Today in Supreme Court History: May 9, 1974

5/9/1974: Resolution to impeach President Nixon introduced in the House of Representatives. On 7/24/1974, the Supreme Court would decide U.S. v. Nixon.

President Richard Nixon

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Andersen v. United States, 170 U.S. 481 (decided May 9, 1898): upholding conviction of sailor for shooting crewmember and pushing him overboard. Technical defects in indictment (unclear whether homicide alleged to be caused by shooting or drowning, does not mention location) held harmless error.

Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (decided May 9, 1955): sentence for Mann Act offense should not be doubled for transporting two women instead of one, due to ambiguity in statute

Havnor v. New York, 170 U.S. 408 (decided May 9, 1898): Court could not review conviction under New York law (for practicing “barbering” on Sunday) because Writ of Error was signed by an Associate Judge of New York’s highest court instead of the Chief Judge as was required by federal jurisdictional statute

Gacy v. Page, 511 U.S. 1079 (decided May 9, 1994): denying stay of execution of John Wayne Gacy; dissent by Blackmun who restated belief that death penalty is always unconstitutional.

Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, 349 U.S. 70 (decided May 9, 1955): earlier grant of certiorari, and decision on the merits, 348 U.S. 880 (1954) (as to mental distress to widow due to refusal to bury husband in Native American cemetery) vacated because Court belatedly alerted to statute enacted during the litigation which mooted the issue presented. (D’oh!) (a few weeks ago I had an appeal where there was a change in law during the briefing schedule and my adversary and I didn't bring it up until oral argument -- big mistake)

United States ex rel. Johnson v. Shaughnessy, 336 U.S. 806 (decided May 9, 1949): order denying admission of immigrant as “mental defective” vacated and remanded because medical appeal board did not conduct its own examination as required by regulation

[John F. Carr]

In older Massachusetts practice if the trial judge refused to sign a bill of exceptions the plaintiff in error could petition the Supreme Judicial Court to get his exceptions. I saw a case from the 1950s where the trial judge refused to sign over a minor disagreement that did not undermine the legal argument on appeal.

But Congress is free to limit the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction to cases where the judge below signs on the right line.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks.

A similar feature exists in New York. If the trial judge refuses to sign an ex parte order, you can submit it directly to an Appellate Division judge. CPLR 5704.

[John F. Carr]

In the current rules, Appellate Procedure rule 28(j) permits but does not require a letter informing the court of newly discovered "supplemental authorities".

[Dan Schiavetta]

We tried that but the clerk bounced it. We should have made a motion a few weeks prior for supplemental briefing.

[Bored Lawyer]

I have filed rule 28(j) letters a couple of times with no issue. IIRC, the ECF system even has an option for it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A Noble Prize for identifying error in Today in Supreme Court History is awarded to Seamus, who observed:

I think you meant July 24.

The authors of this "scholarly" series responded by revising their work without acknowledging the error or the change -- because that is how conservative "scholars" roll.

Congratulations, Seamus. But don't get too cocky -- Noble Prizes are earned, and awarded, with remarkable frequency. As captcrisis noted at the time of your achievement: "Another mistake in this risibly error-prone series."

[Bored Lawyer]

"because that is how conservative “scholars” roll."

As opposed to leftist "scholars" like you who extrapolate from a single individual to an entire group. You don't understand statistics or science much, do you? Try asking your therapist.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Legitimate authors acknowledge errors and revisions.

Why do you refer to me as a scholar? I do not consider myself a scholar. Were I to consider myself a scholar, I still would not describe myself as a scholar. I learned that professionals do not use honorifics (scholar, esquire, etc.) to describe themselves.

Other than that, great comment!

Carry on, clinger.

[Bored Lawyer]

Completely ignored the substance of the comment. And ended with a personal insult. Between that, some nonsense about not being a scholar. (Hint, those two little things on each side of the word are called "scare quotes.")

IOW, par for the course for you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I perceived no substance to your comment. It was just a lame attempt to divert attention from the shortcomings of Professors Barnett and Blackman.

[Bored Lawyer]

Keep digging in that hole.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Profs. Barnett and Blackman have been offering substandard, error-ridden content in Today in Supreme Court History for years, often repeating their mistakes after the mistakes have been identified, and you figure I'm the one digging a hole?

