Today in Supreme Court History: April 2, 1980

4/2/1980: Justice Stanley Forman Reed dies.

Justice Stanley Forman Reed

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561 (decided April 2, 2007): "modification" can mean different things in different (complicated) environmental statutes; the upshot was that coal-fired plant should have gotten a permit before upgrading

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of City of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (decided April 2, 2012): strip search upon incarceration is not unreasonable under Fourth Amendment

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 584 U.S. --- (decided April 2, 2018): the guy at the auto dealership who tells you about service contract options doesn't have to be paid overtime -- he's one of those people "servicing" autos who is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act

Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. --- (decided April 2, 2018): shooting woman who was holding a knife over another woman and wouldn't drop it does not violate "clearly established law" and therefore qualified immunity; §1983 action dismissed

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n, 572 U.S. 185 (decided April 2, 1968): statutory limit on total amount one person can donate to political candidates/committees violates First Amendment; 5 - 4 decision

Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273 (decided April 2, 2014): extra-contractual claim against airline which revoked frequent flyer status (misrepresentation, breach of good faith and fair dealing) preempted by Airline Deregulation Act

De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303 (decided April 2, 1906): upholding Philippine divorce verdict; wife established adultery by proof that husband abandoned her and shacked up with three women, getting them all pregnant (I would say the wife made out her case)

Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (decided April 2, 2012): grand jury witness who allegedly fabricated evidence can't be sued for damages under §1983; enjoyed same immunity as trial witness (can't blame him for suing; grand jury had returned three indictments, all of them dismissed for insufficiency of evidence)

Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (decided April 2, 2001): no deprivation of right to counsel when defendant charged with one crime (burglary) confesses to separate uncharged crime (murder of the occupants); 5 - 4 decision

United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (decided April 2, 1979): conversation with IRS agent admissible in bribery trial even though recorded in violation of IRS protocols

[John F. Carr]

I didn't like Northwest v. Ginsberg. The implied covenants of contracts are a basic part of American law which should not be displaced by a general preemption clause.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Unfortunately the Constitution does not guarantee any "freedom of contract", at least none that is free from federal interference.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It *does* have a "taking" clause, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, not since the judiciary threw away our economic rights in the early to mid 20th century, anyway. The courts certainly thought it did at one time, though. And I'm sure you've heard of Lochner. Even the dissent thought that the Constitution did protect such a right.

[SMP0328]

Great job captcrisis, as always, except that McCutcheon was decided in 2014.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks, and thanks for the correction. A cut and paste error, I think.

[Mr. Bumble]

For an interesting take on qualified immunity read Judge Willett's concurrence in the linked decision beginning on page 12.

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-20200-CV0.pdf?_hsmi=252608672

[Dan Schiavetta]

Quite interesting. Thanks.

I like the judge’s lively writing style.

I always thought that qualified immunity was a policy choice, and not a deliberate application of what was thought to be existing law.

It’s amazing that §1983 got miscopied into the official statutes in 1874 with an important phrase left out. Didn’t anyone notice until Prof. Reinert detected it a few months ago? And no judge pointed this out until Willett did in this opinion released three days ago?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And what are the implications of this?

[Dan Schiavetta]

1. As far as I can tell, qualified immunity has been construed as if it were a policy choice anyway, a judge-created doctrine, only now we would have to say it's a post-1874 creation. There is something to be said for insulating police from liability for ordinary negligence. Also Prof. Reinert's discovery does not affect the survival of common law immunity as to state law claims and having "partial immunity" would make things confusing.

2. If the clods at the printing office made one mistake in 1874, they most likely made others. How did Prof. Reinert uncover this mistake? Perhaps he can tell us about other mistakes, or have his students do it -- track down the official record of an enactment, and compare it with what was later printed. A huge task, admittedly, but important.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Probably the way I tracked down something similar in my doctoral research.

Everyone in Maine K-12 education knew that there was "a law" that mandated the teaching of Maine history -- I traced it all the way back to someone who had been a student in the 1920s and told me that she was told (as a student) that Maine law mandated her one-room-schoolhouse teach this. And this was stated as fact by Superintendents and Education Professors, I was taught it when I got my certification. (As a "janitor", but I digress...)

