

If you open emails with links, pay for extra protection.

[santamonica811]

I've been very happy with the free version of Avira.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I second the suggestion to use Avast, free version. Works very well. It will try to upsell you every once in a while though. A little annoying.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, agree Avast is the best free, plug-and-play option these days.

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally, I use the Windows Defender. The price is right.

I've used both Norton and McAfee, and neither seemed particularly better than Defender. Maybe an IT pro would have a different opinion.

[ducksalad]

Using the built in stuff in Windows 11 and using the Brave browser has resulted in zero viruses or PUPs in over two years for me, and I’m not hesitant about clicking on clickbait. Even Microsoft Edge is pretty robust now.

I would stay away from McAfee, and do a total uninstall of the free version, which only “expires” with respect to anti-virus protection but is very much active with respect to interrupting your work. One reason to stay away is that it increasingly behaves like a virus itself: far too many pop-ups pushing various upgrades, even if you’ve paid, and propagates by packaging itself with unrelated downloads like PDF readers (albeit with the consent of the other download’s producers).

There was a time when I would have recommended Malwarebytes, either the free version or the paid version, but unfortunately it’s been getting more McAfeeish over the last few years.

[ragebot]

ducksalad is correct in saying too many programs like McAfee are really nagware that never quit nagging you to buy stuff.

[Ben_]

If you’re asking lawyers for tech advice then you should probably give up and just install viruses on your computer directly.

[M L]

No kidding.

Bored Lawyer, uninstall the obnoxious McAfee bloatware immediately and forget about it.

[shawn_dude]

Uninstall McAfee like the pox it is.
As others have said, use Windows Defender and maybe pick up another open source type tool to scan for issues. You want to make sure ever file you download is automatically scanned.

Microsoft gets paid by McAfee and similar companies to put their junk software on your PC in the hopes you'll never acquire your own, better versions. It's a scam.

[apedad]

Utah state treasurer, leader in movement against corporate wokeness, says ESG part of 'Satan's plan'

"Outcomes-based governance like the U.N.'s SDGs and ESG opens the door to authoritarianism," said (Utah State Treasurer Marlo) Oaks. "It is Satan's plan."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/utah-state-treasurer-leader-movement-corporate-wokeness-says-esg-part-satans-plan

I heard the Taliban is warning against travel to the US based on religious-extremism.

[Ben_]

Bigotry against religious people is bad. Try to be less bigoted.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's your reaction to that statement by the elected hayseed from Utah's superstitious community?

[Frank Drackman]

Personally, don't believe any Surpreme Being would let Jerry Sandusky stalk the Earth as long as he has.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nationwide, superstitious-but-principled is pretty rare. But it is a recognizable combination more common in Utah than elsewhere. Rusty Bowers examples a type I wish we had more of.

[Hugh]

"Free speech doesn't give someone the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" is an oft-repeated statement of first amendment law, but the bloodthirsty 2nd amendment absolutist crowd doesn't recognize it as legitimate in the world of 2nd amendment rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

"“Free speech doesn’t give someone the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” is an oft-repeated statement of first amendment law,"

Yeah, oft repeated by idiots. It was falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. The Court was endorsing the idea that you couldn't use the 1st amendment to defend fraudulently causing a potentially deadly panic.

If there's a fire? Or even a bit of smoke? You can yell "fire!" all day long and you're protected.

So the 2nd amendment doesn't protect criminal use of firearms. I'm cool with that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

To be more precise: the court was defending the idea that the government should be able to put people in jail for handing out pamphlets that said conscription was unconstitutional.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not defending the actual context, just pointing out that it's routinely misquoted by people trying to pretend that speech is less protected than it actually is.

[Bob from Ohio]

"pamphlets that said conscription was unconstitutional"

The pamphlets went further than that, it encouraged men to break the law.

[David Nieporent]

No, it didn't.

(Even setting aside the obvious fact that if conscription is unconstitutional, then it isn't a law that can be broken.)

[ducksalad]

It would be worth legalizing shouting fire in theaters, even falsely, just to shut down this particularly stupid line of attack on civil liberties.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who here thought for one second that the Democrats at the US Treasury wouldn’t bail out the Democrat depositors, mega donors, and governors at SVB?

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile my son-in-law's paycheck is on a 10 day hold because his employer used Signature Bank.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

We figured we'd make the clingers wait a bit for their money. Just poking at them for sport.

Non-clingers were paid immediately, of course.

[Frank Drackman]

That's Jerry Sandusky, the Master of "Poking"

[apedad]

Here’s why Donald Trump might face anonymous jury in E. Jean Carroll case — but NY criminal jurors may be famous if he’s charged

Just one month shy of a trial in E. Jean Carroll’s rape case, (Senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan) revealed, without explanation, that he is considering empaneling an anonymous jury.

A relatively recent phenomenon, anonymous juries became an increasingly relied-upon tool to protect those called to serve in high-profile trials, including mafia, terrorism, and sex trafficking cases. In theory, they’re supposed to protect jurors from intimidation and safeguard their privacy from too much media scrutiny. In practice, whether you have one depends on many factors, like jurisdiction.

(Appellate attorney Christopher Keleher, who also wrote the University of San Francisco Law Review article “The Repercussions of Anonymous Juries”), however, found it plausible that Kaplan considered accusations that Trump tried to influence witnesses in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, both of his impeachment proceedings, and the Jan. 6th Committee hearings. The risk of a “random individual” who is “mentally unstable” harming one of the jurors could arguably be a reason for anonymity, he said.

https://lawandcrime.com/objections-podcast/heres-why-donald-trump-might-face-anonymous-jury-in-e-jean-carroll-case-but-ny-criminal-jurors-may-be-famous-if-hes-charged/

So, anonymous juries. . . .

Yea or nay 1) in general and 2) in this specific case.

[Bored Lawyer]

It's certainly unusual. I would think the attorneys needs to know the background of the juror for voir dire.
I have enormous respect for Judge Kaplan, whom I have been before a couple of times, and is very much a straight-arrow, no-nonsense type judge. Would have to think about the legal implications, though.

[David Nieporent]

The far left is already outraged at Kaplan because they think he was mean to crooked attorney-on-behalf-of-a-left-wing-cause Steven Donzinger.

For the record, though, it is not "E. Jean Carroll’s rape case"; it is E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case.

[Ben_]

A full 50% of Americans agree or strongly agree that news organizations intend to mislead or misinform the public.

https://www.niemanlab.org/2023/02/half-of-americans-think-most-national-news-orgs-intend-to-mislead-or-misinform-the-public/

And in another recent global news media study, the US ranks last among 46 countries in trust in news media.

[Ben_]

Second study report : https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/us-ranks-last-among-46-countries-in-trust-in-media-reuters-institute-report-finds/

Only 29% say they trust the news.

[Bob from Ohio]

29% of Americans are stupid, obviously.

[Ben_]

Or they learned to always play along with the regime, because they never know when someone might be making lists.

[OtisAH]

Feast your eyes on those two dim bulbs calling other people stupid. I might add this thread to my NFT queue. Pre-order will start March 28.

[Brett Bellmore]

I used to regularly correspond with the editor of the Detroit Free Press; Just as a sort of hobby, I'd test their claim to "issue corrections for all errors of fact".

Yeah, the paper did frequently intend to mislead or misinform the public; You could prove they'd published something false, and had to know it was false at the time, and they wouldn't issue a correction most of the time.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is something worth commenting about

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.israel/c/KAreNa37lGw/m/L1mASFXgBQAJ

The privileged status of clergy-pentitent communications has been
recognized in US common law since at least as early as 1813, reinforced
by statute in every state and in judicial decisions. In a 1990 case, the
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that "the
clergy-communicant relationship is so important, indeed so fundamental
to the western tradition, that it must be sedulously fostered."

As a practical matter, abrogating the penitential privilege isn't likely
to elicit any information that is now kept confidential: Priests are
taught that they must be willing to face prison, torture, or death
rather than break the seal of the confessional. In any case, priests
frequently don't know the identity of the person making a confession.
"The overwhelming majority of sacramental confessions are anonymous,"
the Diocese of Wilmington noted in its statement on the proposed
Delaware law.

The First Amendment's forceful language banning legislators from
"prohibiting the free exercise" of religion doesn't empower religions or
their adherents to flout laws that are applicable to everyone. But as
the Supreme Court has ruled time and again, any law that impinges on a
particular religious belief or practice — even when its purpose is to
advance a vital public goal — must be drawn as narrowly as possible.
Preventing and punishing child abuse is unquestionably a compelling
interest. But is it compelling enough to allow Vermont, Washington, and
Delaware to uproot the longstanding legal protection of confessional
secrecy? To clear the First Amendment's hurdle, they would have to show
why they cannot fight child abuse without trampling on a key religious
belief when more than 40 states are able to do so.

Protecting children is a matter of crucial importance. Protecting
religious faith is too. It isn't the job of lawmakers to privilege one
of those worthy aims over the other. It is to strive, with care and
respect, to do both.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People who would enable religious personnel to shield child abusers from accountability are low-character losers whose views should, and likely will, have little influence as modern American continues to improve against their wishes.

Church employees who would protect child abusers deserve scorn from society and likely are part of the reason the role of religion continues to diminish as America progresses.

[Frank Drackman]

We get it Jerry, Child Abusers can take care of themselves.