Stick together, clingers . . . it's about all you have left in modern America.

[Frank Drackman]

That's the Coach Sandusky we love to hate!

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think Bored Lawyer was saying that the fact that Prof. Blackman (and Prof. Barnett? How is he involved in these stupid posts?) make dumb mistakes doesn’t mean that Al, conservative legal scholars do.

[Mr. Bumble]

May 9, 2023 and another day with no new decisions released.
What gives?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Good point -- Court in chaos???

[Frank Drackman]

That’s what happens when you end JFK/LBJ’s Wah (till his death LBJ wanted more troops in Veet’nam) Cancel 3 Moon landings (cancel a pointless Government program? IMPEACH 39!!!!!!!!!) Save Israel’s (Kosher) Bacon, first POTUS that actually enforced Intergration (it’s worked so well!) and I sort of liked the “Palace Guard” uniforms he made the White House guards wear ("Palace Guard"? now they look like Mass Shooters with the tactical vests, Body Armor, (Real) Assault Rifles (Love a POTUS against Assault "Style" Rifles while guarded by guys with (Real) Assault Rifles, heck, even with Ronaldus Maximus they only had pistol caliber submachine guns) OK, pretty stupid to tape yourself committing (paper) felonies, should have done like William Jeffuhson, Barry Hussein and Senescent Joe, just “Stonewall” it… (and maybe have John Dean have an “Accident”)

Frank “Nixon was the one” Drackman

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

RepooplicKKKunts stabbed Nixon in the back just like they stabbed Trump in the back. Rosenstein and McGahn believed Comey over Trump…it’s still funny.

[Krychek_2]

Just think, if Nixon had had Trump's congress, he would have finished out his second term.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If the impeachable act that Nixon committed had occurred two weeks before the end of his second term, Nixon would have finished out his second term.

There’s not really a direct comparison here.

[Krychek_2]

If Nixon had had Trump’s Congress, it wouldn’t have mattered when the impeachable act was committed; he would have finished out his second term (assuming he was re-elected). He could have committed an impeachable act the day after his inauguration, it could have been discovered the second day after his inauguration, and the GOP Congress simply wouldn’t have cared.

And in fairness I will also point out that if Trump had had Nixon's Congress, he would have been gone before the end of 2017.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s almost comical to compare the “smoking gun” tape which ensured Nixon’s impeachment and conviction, to the things Trump has done, openly and unashamedly.

[Mr. Bumble]

Enlighten us.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Nixon, a well read lawyer, understood the concept “obstruction of justice”. So did the Republican Party (in those days), In the smoking gun tape, he agreed with Haldeman’s suggestion that CIA people “lean on” the FBI to put the Watergate investigation on the back burner. This was a clear case of obstruction of justice.

Imagine if Nixon had personally fired the FBI director explicitly to stop the investigation.

Trump told Lester Holt on national TV that he fired the FBI Director to stop the Russia investigation. And saw nothing wrong with that.

Nixon also understood the idea of “extortion”. He arguably did it a few times but was smart enough not to do it himself. It was done by third hand underlings in subtle ways.

He certainly would not have personally called up a foreign power to ask them to dig up dirt on a political opponent while withholding military aid he was legally required to hand over.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He certainly would not have personally called up a foreign power to ask them to dig up dirt on a political opponent while withholding military aid he was legally required to hand over.

When Hunter Biden goes to trial, and it is increasingly appearing that he will, I think you will find that then VP Biden did *exactly* that to the Ukraine.

[Krychek_2]

Which has what to do with Trump?

[Dan Schiavetta]

From what I understand Biden was in line with the rest of the international community in urging Ukraine to get rid of its corrupt prosecutor, And he did not make any threats — nor could he, as V.P. The result was that prosecution of Hunter was made more likely, not less.

Biden’s Justice Department is in fact investigating Hunter. Was Trump’s Justice Department investigating Ivanka over how she got those Chinese patents?

[Michael Ejercito]

"In line with the international community" is beside the point.

[grb]

Michael Ejercito : “In line with the international community” is beside the point.

It's very much to the point. In pressuring Ukraine over the corrupt politician Shokin, Biden was following the direction of his boss, the President. He was following official State Department policy. He was in league with the U'S. Ambassador to Ukraine, who gave a speech in Odessa also demanding Shokin go. He was supported by a bipartisan group of Senators, who urged then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to “press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary.”