Well, it seems that there never was such a law -- I went through everything back to 1920 and couldn't find it, and a very embarrassed Secretary of State's Office said they couldn't find it either.

Best I could tell, there was a 1920 law that said that AMERICAN history had to be taught, and remember that Maine became a state in 1820 -- I speculate that somehow the Centennial celebration and this new law got commingled into a belief that a law mandating the teaching of state history. It isn't like the now-elderly women telling me about the mandate of the 1920s would have actually read the law, and I doubt that anyone else did either -- and the children of the 1920s became the state bureaucrats of the 1950s who issued state curriculum guides on the basis of what they had been told was a legislative mandate. Who would check?

The state does now have a law mandating the teaching of Maine history but the earlier law never existed....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Conversely, Massachusetts has a law mandating that the state constitution be taught -- and I have *yet* to find a graduate of a MA High School who was taught it.

That's actually not uncommon in the Ed World -- people get a law passed and the Educarats simply ignore it....

[Frank Drackman]

Alabama has a 1950's law requiring the phrase "Heart of Dixie" and a little Heart design appear on all license plates. And despite the millions of $$ they could collect, you can't get a "Georgia Bulldog/Tennessee Volunter/Florida Gators" personalized tag in Alabama, whereas you CAN get a Bama/Auburn/Florida/Tennessee personalized tag in Jaw Jaw.
Alabama one of the few states without a lottery, which, when you look at who mostly loses money in it, is one of the most "Progressive" things they've (not) done

Frank

[Drewski]

It appears he references Congress's statutes-at-large, which makes sense. SAL are the actual statutes they pass. When brought to the Federal Register they're reformatted and placed in the US Code, but this is for convenience.

When SAL and USC are in conflict, the SAL remain controlling but the USC provides a rebuttable, prima facie source of the statutes.

Twist: Since 1947, Congress has reaffirmed portions of the USC, enacting them as positive law, so in those cases the enactment amends the original SAL with the contemporary text from USC. This has not been done with Title 42. See 1 USC § 204 and annotations.

Almost nobody looks at the SAL. It's time-consuming and often expensive. They're chronological and older volumes are only available in print. The official SAL are kept in the Library of Congress. Nevertheless, there have been a couple cases that turned on the difference, which I find myself unable to dig up in the moment.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks!

[Magister]

Has subsequent Congressional action effectively endorsed the miscopied law? Is this discovery likely to have any effect in future cases?

[Drewski]

"Has subsequent Congressional action effectively endorsed the miscopied law?"

No. That's something Congress has done with some portions of the US Code (via 1 USC § 204), but not with Title 42.

"Is this discovery likely to have any effect in future cases?"

If true, then IMO likely. I don't think Willett has personally confirmed the typo (or he would cite the Statutes-at-Large rather than a law review article), so grain of salt. I think SCOTUS would very much like a solid reason to repudiate QI.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspirators have been unusually quiet recently.

Is it that nothing interesting has been occurring lately, or is it more a lack of developments concerning drag queens, Muslims, transgender bathrooms, lesbians, and the other key elements of Volokh Conspiracy coverage?

Or is it just that no recent developments have provided plausible deniability for launching a few vile racial slurs?

In any event, let's hope the Volokh Conspirators find something interesting to write about soon. Maybe something involving persecution of white males . . .

Carry on, clingers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK Kirkland — you want a response to the rape of the legal system that the Trump Show Trial will be?

Here’s my response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I

Unless there are still sane leftists (and I fear that there aren’t) this will not end well. This is the sort of thing that could easily spiral into a shooting civil war. We’ve never charged a former President (or his wife) with anything, no matter how convincing the evidence, for the greater good of the country.

On September 12th, I had to make it very clear that there were certain lines that I was not going to tolerate being crossed. No, they weren’t going to go beat up a professor for something she had said in support of the terrorists — printing a rather unflattering picture of her in the newspaper was fine as long as they quoted her accurately, but that was IT.

Same thing with the UMass Hamas Chapter — they were going to be left alone. (And yes, there was one.)

It was the greater good of the country, and that’s what I suggest that the left needs to think about right now…

The greater good of the country….