[EscherEnigma]

So yesterday I read an article about the Texas abortion-pill case that actually quoted Blackman:

Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, said judge shopping is nothing new, citing examples going back to the civil rights movement.

“Lawyers have a duty to file a case in a district that best serves [their] client,” he said. “If Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in Judge Kacsmaryk’s court, it’d be malpractice. You choose the forum that favors you best.”

Now, what's interesting to me is that this is an admission that Kacsmaryk is a partisan hack and can't be expected to apply the law fairly.

And further, if "judge shopping" is so important such that it would be malpractice to not do it? Then that's a fundamental flaw in the system. The line is "justice for all", not "justice if you can find the right judge".

Or, to phrase it as a meme: "Okay, but that's worse."

[John F. Carr]

One could equally well interpret Blackman's statement as saying Kacsmaryk is fair and balanced so Planned Parenthood should file its meritless case in Austin where the partisan hack Pitman sits.

Either way, it is a problem. As we discussed in older threads, the Northern District of California solved this problem by randomly assigning this sort of case within the whole district instead of within a single division.

[EscherEnigma]

One could... if one were a dishonest partisan hack.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One could equally well interpret Blackman’s statement as saying Kacsmaryk is fair and balanced so Planned Parenthood should file its meritless case in Austin where the partisan hack Pitman sits.

You graduated from an accredited law school?

[Frank Drackman]

YOU grad-jew-ma-cated from an accredited law school??
Which one?? hmm?? Hmm?? which one? Where?? Ivy League?? Big 10?? Pac 12?? ACC?? SEC?? Big East?? SWAC?? which one Jerry?
Stanford?? Samford? Sanford & Son? Ole Miss?? Miss State?? Northwestern?? Southwestern?? Where Jerry?? Where??

Frank

[John F. Carr]

According to my spam folder, Kevin McCarthy wants me to know "I am BEYOND speechless", "I think I'm going to be sick", and "This is so freakin' messed up". What's your favorite political spam this month?

[Brett Bellmore]

The one that went straight to my spam folder, and I never saw it. Political spam doesn't get better than that!

[John F. Carr]

Some legit mail goes there so I have to look.

[ReaderY]

A Texas man is suing friends of his ex-wife for helping her obtain an abortion (of his unborn child) after Dobbs had been decided. The plaintiff seems to have clear standing, so the state-law issue that plaintiffs require standing to proceed in Texas courts would appear satisfied. After Dobbs, laws permitting lawsuits of this sort would appear completely constitutional. It’s simply a species of wrongful death action.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/03/10/texas-abortion-lawsuit/

[apedad]

Florida woman armed with avocado hit with felony charge for attack on elderly boyfriend

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/florida-woman-armed-with-avocado-hit-with-felony-charge-for-attack-on-elderly-boyfriend/

No comment; just thought a headline with Florida, Avocado, and Felony seemed so cliche.

Oh and, "In what is likely an attempt to explain the nearly 30-year age gap between Biswanger and the victim, police also noted that the two had been “engaging in consensual sexual intercourse” during that time."

[ReaderY]

Was it fresh? Did the boyfriend attempt to defend himself? Did the techniques work? What about the 16 ton weight?

[Magister]

So the Monty Python self defense against fruit training would have been useful.

[TwelveInchPianist]

MN Lt Governor:
"When our children tell us who they are, it is our job as grown-ups to listen and to believe them. That's what it means to be a good parent."

More "listen and believe" crap. When did the left sour on the exercise of individual judgement?

[EscherEnigma]

It's almost like there's context here.

In this case, that context is "decades of conversion therapy attempts shows it doesn't work and is harmful".

If your kid is gay or trans, you telling them "no, you're just going through a phase" isn't going to make them stop being gay or trans, it's just going to make them not tell you things.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, but what if your kid isn't gay or trans?

[EscherEnigma]

Then you're outside the context in which the comment was made.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nope. Your kid says, "I'm trans." Based on your years of experience raising the kid, you don't think he's trans. Are you saying you should somehow force yourself to believe him?

[EscherEnigma]

Yeah, we get stories like this all the time. Parents who claim "they never showed any signs [...]", and "they were normal until [...]" and so-on.

I don't have a lot of respect for those parents. Your kid just came out to you, and instead of doing what's best for your kid, and accepting them as they are, your first reaction is to try and rationalize that they're wrong? What the fuck is wrong with you.

Your kid tells you they're gay or trans? You say "okay". If they come back in a few months or years and say "um, actually..." you say "okay".

This isn't complicated, you're just an awful person.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Your kid tells you they’re gay or trans?"

Your kid has never shown any signs of gender non-conformity, and has always seemed to embrace her femininity. Then two or three of her good friends come out as trans. A few months later, she "comes out" as trans and wants to go on male hormones and think about a double mastectomy. Your instinct tells you she's trying to fit in with her friends. You encourage the self-mutilation?

Sounds like you're the awful person. Not very bright, either.

[Nige]

I wouldn’t worry. Treatment requires multiple referrals, screenings and therapy before even starting the hormones. If they’re still certain by the end of that process, they’re probably right.

[shawn_dude]

Children who think they're trans have a long process to go through to confirm that--a process a teenager just trying to fit is unlikely to complete. But in the mean time, there's no surgeries or any BS like that. The normal approach is to take medication to pause puberty so that they have time to make a more informed choice. That way, if they change their mind, all they have to do is stop taking the pills and let puberty move forward again.

I've known too many kids thrown out of their homes for being gay. Just tell your kid that you love them regardless. Anything else is setting yourself up for a future without your kids in your life.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But in the mean time, there’s no surgeries or any BS like that. The normal approach is to take medication to pause puberty so that they have time to make a more informed choice."

Except that the "medication to pause puberty" stops the very thing that normally resolves gender dysphoria: PUBERTY. Thus assuring that they won't get over the confusion.

And it turns out that human biology doesn't actually have a convenient pause button, and taking these drugs permanently screws you up.

[Nige]

Which is why they only do it after extensive screening and therapy, because if the kid really is dysphoric, it actually works, and no, the drugs don't screw them up for life.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nope. You need one referral letter. See, for example, here.. They're about as easy to get as a medical MJ prescription.

And even this is controversial. Many doctors subscribe to the same philosophy as EscherEnigma, if a kid says he's trans, he's trans.

[Nige]

Why should they be hard to get if a licensed medical practitioner thinks they will benefit from the treatment?

[Ben_]

Trying one thing "didn’t work" according to someone. Therefore no one can ever do anything except what leftist activists demand.

[EscherEnigma]

One thing?

One thing?!

Dude, straights have been trying to "cure" queer people since the beginning of modern medicine (before that they just beat them into the closet).

They have tried everything. Cocaine, stimulants, whores, electroshock therapy, experimental drugs, punching pillows, praying, beating, starvation, aversion therapy, imprisonment. They have tried everything.

There is precisely one thing that works: death.

If you can think of something that makes you go "hey would this make a queer person stop being so queer?" It's either been tried, or so unethical that it makes the people that like the idea of lobotomies go "dude, too far".

[TwelveInchPianist]

According to England's NHS, most prepubescent kids who identify as trans will desist before the end of adolescence. So most of these cases "cure" themselves.

[EscherEnigma]

Yes, I'm aware of that outlier. Are you aware of all the other studies, for decades, that say the opposite?

[TwelveInchPianist]

There are studies that say that prepubescent kids who identify as trans are unlikely to desist? Link?

[David Nieporent]

No. There are no studies 'for decades' about 'trans' kids. And it's not just England.

[Nige]

No, the study showed that kids who presented at gender clinics mostly did not go on to get a diagnosis as dysphoric. Which, as I’ve pointed out before, proves that the trans panickers who claim kids are being pushed into transitioning are making shit up.

[NOVA Lawyer]

All the more reason not to subject kids who identify as trans to conversion therapy or similarly damaging (and likely counterproductive) "cures".

[Ben_]

Bogeyman therapy. Something you heard about in a story someone told you.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And yet the GOP continues to try to keep this "bogeyman" legal. Why fight to preserve the right to a harmful practice that, according to you, is fantasy?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/wisconsin-republicans-block-ban-on-conversion-therapy

[Ben_]

Just because you only "know about" it from stories you were told doesn't make it fantasy. It’s not (entirely) fantasy. Maybe most of the stuff you were told is false. Maybe not.

You guys just pick sides and make self-indulgent proclamations based on being told stories.

[Nige]

'Maybe most of the stuff you were told is false. Maybe not.'

That's the kind of rigorous framework you need for children's therapy all right.

[David Nieporent]

Stop conflating gay and trans, which are not only not the same thing, but are antithetical to each other.

[Ben_]

Children get the final say on what’s good for them? Candy for dinner every day!

[Life of Brian]

Please stay on topic. I for one am overwhelmed with remorse that when my daughter came to me one day and said "Daddy, I'm a LION" that I didn't lock her in a pen in the corner of the yard and feed her raw drumsticks.

[Ben_]

You erased her existence!!

[John F. Carr]

Al Jazeera reminds me we are less than a week away from the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Try to work "de-Baathification" into a sentence in the coming week.

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/start-here/2023/3/16/aje-onl-sh_iraq_war-160323

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Democrats in the Administrative State have demonstrated their sheer incompetence, gross corruption, favor-dealing, vile machinations like the senior home murders, and evil race based allocation of scarce resources in the past few years alone.