[Nige]

It's for the greater good of the country that rich and powerful people be immune from prosecution? Or just rich and powerful people you support?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you honestly think I supported Hillary Clinton?!?

[Nige]

As I recall, Hilary Clinton was subjected to decades of investigation and hearings. So, no, it never occured to me for an instant.

[Krychek_2]

Dr Ed, just so I’m clear, is it your position that Trump did not commit a crime, or is it your position that he likely did commit a crime and you don’t think he should be prosecuted?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Both: He did not commit a crime and this is a politically based fabrication. No one prosecuted Betsy Wright and Clinton's "Bimbo Patrol."

NDAs are (unfortunately) legal and people routinely buy them to cover up a lot of stuff. And since when does a state have the right to enforce Federal law? I seem to remember Arizona trying that with Immigration Law and being told no.

And when you look at the geography of DC, the VA AG almost certainly has nexus to prosecute the Bidens, and several Red State AGs have nexus to prosecute the Clinton Foundation.

[Frank Drackman]

Good answer, sorry for my premature response (first time it's ever happened)

[Mr. Bumble]

You could always raise the question as to whether there was or wasn't a crime committed; however.....
the DOJ, SDNY, FEC and the former Manhattan DA all saw fit not to bring charges so where does Bragg think he's going with this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't forget Congress -- this wasn't part of the impeachment.

[David Nieporent]

Both: He did not commit a crime

Is that your expert opinion as a janitor?

[Nige]

'He did not commit a crime and this is a politically based fabrication'

What, exactly, is the fabrication?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it being fraudulent to characterize a payment to one's lawyer to handle something THEY say is a legal expense, as a legal expense. You're supposed to be able to rely on your legal counsel for that sort of thing, aren't you?

[Nige]

Is that the charge? Are you taking Trump's claims at face value? Have you learned nothing?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the charge they had been discussing. It's anybody's guess at this point what the actual charges are, since the indictment is still sealed.

[Nige]

So everyone declaring his innocence and everyone declaring his guilt are equally being a bit previous, but the ones declaring him somehow immune from prosecution are the most previous of all.

[Frank Drackman]

Since Dr. Ed is in-disposed, I'll answer for him (it's like how Mormons can baptize dead people)
1: Yes, Trump has no Bananas, I mean, committed no crime, unless we're making them up, in which case I charge DA Bragg with "Indecent Facial Hair" and "Having the name of a Dead Confederate General"
and if he did commit a crime, I don't think he should be prosecuted, until POTUS's JFK/LBJ/Milhouse (Dig them up, if we're going to make up crimes we can try dead people) are charged for their Vietnam War Crimes,
so yes, Prosecute "45" for "Making every other POTUS look like shit"

Frank

[Armchair Lawyer]

While we're here Krychek, what's your opinion on indicting Trump on this particular issue with the current known facts at hand? Is it right and just? Or is more of a political-based prosecution?

[Krychek_2]

Armchair Lawyer, I think it's premature to try to answer that question until we know for sure what he's been indicted for. Everyone is assuming it's the Stormy Daniels hush money, but the indictment remains sealed until Tuesday. So ask me again after we know what the charges are.

That said, a few general comments:

1. Bragg knows that a jury acquittal would be a huge public relations coup for Trump, so I doubt he'd bring charges unless he were convinced that there's enough there to support a guilty verdict.

2. Even assuming that politics did enter into it, that doesn't tell us whether a crime was committed. If someone commits a crime, it's no defense that the prosecutor hates you, or why the prosecutor hates you.

3. On the subject of politics, this is the equivalent of the James Comey letter that drove the final nail in the coffin of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign: The American people are sick of the Trump flying circus. His actual base is about 30% of the voters; the remaining 70% mostly just want him to go away at this point. That 30% that's his base is enough to get him the nomination but not enough to win the general. So I think the indictment virtually guarantees that Biden gets re-elected, and 2024 will be the fourth election cycle in a row in which Trump did great damage to the GOP. Pass the popcorn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bragg may not have a choice, not if he's politically ambitious, and he's on the national stage now as the one who got Trump arrested. I don't think that an acquittal will actually hurt him with the demographics that honor him for arresting Trump as they'll ignore that.