Why would anyone want these same people controlling 100% of your healthcare? They control 60-70% now and look how horrible our healthcare system is. Why do the bootlickers think if they had 100% control it would be any better?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Woopie Goldberg has apologized for using a racial slur to describe the fact that Trump claimed that he got cheated in the election. The USA Today article doesn't even tell you what she said.

[Ben_]

As part of their agenda to make Americans' lives worse, Biden and the Democrats to ban 96% of gas stoves:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/biden-regulatory-move-to-ban-gas-stoves

They’ll come for the rest later.

[M L]

Assholes.

What the fed gov has already done to ruin household appliances makes me angry. Honestly it’s like a pet peeve. But this new move is just incredible.

[Sarcastr0]

"These proposed standards for conventional cooking tops, if adopted, would apply to all product classes listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date three years after the publication of any final rule for this rulemaking."

No current stoves are being banned, Ben.

[Ben_]

You're not fooling anyone.

[Sarcastr0]

You work hard to be ignorant.

[Ben_]

You are consistently dishonest.

[Sarcastr0]

I provided a link showing the Examiner is full of shit. Care to engage with what I provided, or just going to go into a snit?

[Ben_]

Do you know what a link is?

Banning replacement stoves is a ban. Dems intend to make life worse for everyone. The timetable for when your life is personally made worse depends on how long your gas stove can continue to be repaired.

[Sarcastr0]

Banning replacement stoves is a ban

Bull.

Shit.

[Ben_]

That’s why everyone considers you dishonest.

[Sarcastr0]

Calling out obvious bullshit is not an indicator of dishonesty.

You read a story that lied to you: "The Department of Energy is conducting this gas stove grab through a rule that would impose extreme energy performance standards on residential cooktops. "

The reg says the opposite. When I pointed that out to you, you tried to change what ban means. That was lame as hell, but especially since the story you linked for truth goes a lot further. This is why you should check your sources, especially the partisan ones posting a story too good to be true.

And as usual your definition of makes American's lives worse is short sighted, and focused on your own experience. You try and generalize from this pinched perspective, but you can't. It just makes you a crank.

[Ben_]

Bans on products are bans. You are simply a liar.

[Ben_]

And even if you want to say it’s not called a “ban”, it still very obviously makes Americans’ lives worse. Stoves fail. When everyone’s stove eventually fails, the only stoves available will be inferior ones Democrats stuck us with to punish us for being Americans. No doubt prices will also be higher, so life will be doubly worse.

People in other countries will still be able to get good stoves.

[Brett Bellmore]

I may have found my second career after I retire: Designing "ghost stoves".

[Ben_]

The parts are probably fairly easy to make.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and you're dishing out the BS.

Nobody meant that they were going to send SWAT teams door to door confiscating stoves. They meant by a "ban" that you'd stop being able to buy them.

And you WILL stop being able to buy them if this proposal goes through. Which is what people meant by "ban" all along, despite your desperate attempts to confuse the issue.

[Absaroka]

"'Banning replacement stoves is a ban'
Bull.
Shit."

In mainstream American English, prohibiting new purchases is certainly referred to as a ban. Examples:

1994 AWB
1985 Clacker Ban

"In 1977, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the use of asbestos in artificial fireplace embers and wall patching compounds" (from epa.gov)

"Ban of Crib Bumpers
A Proposed Rule by the Consumer Product Safety Commission on 07/26/2022" (from federalregister.gov)

etc, etc, etc. None of those had SWAT teams raiding houses to confiscate Clackers or Crib Bumpers.

[Sarcastr0]

Absaroka, I do not believe that the mainstream interpretation of: "As part of their agenda to make Americans’ lives worse, Biden and the Democrats to ban 96% of gas stoves:" is that it's about sale of new stoves.

Moreover, the Examiner's linked article pushes things further, leaving a false impression without actually lying because that's their thing: 'impose extreme energy performance standards on residential cooktops.'

[Ben_]

Should Americans be allowed to continue to buy the same gas stoves we could buy in 2021? Yes or no.

You’re allowed to describe the efforts against Americans in whatever terms you like.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben, I get that you think you're qualified to answer that question on behalf of America, but you're not and neither am I.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you believe and refuse to believe some awfully bizarre things, so that's kind of meaningless.

He's right: With the recent exception of the bump stock ban, (Which pretended that they had been banned all along and nobody had noticed.) you'd be hard put to identify a product ban that retroactively clawed back things people already owned. That it would be prospective, not retrospective, is part of the normal understanding of what it means to "ban" something.

[Ben_]

And the dishonesty continues.

[Ben_]

Either all the existing gas stoves are dangerous, and it's a national emergency, and they all need to be fixed ASAP, or they are safe and they neither need to be repaired nor banned.

It doesn't take expertise. All it takes is observation. Regulators don't consider existing stoves unsafe enough to take any immediate action to mitigate danger of existing stoves. The exact same stove model in 2024 won't be any more or less safe.

By observing the people with so-called expertise, we can see all the answers we need.

[Nige]

Sounds like you just failed to fool anyone but M L.

[M L]

Man Struggling To Feed Family Just Glad He Could Help Bail Out Bank

https://babylonbee.com/news/man-struggling-to-feed-family-just-glad-he-could-help-bail-out-bank

[M L]

You would think this one would be parody too. But it's not:

Silicon Valley Bank gave $74 million to Black Lives Matter. LOL!

[Estragon]

Hoo boy this talking point. You should look into the sourcing on that one before flogging it, you might end up looking a bit silly.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If M L ever cared about looking the fool, he would've stopped commenting years ago.

You may have noticed, sadly, that he did not.

[Estragon]

Oh I noticed. This one is particularly stupid though

[M L]

I'm always open to being corrected. Sometimes I'm wrong. The one person that's never been able to show I'm wrong, or really offer any intelligent thought so far as I've seen, is Jason Cavanaugh.

I saw the claim in a Newseek headline. Let's take a look at a good ol' AP fact check.

"ut the California-based organization acknowledged Thursday that the “vast majority” of the funding it cites actually went toward “reparative initiatives,” which it defines as “race-based, discriminatory hiring programs; race-based, sub-prime lending; partisan voter initiatives; and DEI efforts” -- not directly to BLM or other nonprofits.

“This is made clear in the database description for SVB and the sources we link to,” the institute wrote in an email."

OK. So not BLM but "related causes" as they put it, or otherwise as described above.

This is your big PWN?

[Sarcastr0]

What exactly is your point here, ML? That banks shouldn't give to charity? That they shouldn't give to charities you don't like?

You link to a satire site, and then claim it's not satire because of a non-bailout payment a while ago.

This didn't go well for you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What exactly is your point here, ML? That banks shouldn’t give to charity?"

Not if they don't have enough money to stay afloat.

[M L]

The first comment was a link to a funny satire about SVB.

The second comment was related to the topic of SVB, but was otherwise unrelated to the first comment, and was not satire. Does this clear things up for you?

The reason I said it ought to be satire, is just the idea that a large corporation would give $74 million to woke partisan causes, when they were so poorly financially managed for other reasons that they failed and needed a bailout. $74 million is still a pretty nice chunk of change even today, one would think that if you're throwing around that kind cash then you are financially healthy and have it to spare and not . . . you know, telling your DEPOSITORS that you don't have their money a short time later. But of course, they're not alone in making these kinds of huge political donations, and it's done to curry favor with those in power. The more power that is centralized in government and consequentially in business, the worse this gets.

But now back to the topic at hand, "look into the sourcing, looking silly, fool..." What's the point here? It wasn't BLM, just adjacent causes? Ok?

[Estragon]

You’re clearly working off the Claremont study. Now before we unpack why their numbers are complete bullshit I want to point something out to you. The same document says Bank of America gave $18 Billion (yes, with a B) to BLM. Without getting into the weeds at all: does this seem plausible to you?

[M L]

The claim is based on this Claremont study, which I haven’t looked at. Why don’t you just link the comprehensive debunking that you are working off of?

It may well be that their analysis is wrong. But, to be clear, Newsweek, Claremont, and other outlets repeating this claim are not satire sites! And that was my point. They made a claim of fact. By attacking the claim and saying it’s incorrect, outlandish and not even plausible — you’re really supporting my point.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"They made a claim of fact."

No, they did not. As proven by the link I provided (since you for some reason omitted it), it was an OPINION piece.

You claim that "Newsweek" was your source. You left out the part which would've indicated that it was not a 'news' article at all. The part which, had you been clear about, would've demonstrated that you were being deceitful about the source and its implied credibility.

Perhaps the real problem here, is that you were too lazy to actually read the article before spouting off here about it. Why? Because it fit your political bias.

[M L]

You do understand that an opinion piece can include claims of fact? Really they always jump off of some factual premises to launch into their opinions?

I didn't even read the Newsweek article beyond finding the sentence for the source of the factual claim - the rest of the article wasn't interesting to me.

[Sarcastr0]

Appealing to the authority of a fact claimed in a opinion piece is not great.

Refusing to evaluate their claimed source when called on it is ridiculous, if you care about the truth at all.

[Estragon]

I ask again. Does it seem plausible to you that Bank of America gave 18 billion to “BLM” (however defined)?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You said "I saw the claim in a Newseek headline."

The headline of an opinion piece, is not Newsweek making a claim of fact.

Now you claim that you did read the article, but only to find the sentence of the 'factual claim' that BLM received $74 million. We know that can't be true, because the claim in the opinion article is precisely worded as follows:

" A database created by the Claremont Institute revealed that SVB either donated or pledged to donate almost $74 million to organizations affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement."

That is not the same claim as the headline, and it is not the same claim that you posted here.

[M L]

Once again fellas, as I said, this claim should not be true. This should be a satire headline. But it's not.

I'm pleased that you all agree with me. You all agree, I think, that it would be ludicrous for SVB to give $74 million to BLM or -- if you'll permit -- "related causes." Thank you.

I'm even more heartened that the claim might indeed, be false, or at least massively overblown. Hopefully that is the case. Hopefully it's not even 50% true. Now can we finally see your links disproving it or are you going to keep holding out on us?

[Absaroka]

For yuks I looked at the Claremont Database. It makes the $70,650,000 claim and lists as sources nine docs off the SVB web site. I did an admittedly very fast scan and ... didn't see that those sources document the claim at all. Some of them were short enough I think I would have seen a discussion of donations if there was one.

Personally, my assessment of that 'database' is that it is bunk. I will gladly retract that if anyone wants to go through those 9 sources and show me where they substantiate the $70M claim.

[Sarcastr0]

The claim in the satire headline is not the same as the claim about donations to HBCUs.

And your sourcing of the HBCU donation claim is not great. Doesn't mean it's not true, but it does mean you should do your homework.

[bernard11]

Claremont.

Fucking joke.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Once again fellas, as I said, this claim should not be true. This should be a satire headline. But it’s not."

Except it is false, because the article itself does not support its own headline.

"Now can we finally see your links disproving it or are you going to keep holding out on us?"

It seems that you missed my post right above yours, as I clearly pointed out where your claim is not supported by the article you claimed you read enough of to support your claim.

The headline is not supported by the text of the article, and since that was your claim here, it is just as false.

Do I need to re-quote the article for you, or might you manage to take note of the provided quotation on your own this time?

[Estragon]

It’s absurd. Their database, right at the top, says “America deserves to know who is funding BLM riots”

Go to Bank of America: they list them as having contributed 18.5 Billion to the BLM movement and related causes. Except if you look at the sourcing on that, 15 of it is “ affordable homeownership commitment through 2025.” Yes, that’s right, if you’re low income and get a mortgage from BOA, that’s actually funding BLM riots.

The only way the formulation makes any kind of sense is if “BLM and related causes” means any expenditure of money (or extension of credit) that might find its way into the hands of one of “those people”. Which, frankly, maybe is the larger point the anti-wokeists are making?

Tl;dr if you take these numbers at face value you are a credulous nincompoop or confirming your priors

[Estragon]

How is donating to the United Negro College Fund “funding BLM riots”?

How about donating to the Smithsonian? Funding BLM riots or no?

Claremont thinks yes! It’s right in their POS database you didn’t bother looking at

[Jason Cavanaugh]

A newsweek OPINION headline, lol.

https://www.newsweek.com/svb-gave-74-million-black-lives-matter-its-explains-lot-about-banks-collapse-opinion-1788092

This isn't about me, or my posts, or your inability to comprehend them. This is about you reading a headline, and being the lazy partisan fool you are, failing to actually read the article.

You've now been shown to have been wrong. It isn't the first time, and judging by your eagerness to demonstrate your foolishness, it will not be the last.

[M L]

"You’ve now been shown to have been wrong."

Where? Do you mean when I fact checked myself? Do you think this is what Estragon was getting at, that I left off the "and related causes" bit? Or am I missing something more here?

[bernard11]

So now ML is pushing the world's stupidest talking point.

It is measure of the ignorance, idiocy, and plain dishonesty of vast segments of the right that this whole "wokeness caused the SVB failure" has any traction at all.

It is just plain lying rabble-rousing and anyone pushing it is scum.

[M L]

If SVB really gave $74 million to black lives matter or related causes, this would be very much worthy of news and discussion for a number of reasons, some of which I touched on above. Not a "stupid talking point" at all.

"Wokeness caused the SVB failure" is a different topic. Poor management in general caused is what caused it. I haven't followed closely but I'm guessing one thing in particular was a failure to allow for the possibility of interest rates not remaining near zero forever.

Is someone claiming that $74 million in donations is what caused the SVB failure? Link? Sounds like a strawman.

[Sarcastr0]

If SVB really gave $74 million to black lives matter or related causes, this would be very much worthy of news and discussion for a number of reasons,

No, it would not.
Not without a baseline of charitable giving from banks generally.
I get you have a hate-boner about it, but that's not universal.

Yet again: What the fuck is your thesis? Because the satire is about a bailout, and this is about a donation. And. again, it is thinly sources.

[Brett Bellmore]

My baseline for appropriate charitable giving by banks is "zero". If they've got money to spend on something like that, maybe they could try paying the depositors "interest", instead?

If I want to give to charity, I give to charity, not deposit money in a bank.

[bernard11]

My baseline for appropriate charitable giving by banks is “zero”. If they’ve got money to spend on something like that, maybe they could try paying the depositors “interest”, instead?

Would you apply the same standard to corporate political contributions?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yup, with the understanding that we're not talking about political non-profit corporations specifically formed for such a purpose, or closely held corporations where the management and the owners are one and the same.

Corporate charitable donations are a form of embezzlement by management. You're a manager, if you took $100K and just gave it to yourself, everybody would recognize you were taking it, even if you subsequently gave it to your favorite charity.

But have the corporation donate it to your favorite charity, and suddenly people are confused about the fact that you're spending the stock owners' money for your own purposes, violating your fiduciary duties.

[Nige]

'Corporate charitable donations are a form of embezzlement by management'

I wish this were true and they could go to jail but aren't they actually massive tax dodges?

[M L]

I wouldn’t raise an eyebrow at banks or other corporations giving to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, food banks, wounded vets and the like.

That’s entirely different from giving to something like black lives matter, Antifa, or the Communist Party USA.

But even with the former type of giving, if it is huge sums, and they catastrophically fail and go under a few years later, that’s an issue.

[Estragon]

“ if it is huge sums”

You know— even if we take this $74 million number at face value (I don’t) it allegedly was over a 5-year period. Just doing some quick back of the envelope math here… hmmm. Yeah, that’s not a ton of money. So Your theory is that 15m/yr over 5 years is the kind of level of charitable giving that could cause a bank of that size to “catastrophically collapse”?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Poor management in general caused is what caused it. "

Their risk manager stepped down early last year, and they didn't bother replacing her until January.

They replaced her with Kim Olsen, whose previous gig was with Deutsche Bank. Their Securities CEO's previous experience was at Lehman brothers. I guess you could say they both had relevant experience, but maybe the wrong sort?

[bernard11]

Several are claiming that "wokeness" was the cause of the failure.

DeSantis, for one.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the sense that a concern about social issues of the left wing sort seems to have distracted them from actually keeping the bank running. They appear to have put a lot more time and thought into anything but not crashing.

[Nige]

'seems to have distracted them'

Yeah, the claim is THAT vague and hand-wavey.

[ragebot]

With apologies to James Carville and CCR "It's the economy stupid".

"I see the bad moon risin'
I see trouble on the way
I see earthquakes and lightnin'
I see bad times today"

Got back from grocery shopping at Walmart after filling up the car's gas tank at Murphys just in time to read that the US banks are too many billions in the red to count and by some estimates 179 banks are in danger (not to mention the shit in the EU banks) so the fed may ease up on bumping up the prime even though inflation is still at six percent. What was suppose to be a 50 basis point bump now is only around a 25% chance of a 25 basis point bump and the fed may not bump it at all. Of course the Biden administration is bailing out all the big dem donors that ignored warning signs and kept really big bucks in the SVB. Not to mention blaming Trump for getting rid of some regs even though the SVB guys were all for getting rid of the regs.

It did not take an economic genius to figure out when the Fed started bumping rates a year ago that Fed paper issued at basically zero interest would tank in value and SVB had way too much money in crap Fed paper. Hell my tax guy told me last year when doing my taxes to go more into cash and less in stocks and bonds; glad I took his advice. Not that cash is any kinda hedge against 6%+ inflation but compared to SVB losing 79% of it's value cash still looks good.

Hard to see how the pubs don't run in 2024 on the old Carville line "are you better off today than you were four years ago".

[Sarcastr0]

Awesome partisan doomsaying. Really playing the old hits.

[ragebot]

"Awesome partisan doomsaying. Really playing the old hits."

You really have to be old to remember 6%+ inflation and I don't see any economists predicting anything but bad economic times for some time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bad economic times?

Unemployment is remarkably low (half-century low), with an expanding workforce and strong, sustained job creation. Domestic product is solid.

Inflation persists, a few sectors are struggling, but in general the economy is good, especially for (1) people with marketable skills and a desire to work and (2) communities that are educated and skilled, with adequate infrastructure.

Many of the more important problems confronting America -- the accelerating collapse of rural health care, the continuing general decline of rural communities -- are not generated by the economy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Unemployment is remarkably low"

Amazing what reducing real wages will do.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What do the Republicans have to offer in the economic realm?

Don't say free markets, that's just branding.

[ragebot]

What makes you think I am a fanboy of the pubs. Nixon was the guy who completed the transition to fiat money by removing silver certificates and every president since (both pubs and dems) has done nothing but make matters worse.

At some point the spaghetti has to hit the fan and it seems like it will be sooner rather than later.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm very sorry, I'm used to duopoly defenders here, but fortunately it's not everyone.

[bernard11]

Wow. What an ignorant analysis.