Fair enough on the sealed indictment, but sealed indictments usually are secret -- enough has leaked out of this one already that I doubt there are any surprises. And didn't Bragg's Office have some folks resign in protest of Bragg's focusing on the NDA?

The American people are basically fair, and they are going to see Cohen for what he is -- remember he's the one who also corrupted Jerry Fallwell Jr -- and Trump isn't a lawyer. He did what his lawyer told him to do -- a lot of folks in Peoria are going to admit that is exactly what they would do (or have done) in any legal matter.

A lot of married women are going to respect Trump for not wanting the affair being smeared in the face of his wife. Daniels has not aged well and women will be judgmental on looks.

There are already plans to subpoena Bragg to testify before House committees and I don't see how he gets out of that. And that's where this whole thing blows up in his face.

[Krychek_2]

He gets out of it because he can't be compelled to discuss an ongoing criminal prosecution. He either asks a court to quash the subpoena on that basis, or shows up and refuses to answer any questions.

[David Nieporent]

A lot of married women are going to respect Trump for not wanting the affair being smeared in the face of his wife. Daniels has not aged well and women will be judgmental on looks.

Thanks for mansplaining how grateful women will be that Trump spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep his wife from finding out that he slept with a porn star while his wife was pregnant. He's practically a humanitarian!

[Nige]

'A lot of married women are going to respect Trump'

Not one single woman who isn't already a post-hoc-rationalising MAGA will respect Trump.

'There are already plans to subpoena Bragg to testify before House committees'

You'd think Repulicans interfering with a prosecution to protect one of their own would be more troubling, but no.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A lot of married women are going to respect Trump for not wanting the affair being smeared in the face of his wife.

Some half-educated, bigoted, superstitious, backwater, un-American women, maybe.

[Armchair Lawyer]

3. On the subject of politics. Assume this does exactly that. It ensures that Trump gets the nomination, but makes a weaker general election opponent for Biden.

Do you see any problem with this indictment being put in place to accomplish exactly that goal? Not a criminal case primarily, but primarily to affect the election?

[Krychek_2]

AL, I'm not sure I agree with your premise about what is the primary purpose. Suppose I'm the district attorney and my election opponent commits a murder. I know that prosecuting him will make it that much more difficult for him to beat me, but should I decline to prosecute a murder for that reason? I can be happy he's no longer an election threat while at the same time honestly doing my job as a prosecutor.

And if I had to lay money on it, it's my bet that that's what's happening here. Yes, Bragg is tickled pink at the chance to indict Trump, and yes, Trump really did hand him the ammunition by doing something indictable. The alternative would be to give politicians a free pass to commit whatever crimes they want so long as the prosecutor doesn't like them.

[Armchair Lawyer]

First, this isn't murder. I think we can both reasonably say the proposed charges are quite a bit less severe than murder.

Second, as you mention "Bragg is tickled pink at the chance to indict Trump". The question, if it wasn't Trump...if it was just a random person with a 6+ year old charge that was falsifying business records, with a similarly dubious case...would Bragg have indicted that random person?

That leads into the third question. Is it a problem if who a prosecutor decides to indict is based on the person, instead of the alleged crime, or facts of the crime. Or is that not a problem?

[David Nieporent]

If that were the goal, it would be extremely problematic.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1. Why would that be problematic?
2. How would someone determine if it was problematic, from a legal perspective.
3. Is there any real legal recourse if it was problematic? (as opposed to a political recourse, like voting out the DA).

[Krayt]

2. Even assuming that politics did enter into it, that doesn’t tell us whether a crime was committed. If someone commits a crime, it’s no defense that the prosecutor hates you, or why the prosecutor hates you

Things like the 4th amendment are built on the idea the King is choosing to filch through his opponents’ papers until he finds something illegal, a fairly good certainty for politicians and rich people with fingers in many pies. The king sure ain’t doing it to plant evidence, though that could happen too.

Once you say something stupid like “If you’re innocent, you have nothing to hide”, you’ve missed the point.

Personally, all office holders and candidates should wear microphones and body cams 100% of the time so we can see all the funny business. This deftly solves the corruption problem and is even handed, no selective prosecution of political enemies.