WTF difference does it make that SVB was in favor of being deregulated. Pretty standard behavior.

What matters is that the anti-regulatory fools, including some Dems, went along, with Trump signing.

[Ben_]

Green advocates for destruction and hunger lost the Dutch election to farmers:

https://notthebee.com/article/the-dutch-farmers-have-taken-over-their-woke-parliament-and-are-calling-on-their-globalist-prime-minister-to-get-the-heck-out

Destruction and hunger partisans think they may still be able to push their agenda onto farmers despite the election. I wonder if they'll try US-style phony elections next? Real elections let too many of the wrong sort of people have a vote.

[John F. Carr]

The BBC says the farmers are considered right wing and won their share at the expense of another right wing group.

[Brett Bellmore]

That account is a bit confusing; It says, "The party of the Dutch farmers, formed only in 2019, has just taken control of the Netherlands' parliament".

They won 15 of the seats in the Dutch Senate, which has 75 members. Making them the largest of a lot of small parties, but still a small minority of the body.

In fact, the loons who want to ban farming are still in control, and undaunted, and the farmers won't have another chance to increase their numbers for 4 years, by which time a lot of the farms will probably have been driven out of business.

[Nige]

'In fact, the loons who want to ban farming '

Nobody wants to ban farming, you loon.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Now that we have proof of CCP funds flowing through the Biden family, will anyone call for his impeachment?

Isn't this just a real life version of a big part of the Democrats Trump Russia collusion hoax?

[MoreCurious]

Biden became president in 2021. The alleged payments were made in 2015 to 2017. So what exactly are we impeaching Biden for? A much more interesting story would be to trace money flowing into accounts owed by Don, Jr., Eric, Ivanka, Jared, Melania, and the rest of the family while Don, Sr. was president.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, now we've moved from "The Bidens aren't being paid by the CCP!" to "The Bidens were merely being paid by the CCP while he was still VP!"

The next shoe to drop will be demonstrating that they've been ongoing, I expect.

[SRG]

West Virginia's attempt to turn back the clock on science teaching fails.

https://ncse.ngo/west-virginias-intelligent-design-bill-dies

West Virginia's Senate Bill 619 — which would, if enacted, have allowed "[t]eachers in public schools, including public charter schools, that include any one or more of grades Kindergarten through 12, [to] teach intelligent design as a theory of how the universe and/or humanity came to exist" — died when the legislature adjourned sine die at midnight, March 10, 2023.

Introduced on February 14, 2023, Senate Bill 619 was passed by the Senate Education Committee on February 21, 2023, and then by the Senate on February 25, 2023, on a 26-3 vote, as NCSE previously reported. The bill then proceeded to the House Education Committee, where it was included on the agenda but never received a hearing.

This will not be the last attempt, either in WV or other US states, to get ID into the science classroom - and is utterly unsurprising now that SCOTUS killed off Lemon. The only place for ID is in a course on pseudoscience.

[Ben_]

^ Leftist celebrates ban on teaching.

[SRG]

No, Human celebrates the prevention of unscientific propaganda being taught in science classes as though it were science.

Just because someone isn’t ignorant, doesn’t make them a leftist. Plenty of conservatives don’t approve of unscientific garbage like ID being taught in science classes, because they’re smart enough and informed enough to think that you should teach science in science classes.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

The judge was a conservative Republican - John Jones III - who later said:

If you look at public polls in the United States, at any given time a significant percentage of Americans believe that it is acceptable to teach creationism in public high schools. And that gives rise to an assumption on the part of the public that judges should 'get with the program' and make decisions according to the popular will.

There's a problem with that. ... The framers of the Constitution, in their almost infinite wisdom, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will--in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time--but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

That distinction, just like the role of precedent, tends to be lost in the analysis of judges' decisions, including my decision

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He was simply a federal trial judge applying Supreme Court precedent. No need for him to pat himself on the back so fulsomely over that.

It’s not like he lacked for supporters – he accepted the American Humanist Association’s “Humanist Religious Liberty Award” in 2008.

He also declared himself for gay marriage the year before Obergefell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Jones_III

So in short, despite his disavowals, he seems perfectly capable of following public opinion…public opinion among the people who matter, at least.

[Ben_]

Bans on subjects are bans. Super-duper authoritarianism or something.

[Sarcastr0]

Has anyone made that broad argument but you, Ben?

[SRG]

Bans on subjects are bans. Super-duper authoritarianism or something.

Oh good, so Ben_ condemns all legislation that prevent teachers teaching CRT or related matters in HS, talking about the gay lifestyle, etc. etc.

There is a general prohibition against religious teaching, you know, the 1A/14A. That is why you can’t teach ID. There is also the reasonable requirement that only legit science be taught in science classes, and ID isn’t legit science. If there were a small movement to teach, on religious grounds, that the Earth is flat, that too should not be permitted.

A ban is not per se authoritarian. It depends on the reasons. In practice, you want some of the teaching of one fundamentalist form of Christianity to be taught in science classes, and that imposition is (religious) authoritarianism but I assume is perfectly acceptable to you.

[Ben_]

"A ban is not per se authoritarian. It depends on the reasons."

This is how we all know you guys are unprincipled and just say whatever. You pick one standard for things you like and a completely different standard for things you don't like.

[Nige]

Yeah, inasmuch as we demand a *higher* standard for what's taught in schools, that's certainly true.

[SRG]

Ben_: all criminal law consists of bans on conduct.

[Ben_]

So bans regarding materials and lessons taught at schools are fine. Got it. That’s the point I was making. Glad we’re finally there.

We also agree that protecting children is a completely legitimate reason for such bans.

Perhaps we can also agree that the people who think sexually explicit books don’t belong in school libraries are just normal people protecting children then? How about it?

We’re sooooooo close to crossing over the line from extremist nonsense back to sanity. Want to choose sanity?

Or we could say that children should be given sexually explicit books at school and parents are to be regarded with suspicion and kept out of the loop. That would be extremist nonsense (and serving an agenda ahead of protecting children).

Which do you think is the right choice?

[Nige]

ID isn’t a ‘subject’ it’s a quasi-religious doctrine. For that matter CRT isn’t a subject either, except in a few law schools.

[Ben_]

"…Human celebrates the prevention of unscientific propaganda being taught…"

Like the idea that a man can become a woman by deciding he’s a woman?

[SRG]

Fallacy of begging the question - and a red herring.

[Ben_]

Biology is a science. If we should choose biological science over other belief systems, shouldn’t we make the same choice consistently?

[Nige]

Sounds like someone's an ID believer. Haven't had anyone who'd admit to that here in a bit.

[not guilty]

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), predated Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). But I am not sure that any precedent upholding the Establishment Clause is safe with the current clowns of SCOTUS.

[SRG]

Yup. And following Lemon was Edwards v Aguillard, which was explicitly decided based on the Lemon test, with a notably dishonest dissent from Fat Tony that I suspect may become a blueprint for subsequent arguments in favour of permitting creationist legislation.

Meanwhile, McLean v Arkansas, which has one of the clearest rationales for explaining why creationism isn't science, thanks to Judge Overton, wasn't decided by the Supremes so isn't binding, though it's not as if stare decisis means much to the current Court when it comes to holy-rolling bullshit.

[not guilty]

ABC News reports that Special Counsel Jack Smith is seeking to pierce the attorney-client privilege and require Donald Trump's attorney Evan Corcoran to testify before a grand jury about a phone call that investigators believe Mr. Corcoran held with Mr. Trump in regard to Trump's potential obstruction of the government's efforts to retrieve classified materials that he had retained after leaving the White House. https://abcnews.go.com/US/investigators-seek-question-attorney-phone-call-trump-classified/story?id=97909853

This would seem to be an easy case for application of the crime-fraud exception to the privilege. I would anticipate, though, that Mr. Corcoran will eventually assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding his communications with Mr. Trump. If so, then the Special Counsel would need to decide whether to grant use immunity to Mr. Corcoran to compel his testimony.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Would invocation of the Fifth Amendment be enough to cost this guy his law license?

That project devoted to punishment of Trump Elite Strike Force lawyers is a beautiful thing. The whimpers of fans of un-American insurrectionist mouthpiece and disgraced former right-wing professor John Eastman will be especially enjoyable.

Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit, and maybe without your law licenses

[not guilty]

Invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege before the grand jury would be unlikely to come before disciplinary authorities. If he were immunized and testified about criminal conduct at a trial, that testimony might be a basis for professional discipline.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If the refusal to testify were coupled with a crime-fraud exception finding, might that combo platter be enough to precipitate disciplinary authority review?

Would a judge who found a lawyer to be on the wrong side of the crime-fraud exception be obligated to notify the relevant disciplinary authority?

[not guilty]

I think that might be enough to trigger a disciplinary proceeding, but such a finding would not be conclusive. The D.C. Circuit appears to require a prima facie showing of a crime or fraud sufficiently serious to defeat the privilege, plus some relationship between the communication at issue and the prima facie violation. A prima facie violation is shown if it is established that the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme. In Re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Imposition of professional discipline typically requires a higher standard of proof, such as a preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence.

In a disciplinary proceeding the attorney would retain the privilege against self-incrimination, but assertion of such privilege would permit the fact finder to draw an adverse inference against the respondent -- disciplinary proceedings being civil in nature.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The 65 Project seems dedicated to ensuring accountability in this context.