[Brett Bellmore]

"2. Even assuming that politics did enter into it, that doesn’t tell us whether a crime was committed. If someone commits a crime, it’s no defense that the prosecutor hates you, or why the prosecutor hates you. "

It's a handy doctrine if you want to run a corrupt government, isn't it? Just have so many laws that not violating one is a practical impossibility, and you can prosecute anyone you like. And that you don't prosecute your allies for the same conduct is irrelevant, legally speaking.

[Krychek_2]

On the other hand, if you spend a few minutes actually thinking through what would happen if "the prosecutor doesn't like me" were a viable legal defense, you'll discover that that isn't a good solution either. Prosecutors probably don't like most defendants. So the focus has to be on whether a crime was committed, not whether the prosecutor has good motives.

[Brett Bellmore]

But when you have a confluence of novel legal theories never before acted on, AND the prosecutor having run on prosecuting the defendant before a charge could be identified, (Trump's threat to prosecute Clinton was a bit different, in that people actually DO get prosecuted for the sort of thing Clinton did. Just not important people.) things get particularly ugly.

Add the implied catch-22, (I wasn't alone in noticing it.) that if Trump's payment HAD been listed as a campaign expenditure, Bragg would have just gone after him on the basis that it was just for private purposes. There was no winning here, no route to not being indicted.

Part of the problem here, I think, is the transformation of grand juries into the proverbial mushroom farms: Kept in the dark and fed BS. Grand juries that were actually driving the process might be less problematic.

[Krychek_2]

As of now, the indictment remains sealed so we don't know if it involves novel legal theories or not. But if it does, the remedy is to test those novel legal theories in front of a judge. I'm far from convinced that paying hush money is a legitimate campaign expense, but we'll see what the courts say. The issue, however, remains whether Trump committed a crime and not whether the Democrats are happy to see the indictment.

And yes, people who do bad things frequently do find themselves in Catch-22 situations as a result. Perhaps he shouldn't have slept with Stormy while his wife was pregnant.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As of now, the indictment remains sealed so we don’t know if it involves novel legal theories or not."

I think we do know now, because nobody has identified a non-novel legal theory under which he could indict Trump.

[Nige]

‘in that people actually DO get prosecuted for the sort of thing Clinton did.’

The entire W Bush administration didn’t.

'There was no winning here, no route to not being indicted.'

A Catch-22 of his own making, rather like the Mar A Lago search.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, just not 'important' people. People down near the bottom of the food chain get prosecuted for that sort of thing routinely, if they're stupid enough to do it.

[Nige]

Perhaps, but I note that Clinton was thoroughly investigated and her actions were found to not have reached a threshold for prosecution. The Bush admin were not.

[David Nieporent]

2. Even assuming that politics did enter into it, that doesn’t tell us whether a crime was committed. If someone commits a crime, it’s no defense that the prosecutor hates you, or why the prosecutor hates you.

The MAGA Cinematic Universe has taken the position since 2015 that Trump and his cronies are entitled to investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries that are Republican. (But only the good, MAGA kind of Republican; not the ordinary Republican who has been a member of the GOP long before Trump was.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

What did you think of the indictment of Rick Perry in 2015? Reports are, that helped to derail his nomination for President in 2016.

[David Nieporent]

As was discussed here (or, rather, at the VC @ the WP), the theory of the prosecution made no sense. But I'm pretty sure that it was Rick Perry's inability to count to three that derailed his candidacy for the nomination. In 2012. Although he ran again in 2016, he was never a serious contender, in the crowded GOP field where Trump sucked up all the oxygen.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1. The indictment was in 2014, and delayed Perry in the primary, as they took more than a year (into 2016) to have Perry be fully cleared.

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

[Krychek_2]

Oh, and in response to Frank's usual off topic what aboutism (off topic because none of those situations are even remotely comparable to this one), it is also not a defense to a criminal charge that other people got away with things. Next time you get a speeding ticket, try telling the judge that other people were also speeding and see what it gets you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Discretion is important, and we look like a third-World Banana Republic trying an ex-President for ANYTHING -- and Trump *didn't* prosecute Hillary.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He tried to. He asked his Justice Department to. And this was the Trump Administration, with an Executive Branch acting as his hit squad. But they couldn’t come up with anything.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/hillary-clinton-justice-department-investigation-results

[Dan Schiavetta]

and

https://www.goupstate.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/09/justice-department-winds-down-clinton-inquiry-finds-nothing-of-consequence/112354460/

[Dan Schiavetta]

and
https://fox2now.com/news/justice-department-winds-down-inquiry-into-hillary-clintons-business-dealings/

[Brett Bellmore]

"And this was the Trump Administration, with an Executive Branch acting as his hit squad."

I think you're fantasizing this loyal Executive Branch. On his best day, Trump's control over the Executive branch was a mile wide, and an inch deep. On most days it wasn't a mile wide, either. He couldn't get the DOJ to even prosecute Comey, despite an open and shut case of illegal leaking and retention of government documents. And his order that they stop going after Flynn was just ignored.

[Nige]

I think you're confusing 'loyalty' with 'dealing with someone who is arbitrary, capricious and self-serving.' Also it turns out his vaunted management style sucks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Captcrisis is the one claiming they were Trump's loyal hit squad, try to recall that.

[Nige]

No, he *wanted* a loyal hit squad and got mad when all Bill Barr could do was quash and kibosh investigations about him, not immediately launch investigations into whatever enemies were bothering him at any passing moment. Unfortunately for him, they needed actual crimes to work with.

[Sarcastr0]

It's really telling Brett thinks breaking federal regulations is a loyalty test.

[David Nieporent]

Discretion is important, and we look like a third-World Banana Republic trying an ex-President for ANYTHING

First world countries routinely prosecute former leaders for their crimes.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"“Not a healthy sign in a democracy when the case against your opponent is that she should be imprisoned,” worried Ryan Lizza, then of The New Yorker, in 2016."

“In a democracy, you can’t threaten to jail your opponents,” said former President Barack Obama in 2016. “We have fought against those kinds of things.”

“Trump threatened to jail Clinton if elected. These countries might do the same,” headlined a CNN piece comparing Trump’s comment to “authoritarian regimes.” The article further quoted CNN’s Dana Bash saying “what makes this country different from countries with dictators in Africa or Stalin or Hitler or any of those countries with dictators and totalitarian leaders is when they took over, they put their opponents in jail.”

“A line was crossed that I don’t know has been crossed in my lifetime, maybe ever, he threatened to jail his opponent!” CNN’s Van Jones said, calling Trump’s comments a “new low in American democracy.”

“In the USA we do not threaten to jail political opponents,” former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder wrote.

[Nige]

Current President Joe Biden never threatened to jail or called for the jailing of a political opponent.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know what threat means versus actual due process indict means?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump advocated prosecution of the four most recent Democratic presidential nominees.

How flimsy are these attempts to defend Trump?

Not even Blackman or Volokh is climbing aboard that clown car.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Former Attorney General William Barr says President Donald Trump privately told him during a meeting at the White House that the federal government should drop its focus on Hillary Clinton's private emails.

"He said that, despite the chants of 'Lock her up!' from some of his supporters, he had felt after the 2016 election that the e-mail matter should be dropped," Barr writes in his new book, "One Damn Thing After Another." "Even if she were guilty, he said, for the election winner to seek prosecution of the loser would make the country look like a 'banana republic.'"

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, you'll believe anyone!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the sort of thing that could easily spiral into a shooting civil war.

Sputtering, blustering, impuissant, all-talk right-wing losers are among my favorite culture war casualties (for the entertainment value, mostly) . . . and a core element of this blog's target audience.

Carry on, clingers. With even more silly, hollow talk about all the big things you think you're going to do while you get stomped some more in the culture war, maybe.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone doesn't understand the concept of "spiraling"....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is it anything like the tailspin of conservatives in the modern American culture war?

Who knew ignorance, failing communities, bigotry, superstition, nonsense-teaching schools, and backwardness would be so feeble at the modern American marketplace of ideas?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who knew ignorance men can be women and women can be men), failing communities (Democrat controlled citie. SF ...), bigotry (whites are inherently racists), superstition Wearing a mask will protect from evil spirits), nonsense-teaching schools (pssst, don't tell your parents), and backwardness (reverting to windmills) would be so feeble at the modern American marketplace of ideas?
Seems YOU'VE got thing backwards

[Dr. Ed 2]

I hear that the Swiss banks aren't what they used to be.