[bernard11]

Another item from Florida that awaits the attention of the VC anti-censorship caucus.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe the Volokh Conspiracy Board of Censors is overloaded by the thousands of racist, homophobic, threatening, Islamophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic comments awaiting review for compliance with this blog's self-described civility standards.

[M L]

I'm confused. Are you against the government controlling its own government speech? If government speech should not be controlled by the government, then who should control it in your view?

With that said, it sounds like these measures you are referencing might be a bit heavy handed on the statewide-level actions, in my view. I would support all decisions about what to teach children in schools being made at the local school board level. But, these actions in FL may make sense within a larger context.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You don't seem to understand the law at issue in the link.

This is, at best, government giving control of its speech to the most sensitive person in the state. I thought, in other contexts, you objected to that sort of over-sensitivity and encouragement of personal hurt feelings being the basis for statewide imposition of bans on what government employees can say.

[not guilty]

A trial judge in Virginia has opined that a divorced couple's frozen embryos, conceived through in vitro fertilization, are "goods or chattels" subject to partition under a Virginia statute. An earlier version of the statute provided that slaves were similarly subject to partition. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/opinions/cl-2021-15372-honeyhline-heidemann-v-jason-heidemann.pdf

Any thoughts?

[not guilty]

In 1992, the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected a trial court’s reasoning that divorcing spouses’ frozen preembryos were “children in vitro,” with custody thereof to be determined according to the best interest of the children. The Supreme Court, based on the Tennessee Constitution, opined that the preembryos were neither “persons” nor “property” and ruled:

that disputes involving the disposition of preembryos produced by in vitro fertilization should be resolved, first, by looking to the preferences of the progenitors. If their wishes cannot be ascertained, or if there is dispute, then their prior agreement concerning disposition should be carried out. If no prior agreement exists, then the relative interests of the parties in using or not using the preembryos must be weighed. Ordinarily, the party wishing to avoid procreation should prevail, assuming that the other party has a reasonable possibility of achieving parenthood by means other than use of the preembryos in question. If no other reasonable alternatives exist, then the argument in favor of using the preembryos to achieve pregnancy should be considered. However, if the party seeking control of the preembryos intends merely to donate them to another couple, the objecting party obviously has the greater interest and should prevail.

Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588, 604 (1992).

[NOVA Lawyer]

Is this an unforced error by DeSantis that will highlight his lack of experience and understanding of foreign policy, thereby damaging his presidential prospects?

“While the U.S. has many vital national interests — securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Community Party — becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them,”

Or will he drag the GOP further into isolationism and sabotage our efforts to contain Russian expansionism (and by example, Chinese takeover of Taiwan) and, thereby, further speed up Reagan’s spinning in his grave? (Reagan: “Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Trump/DeSantis: “Putin, feel free to rebuild that wall!”)

And what is with GOP party leaders parroting Russian propaganda? From Trump saying Crimea was Russian anyway due to a high number of Russian speakers to DeSantis calling Russia’s invasion of an independent country and trying to capture that country’s capital a mere “territorial dispute,” it seems they aren’t content to only say the United States should do less, but also carefully avoid saying what Russia is actually doing.

[Sarcastr0]

Neither do I. Last I dealt with her, I found "The Shock Doctrine" to be a bit conspiratorial.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Anyone remember when a President would have resigned before discussing oral sex?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not as much as I remember you challenging multiple people to back up their claims a couple days ago with some sort of bet, then when taken up on the challenge you just vanished.

[Bored Lawyer]

I remember when liberals were smart and honest enough to understand the difference between sleazy behavior and criminal behavior. And this little thing called Due Process.

Now you may not have noticed, but I took up your bet from the other day. To recap:

QA — I will take your bet. I am not too proud to admit I was wrong. But only on the condition that I can review the law and decide if it really fits the criteria, or you are just blowing smoke. To review, the law must be: (a) passed by the Reconstructionist Congress into law and (b) benefit blacks qua blacks (or Negroes qua Negroes) without regard to their status as former slaves, their socioeconomic status, or their location within the U.S. But if I conclude you are blowing smoke, I will say so and mute you.

So far nothing from you. Still waiting.

[John F. Carr]

I want to see Trump doing a teary "I have sinned" apology for his sleazy past. I know, that was Swaggart and not the Moral Majority's Falwell, but those 1980s televangelists all blend together for me.

[Frank Drackman]

Might get a little uncomfortable when the dude says "Say Hello to my Leet-le Friend!!!"

[Bob from Ohio]

"presenting"

Can Scots come? They wear skirts after all.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But why would they admit trans men?

[TwelveInchPianist]

The article is about them admitting trans "men", who according to the dogma are full-fledged men. What would be the rational for not admitting actual men in this instance, other than transphobia?

[Armchair Lawyer]

K stopped drinking the Kool-Aid.

[Nige]

That’s Naomi Klein. Naomi Wolfe was redpilled ages ago. There is no way in the world she ever 'believed' any of the things she claims are 'lies' now.

[Commenter_XY]

Just so I am clear...you're ok with law students, presumably our future judges and politicos, asking an invited guest, a federal judge, "Judge, why can't you find the clit?". And you would like to focus on the guest. Myopic. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, you're an idiot. Look her up.

[OtisAH]

So delirium tremens then?

[Bored Lawyer]

What are you quoting from? All of that is secondary or tertiary sources. Which I will trace, when I have time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

” It provided for the ap- pointment of one chaplain “for each regiment of colored troops, whose duty shall include the instruction of the enlisted men in the common English branches of edu- cation,”

These are to segregated, lower-paid troops? This may or may not fall within the terms of your wager, but it really doesn’t advance your point very much.

I mean, white soldiers got $13 a month, blacks got $7, plus a chaplain who is supposed to educate them, and you're claiming that the chaplain is their benefit? Pretty weak.

[Sarcastr0]

To speak for myself, not QA, I am not OK with shouting down a speaker.

But lets not pretend this wasn't a mutual melee either. That judge came loaded for bear, and excitedly gave right back. That does NOT justify preventing him from speaking via shouting, but it does add quite a bit to the rest of the scenario.

But I also think the calls for firings and suspensions and criminal charges are way overwrought. This is quite a minor fuck-up as things go, but since there is the core of a legit issue, the usual suspects are working as hard as they can to turn this into their latest oppression and a sign of universal anarchy.

[SimonP]

Yes, I'm fine with this. Duncan is a life-appointed judge in a conservative judiciary who is unlikely to encounter any kind of censure for unprofessional conduct or lawless rulings. He can handle a vulgar comment from a group of people who have significantly less power and impunity than he does.

And I'm not worried about these students. Their behavior struck me as amateurish and counterproductive. But they'll take their law classes, pass the bar, and become ordinary, professional adults, just like the rest of us who have been through that process.

This is just yet another scandal, set up by the Federalist Society and their supporters in the media, to make the left look loony and out of touch. The whole purpose of this propaganda is to build support for a much more dangerous effort to use the power of the state and conservative media to shut students like those at Stanford down. That is exactly why Josh and Ho have pivoted to talking about ways to "punish" these students. I'm sure we're only a few days from efforts to doxx the students on the videos and post their names here.

[Frank Drackman]

Does Elon Musk qualify as "African Amurican"?? He's African, He's Amurican.

[Bored Lawyer]

First, I will now admit to being ignorant of these laws. Which I did not look up, but assume are accurately cited.

Second, the interpretation of these laws is subject to debate. Another amicus brief in the same case argues that properly understood, all of these are remedial acts for past racial discrimination:

The second bucket of Reconstruction-era federal enactments to which colorblind-Constitution skeptics point consist of five laws:
• A law that donated federally owned land in the District of Columbia “for the sole use of schools for colored children.” Act of July 28, 1866, ch. 308, 14 Stat. 343. 25 • A law that appeared to appropriate funds for the relief of destitute African American women and children. Act of July 28, 1866, ch. 296, 14 Stat. 317.
• A law that provided money for destitute “colored” persons within the District of Columbia. Resolution of Mar. 16, 1867, No. 4, 15 Stat. 20.
• A law that required military chaplains appointed for black troops to provide them with basic educational instruction. Act of July 28, 1866, ch. 299, 14 Stat. 337.
• Several rules and procedures for the payment of “colored” servicemen in the Union Army. Act of July 28, 1866, ch. 299, 14 Stat. 367-68.
None of these enactments, when considered in context, suggest that Congress believed racial classifications were constitutionally acceptable under the Fourteenth Amendment. The law donating federal lands to “schools for colored children” was necessary because, before 1862, “public schools in the District were limited to white children.” Rappaport, The Colorblind Constitution, at 102. Because white students already had schools, Congress’s donation of land to “schools for colored children” was filling a void, not conferring a race-based benefit.
Reliance on a law purportedly appropriating funds to destitute African American women and children fares no better. This is because that law gave funds to a private organization that happened to be named the “National Association for the Relief of Destitute 26 Colored Women and Children.” Id. at 103. Because thousands of private organizations receive federal appropriations every year, it would make little sense to use this appropriation as evidence that the Reconstruction-era Congress believed that the Fourteenth Amendment allowed race-specific benefit conferral.
Although the law providing relief for destitute “colored” District of Columbia residents appears race based, context suggests that it was not. “[T]hese benefits were not provided to destitute blacks because of their race or because there was a tendency for blacks to be in worse circumstances.” Id. at 105. “Rather, Congress provided the benefits because there was a special problem exhibited by the shantytowns in the District where only blacks lived.” Id. The use of a racial identifier was a surrogate term used for identifying to whom “the benefits should be provided.” Id. In other words, these benefits were not provided to African Americans because they were African Americans. Instead, these benefits were provided for the destitute in the District of Columbia, the vast majority of whom happened to be African American. Id. at 103.
Reliance on the law that mandated chaplain-run educational instruction for black military troops suffers from the same deficiency blighting reliance on the law that donated federal land to “schools for colored children.” Act of July 28, 1866, ch. 308, 14 Stat. 343. Specifically, this law was promulgated to ensure that black troops would receive the same instruction already being provided to white troops. Rappaport, The Colorblind Constitution, at 109. Because of rampant discrimination in the armed 27 forces, Congress was likely “concerned that the black soldiers would not receive education from the” existing schools on military bases. Id. “By requiring that the chaplains for the black soldiers provide education, Congress would have ensured that the black soldiers would have been taught by the chaplains for their regiments.” Id. In any event, “there might have seemed to be little point to avoiding racial distinctions given the existing racial segregation and exclusion in the armed services.” Id. at 110. Sloppy draftsmanship and the use of proxy terms, however, does not mean that Congress intended this provision to create unique benefits for black servicemembers.
The final congressional enactment does appear race based, and, unlike the others, the historical record does not reveal a non-race-based explanation. Id. at 110-11. That law created price controls on the “amount that could be paid to agents who helped black servicemen secure bounties, pensions, and other payments that they were due,” but did not provide the same benefits for white servicemembers. Id. at 110. Perhaps this law had a nonracial explanation, and it remains true that Congress did not consider itself bound by the Fourteenth Amendment. But even interpreting it in the light most favorable to the colorblind-Constitution skeptics, this sole law provides a wafer-thin reed on which to rest an argument that the Fourteenth Amendment allows— 150 years after the abolition of slavery—the sort of race-based admissions regime approved by Grutter.

The full brief is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1199/222821/20220509143547971_20-1199%20and%2021-707%20Amicus%20Meese%20Supp.%20Pet.pdf

What cannot be denied is that in 1866-67, the vast majority of blacks were former slaves, and many were destitute. That sui generis situation cannot be used to justify AA in the 21st century.

[Bored Lawyer]

Don't stay up at night, not happening in my lifetime.

[OtisAH]

“I know nothing at all about these laws but the interpretation of these laws is subject to debate” is my newest NFT, folks. I’ll only be minting about a thousand of these beauts so get ‘em while they’re hot!

[Bored Lawyer]

The point of the argument is what does the 14th Amendment allow.

Which, IMO, is besides the point. Harvard is a private entity not bound by the 14th Amendment. It's the Civil Rights Act which binds Harvard, and there the legislative history is clear that AA is not authorized.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yep, only your side can cite an amicus brief, but not your opponents. Nice double standard, seems to be your stock-in-trade.

[OtisAH]

The value of an amicus brief from someone who knows nothing at all about the laws in question is incalculable.

[Sarcastr0]

It's less the content being rude than the volume not letting him speak that crosses a line.

[Commenter_XY]

I’m sure we’re only a few days from efforts to doxx the students on the videos and post their names here.

SimonP, would naming the law students (e.g. the little darlings) be wrong? Why or why not?

[Bob from Ohio]

Just like Favre. Same age too.

[SimonP]

Again. A conservative judge can't bloviate to a group of law students because they shouted at him. Oh no. Please, stop.

I'm not going to indulge the right-wingers who want to parade this video around as yet another exhibit in their culture war. The dance always begins with, "Liberals, you must disavow this!" And too many of us (you) indulge it. By doing so, you're lending credence to their complaint. But the truth is that this is all manufactured outrage. Right-wingers don't actually care this much, which you can see when you start dissecting the "why should we care" part of their assertions.

[Life of Brian]

That judge came loaded for bear

Seriously: how do you mind-read this, as opposed to him just reacting in real time to conditions on the ground?

Now that we have audio of the entire proceeding, it's indisputable that he spent nearly 7 minutes trying to present his prepared remarks before once speaking back to the brat-mob that was interrupting nearly every sentence.

[Ed Grinberg]

why should we care

Because fascism is bad?

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, I can say something is bad and the right are also blowing it up to hilarious proportions.

I'm not an advocate - I don't need to take the farthest view for negotiation purposes.

[Ben_]

If the judge was one of the special people, he’d have a right to be treated with respect. And anyone who wasn’t respectful and understanding would be guilty of a “hate crime” and might be banned from campus for making the school “unsafe”.

Meanwhile we see right here how leftists treat people.

[SimonP]

Who's the "fascist," in this scenario? The students shouting at the judge, or the judge whose rulings have contributed to creating a special conservative legal environment in the Fifth Circuit?

[Sarcastr0]

He arrived with a camera crew!

You're smart, why do you play these stupid games?

[myself]

The audio of him talking in that clip is almost inaudible, he apparently comes on stage at 0:35 and at 1:15 there's people complaining that they can't hear him.

Then about 1:30 he starts saying something about the controversy with the Federal judiciary and people being allowed to say they don't like it. In fact, the first phrase I clearly heard him say seems to be a reference to the audience "this, whatever this is", which very predictably caused some heckling. After that he keeps going on about "you can say whatever you want and nothing's going to happen to you".

To me it definitely sounded like he was trolling the audience right out of the gate. He was a full and willing participant in it devolving.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/21/journalism-professors-demand-iowa-state-university-disband-the-college-republicans-over-offensive-tweet/?comments=true#comment-8599393

[Ben_]

-

[Michael P]

Predicting that people will behave so badly, and then lie about it, such that you decide to bring a camera... is being "loaded for bear"?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He arrived with a camera crew!"

Wanting to document the event is "loaded for bear"?

I don't think you're being honest with yourself, Sarcastro.

[Life of Brian]

He arrived with a camera crew!

Sorry, but that's going to take at least a whiff of support. Law school events get recorded all the time, and apparently Stanford did so here. Or are you talking about someone filming part of it from their seat with a friggin camera phone? Hopefully you're not that far gone.

You’re smart, why do you play these stupid games?

If accurately perceiving the world around me rather than swallowing your routine, opportunistic distortions is "playing stupid games," sign me up.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And lying about it to a grand jury, no less?

[Mr. Bumble]

Same go for the courts?

[Brett Bellmore]

Pathetic. I actually turned your bet down on the basis that it wouldn't have shocked me if they'd passed a few such laws, not being perfect.

[Nige]

If they're trans.

[Nige]

Solidarity.

[OtisAH]

Probably because trans-men are subject to the exact same hateful bile and violence that all other LGBTQ people face.

[Nige]

Because cis men aren't trans.

[shawn_dude]

The school agrees with you. Men are men. The school is for women.

The students are wanting to change that and extend it to trans men. This makes some amount of sense to me since women at the college might transition and, if they do, would presumably need to transfer out. No one wants to see classmates forced out of the school.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What does that even mean?

[Michael Ejercito]

I can understand arguments that this was unethical.

It is protected by the First Amendment, just like petitioning for warrants to spy on political campaigns is protected by the First Amendment.

[Krayt]

Both sides went crazy in 2000, umm, asking everyone, everywhere, all at once to find more votes.

They didn’t just mean finding legitimate votes, but to delegitimize counted votes, e.g. certain mailed in military votes from overseas, to say nothing of trying to change counting rules after the election to help yer guy win.

[OtisAH]

Good catch. Couldn’t figure who “K” was.

[Sarcastr0]

How normal recording by the school is isn't the question, and you know it.

He came hoping for a conflict. That's inconvenient so you're being willfully blind.

Smart guy, turning your talents towards nonsense.

[Life of Brian]

As always, you're now just throwing confetti desperately trying to pivot away from your original opportunistic fabrication.

Document the "camera crew" he "arrived with," or crawl back in your troll hole. I'm not following you to whatever other face-saving lilypads you'd now like to flee to.

[Sarcastr0]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/trump-judge-kyle-duncan-stanford-law-scotus-audition.html

You accuse people of lying way too quickly, and lose quite often. Most would learn something.

But I realize you're not here to engage. Which is sad, because I think if you cared to go on substance, it'd be a great conversation. As it is, you suck.

[Life of Brian]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/trump-judge-kyle-duncan-stanford-law-scotus-audition.html

He walked into the law school filming protestors on his phone

OH. So when you claimed that "he arrived with a camera crew" as proof that he was "loaded for bear," all you meant was that "when he got to the law school and saw what was brewing, he held up his phone and recorded some video."

That's pretty pathetic, dude. No wonder you rarely cite sources.

You accuse people of lying way too quickly, and lose quite often.

Subject, of course, to the meaning of "lose" being flailingly redefined by the people who I accuse -- truthfully -- of lying.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck do you think loaded for bear means?!

You called me a troll, and then I backed up what I said, and then you moved the goalposts.

[Life of Brian]

What the fuck do you think loaded for bear means?!

More distractive flailing, with an invective cherry.

It of course means someone who comes prepared for a fight. If you think that's satisfied by having a smartphone in your pocket... well.

Now let's return to your undisputed lie: C-A-M-E-R-A---C-R-E-W. Why are you so desperate to try to twist this into a failing of mine instead of just admitting you overstated?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You called me a troll, and then I backed up what I said,"

No you didn't. You said he came with a camera crew, then linked to an article that said he was filming on his phone.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As always, you’re now just throwing confetti..."