What people forget about the "Roaring 20s" of a century ago is that it was largely confined to the big cities where only 15% of the population lived -- and it was that 15% who were most affected when the bottom fell out.

People with farms had food -- people in the cities didn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

My maternal grandfather did pretty well, too, though he lived in a city: He was a plumber, used to say that "No matter how bad things get, people still need to crap." Claimed he could have come out of the Great Depression wealthy, if he hadn't done so much pro-bono work for people who couldn't afford to pay him.

Of course, being the Detroit Mafia's favorite plumber had it's perks, like having a hit man carry the bathtub up the stairs for you, when you were redoing the Don's bathroom.

[David Nieporent]

Someone doesn’t understand the concept of “spiraling”….

I believe anyone who reads Donald Trump's pseudo-twitter feed is familiar with the concept of "spiraling."

[Frank Drackman]

Hey "Coach" there's only so many "Jerry Sandusky" bits I can do, you're in Prison in Pennsylvania ("Klinger Kountry, explains alot), won't say where you supposedly went to law school, much less Grad-Jew-Ma-Cated, and of all the movie characters to chose as a Nom de Guerre, chose "Arthur L. Kirkland" not the worst Pacino character ever, but not the best either, "Our True Enemy has Yet to Reveal Himself!" (I know that's the Soprano's version, it's better)
But since you don't like quiet, I'll come up with some better Ball Busters,

Frank "Say Hello to my Lee-tle Friend!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hey “Coach” there’s only so many “Jerry Sandusky” bits I can do,

Is this Drackman-speak informing us that Prof. Volokh has stopped paying for the Sandusky comments?

[Frank Drackman]

"Paying"?? c'mon Jerry, if it wasn't for your "Record" at Penn State, you'd just be another Doughy 80 something Foo-Bawl coach, some ones gotta keep you in the news,

Frank

[Drbusybody]

Less than three months after the passing of his long-time colleague William O. Douglas. 1980 was a bad year for superannuated retired justices.

[Mr. Bumble]

95 years isn't a bad run for anyone, especially someone born in 1884.

[Frank Drackman]

Almost enough to make me believe in a Benevolent J-hova that "45" got 3 Surpremes confirmed, while Jimmuh Cartuh (who's had "6 months to live" for the last 20 years) didn't even get to nominate one.

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Or maybe it's divine judgment.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Don’t feed the troll. There are juvenile, hateful, bigoted commenters here, and they should not be responded to.

[Frank Drackman]

But it's so much fun to poke the "Bear" in the cage (get it? "Bear"?) and ignoring the (very Wrong) "Reverend" Sandusky doesn't seem to work.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Reed wisely resigned, considering what he knew of his medical condition at the time. If he had stubbornly held on like Douglas did, he would have broken Douglas’s record for length of service.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Last retired Justice to die?
It's been a while, hasn't it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't mean that as morbidly as it appears -- I am just struck by the fact that those who resign often live a considerable period of time in retirement. Massachusetts requires judges to retire at age 70.

[Frank Drackman]

John Paul Stevens (did he ever go by "JP"??) in 2019,
back when Sleepy J was getting Bee-otch slapped in Debates by Common-Law Harris for being against bussing (Sleepy was against Bussing before he was for Bussing) and by Julio Castro for not remembering what he said 2 minutes before, and the idea that Chy-Na would unleash a manufactured virus on the World wouldn't have even been a good movie plot..
I miss those days,

Frank

[Dan Schiavetta]

Some of these §1983 lawsuits supply new definitions for "chutzpah".

[Gandydancer]

Unless you can come up with a quote from "Ediot" advocating Hilary's imprisonment I thinks we will be able to take it as demonstrated that your good faith is as nonexistent as your good sense.

[Nige]

Surely a vote for Trump was a vote for locking her up.

[Gandydancer]

Any person who thinks so is surely a moron.
It wasn't even a vote for building a Wall.

[Nige]

It was a vote for golden toilets.