That ain't confetti.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh good lord. Back to pedantic bullshit.

Camera crew versus walking in filiming is not material to my argument.

But you're not here to actually engage with arguments, you're here to accuse and pettifog.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you've moved from "I've backed up what I said" to "I can't back up what I said because I was wrong, but my mistake is irrelevant to my argument." OK then.

As for your argument, the claim that he came into the room with his camera out, ergo he came hoping for conflict is a non-sequitur.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, quoting from David Lat's first article (and skipping the long description of the pre-protest party in the commons where they drove out the FedSoc folks trying to eat breakfast!):

Then the event got underway. Approximately 100 protesters lined up outside the event to boo those who entered, with some students calling out individual classmates—e.g., “Shame, John Smith”—à la Cersei’s Walk of Atonement on Game of Thrones. Another 50 to 70 students came into the room where the event took place, compared to about 20 FedSoc students (if that).

"OMG CAMERA CREW" aside, If Judge Duncan only started recording midway through that entire circus, that was way too late in the game to be credibly cast as a proactive move.

[Michael P]

Hey, according to S_0, bringing a mobile phone with a camera counts as "loaded for bear" with "a camera crew". He even deigned to post a link! Who are you to claim that normal people, as opposed to those horrible Rethuglicans, might bring a modern mobile device when they give a speech?

[Commenter_XY]

Let the PA Supreme Court know, ok? 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

J...E...T....S...Jets, Jets, Jets!

Just
End
The
Season
! 🙂

[Life of Brian]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I listened to that particular segment again and didn't hear anything that seemed inconsistent with a presentation titled "COVID, Guns, and Twitter," and without video it's just guesswork what "this" might have referred to. David Lat doesn't seem to think that segment was outside his prepared remarks either. Maybe he or FedSoc will publish them at some point if they haven't already, and that will help clear things up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Or the late NC Supreme Court.

[Mr. Bumble]

So cold.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Delusional, gullible, superstition-addled, obsolete losers resent educated, literate, modern professionals. That's news?

[Michael Ejercito]

To merely petition for that was and is protected by the First Amendment.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Once again, Ejercito, once the states have certified the ballot count, the 1A is off the table. A certified and announced election count is not ordinary speech; it is a sovereign decree. No court has authority to overturn it, any more than a court has authority to rewrite the Constitution. The same power which decreed the Constitution also decreed the election result. They stand with identical status, above the reach of any government action, including court action.

The power which denied Pence capacity to intervene is the same power which denies that capacity to every other person in government.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, Ejercito, once the states have certified the ballot count, the 1A is off the table.

Once again, Lathrop, you should stick to pretending you can do hydrology from looking at photos, because you suck at law. The 1A is never off the table.

A certified and announced election count is not ordinary speech; it is a sovereign decree.

No, it's ordinary speech. You're not even consistent with your own loony "sovereign" ideas: a certified and announced election count is a decree of government officials, not of the people.

[Michael Ejercito]

How could his rulings possibly be fascist?

[I Callahan]

The students are the fascists, because they made a point of stopping someone else from speaking. Someone with a modicum of intelligence wouldn’t need this to be explained to him.

[Sarcastr0]

See, this is where the right becomes unserious.

No, students shouting down a speaker does not make all those students fascists, you utter clown.

All bad things are fascist is a great clue you don't know or care what things mean.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastro, I agree that the term "fascist" gets over-used a lot in discussions like this.

But shouting down a speaker is NOT a minor matter. It's not as bad as dragging the speaker off and beating them, but it is absolutely nothing we should normalize.

In part because dragging the speaker off and beating them is the NEXT step in the escalation, once you've established that, no, they don't have a right to speak.

[Nige]

You've been predicting this escalation for quite some time now, somehow it never happens.

[myself]

He does try to go back to his prepared remarks after, but he starts the presentation by engaging with the protestors and doing it with a fairly dismissive attitude. Them responding is highly predictable.

Yes, the protestors bear the majority of the blame for the situation devolving, but he's a Federal Judge. He should be holding to a higher standard.

[shawn_dude]

Wellesley's mission is related to being female, though, so trans and CIS men are both outside of that mission. I find the student's desire to be inclusive heartening, though.

[SimonP]

Naming them in the manner that David has explored here would be wrong, yes.

[Commenter_XY]

But so.....true. 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

Why? (Not being facetious)

[Commenter_XY]

https://freebeacon.com/campus/student-activists-target-stanford-law-school-dean-in-revolt-over-her-apology/

The little darlings are being 'outed'. They are being identified. It was bound to happen. Best of luck to the little darlings, as they apply for clerkships.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh....No.

There is a difference between passing a bill for a certain class of people, versus passing a bill to fund an organization. For example, if Congress was to pass a bill deliberately funding "Catholics" or "Catholic Americans" as a class of people, that would be illegal. On the other hand, if Congress was to pass a bill funding a "Catholic Hospital" that would pass muster. Because in the latter example, Congress is funding a hospital. Not "Catholics" as a class of people.

In the case you cite, among several other flaws in your argument, which I can go into if I need to, the bill does not fund "blacks". It funds a private relief organization (really a orphanage).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You've been wrong every time you've said that, and this time is no different.

"I need you to recount the ballots and make sure the count is right" would be protected.

"I need you to find exactly the number of votes I need to win, and it'll be bad for you if you don't" is not.

Nobody should be listening to your legal opinion.

[Frank Drackman]

Ladies & Gentlemen, lets hear it for Jerry Sandusky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sarcastr0]

It's been 1 hour and no response from AL!

[Ben_]

Every once in a while I will unmute you to see if you ever post anything that’s on point. Not so far. Ad hominem, every single time.

[Sarcastr0]

Tell me, was your comment that AL replied to anything other than, as you call it, ad hominem?

[Ben_]

You should look up what ad hominem means.

Pointing out unjust double standards and bad behavior isn’t what it means.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't point out shit, Ben, you created a hypothetical double standard and got mad at it.

That's as contentless as anything else.

And calling YOU out for being contentless like that is not ad hominem - look it up.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

40 mules and one acre of land

[Armchair Lawyer]

For the "National association for..."

Read your bill. Understand what it's actually for.

One of the big issues here is, you haven't actually read the bill. You've got brief outtake in a court report. What you really want is the text of the bill.

For example, here's the bill incorporating the National Association for the relief of colored women and children.

https://www.congress.gov/37/llsb/S.505.pdf

[SimonP]

It’s tortious to “doxx” someone with the intention of harming their future economic interests. It could also constitute an intentional inflection of emotional distress or defamation (if you look at David’s example).

It’s also morally wrong to intentionally try to harm someone.

I’ve been doxxed before. It wasn’t for anything that was illegal, tortious, against policy, or even disruptive. It wasn’t even for something I had done in real life. It was just some group of “mean girls” who wanted to torpedo my employment chances for violating some social norm online.

When you are in that situation, you have no real recourse. You have no way to confront or reason with the people doing it, because they do it anonymously. You can only hope to counter-weigh their efforts in the internet search algorithms. I can’t imagine what the student David targeted went through. Many of the commenters here, I’m sure, would have no problem sending harassing emails or phone calls to someone he named, to say nothing of David’s own platform and efforts.

The people calling for the Stanford students to be “reported” by their law schools to future employers, etc. – so, Ho, Josh, and others in the comments here – are wanting to unilaterally impose a “punishment” on these students, without fair warning, meaningful due process, any limiting principle, etc. They want to impose upon these students a permanent mark that could impact them for their entire lives. For what? What is the justification for this kind of extra-legal smear campaign? What is the great crime committed by these students, besides some tacky, under-baked “protest”?

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps you should be able to figure out that you were mischaracterizing my position?

My position is that the benefits handed out during reconstruction were based on past victimization, not mere color. The major pieces of legislation were quite explicit about that. In the case of some of the lesser legislation, they weren't quite so careful about that.

[Sarcastr0]

AL, your distinction has no difference to it. The EPC does not distinguish between people and organizations of people.

If you get to fund an organization dedicated to one demographic class, you get to fund that one demographic class.

Sorry for your desire to do shallow, performative originalism and also call affirmative action racist and evil.

[Sarcastr0]

It was bound to happen. Best of luck to the little darlings, as they apply for clerkships.

Doxxing is good now.

[OtisAH]

Apparently they’ve decided to modify their mission to include trans-men. It’s their mission. They can do with it what they want. Problem solved.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was never going to stay a weapon that only the left got to use.

I don't like the ever worsening level of civility in society, but I'm not sure it's actually worse than the left getting to be confident that they can engage in any abuse they want and never have it done to them.

War is hell, but not fighting back doesn't make war less hellish, it just assures that the aggressor gets a cheap victory, thus encouraging aggression.

[Nige]

You’re under the impression that it hasn’t been a weapon of the right all along? What did you think you were defending when you defended libsoftiktok?

But this, of course, is a self-serving rationalisation, an admission that yes, in fact, doxxing is good.

[Brett Bellmore]

"What did you think you were defending when you defended libsoftiktok?"

Not doxing. Libs of tiktoc was taking public posts and just reposting them. Not hunting down somebody's identity and publicizing it.

[shawn_dude]

No, the administration has not changed its admissions policy. This is a story about students holding a non-binding vote in favor of extending admissions to trans men.

Clearly, the administration can change their mission. They haven't at this time.