Shokin's ouster was also demanded by the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, G7 and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Every anti-corruption organization inside Ukraine wanted Shokin fired. There were street protests in Kiev against Shokin alone. When he was fired, the Kiev Post said he was was one of the most hated men in the country.

What this has to do with Trump using U.S. favor for personal gain is anybody's guess. Of all the comically absurd memes of "Biden corruption", this one has to be the most pathetic.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The reason we could begin sending Ukraine lethal aid under Trump was because they rooted out corruption even with Trump and Hunter and Giuliani playing grabass on their country.

[Mr. Bumble]

Stop beclowning yourself.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Chinese patents"!!!!!

Ha ha ha. Ultra-Resistance obsession.

[Nige]

'I think you will find that'

As far as I can tell, HunterBidenTruthers are all relying on others to find the actual evidence for any of their claims.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It was all available for download from his laptop back before the Democrat DOJ claimed it was a Russian influence op.

[Nige]

'Big guy.' That's it. That's the evidence.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well a whistle-blower went to the DOJ in 2018 with two witnesses ready to testify.

The DOJ investigated him instead.

[Michael Ejercito]

Stopping an investigation by his own subotdinates was not obstruction of justice.

Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich certainly obviated further investigation of Rich's alleged crimes; it was not obstruction in any meaningful sense.

What Nixon sought was an exoneration of his aides. for the FBI to actually declare them innocent.

Nixon would not have committed a crime if he openly shut down the investigation.

[grb]

Nixon committed scores of crimes in addition to corruption, including money laundering on a massive scale. My favorite Nixon story was the plot to firebomb the Brookings Institute. They had papers Nixon wanted, so the plan was to set the building afire and slip in during the chaos.

A White House aide vehemently objected and the scheme was shelved, but Nixon is on tape ordering the break-in.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, the "Papers" Brookings had were stolen Pentagon Documents, involving JFK/LBJ's Veet'nam Wah that Tricky was trying to end. I'd have just sent the FBI in like Barry Hussein (or Senescent J if he was Sentient Joe) would have done, and had Daniel Ellsberg summarily executed after a fair and impartial Military Tribunal, like FDR did with Nazi Spies.

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Henry Kissinger's explanation for how Watergate happened is that some damned fool left the Oval Office and had no better sense than to do as he'd been told.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m not the one making a comparison.

Krychek, the point is that Trump’s impeachable act occurred 14 days before his term ended. There wasn’t time to do an impeachment, and you can’t know how many reps may have been persuaded to impeach but didn’t bother because there wasn’t any point to it.

Nixon’s impeachable act occurred four years before the end of his term so there was loads of time to do the impeachment. There was a whole summer of televised hearings.

There’s no comparison here, and really no way to back up your assertion. Do I wish trump had been impeached for sparking an election-related riot? Yes, I’d love to see that arrogant jackass get his ass busted. But there was no way to do it right in the time that remained.

[John F. Carr]

The first impeachment was over the kind of abuse of government power for personal gain that brought down Nixon. The second was over something unprecedented.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The first impeachment had zero traction with the public so it was never going to happen.

And Nixon didn't use government power for personal gain, he actively conspired over a period of months to cover up a series of criminal acts. That was much worse than Trump and Ukraine. I dislike Trump immensely but comparing that to Nixon's criminal actions is not reasonable.

[Krychek_2]

The first impeachment had zero traction with Republican members of Congress. Fixed it for you.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah Krychek, Republicans bad, Democrats good. We all get it.

Polls at the time showed no public support for impeachment. But you be you.

[Krychek_2]

When have I said GOP bad, Democrats good? I know you've got that chip on your shoulder but it's not from anything I said.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You say it every day, dude.

You could also say that if Clinton had Nixon’s congress, he’d have been gone. But you won’t. (And no I don’t think Clinton should have been impeached).

Nice of you to admit that you see non-partisanship as a character flaw. Objectivity is a mental disorder, amiright?

[Krychek_2]

Yes, I could have said that if Clinton had had Nixon's Congress he'd have been gone, and that's likely true, but that's not the comment I wanted to make. Where is it written that one has to talk about everything at the same time?

And I've criticized Democrats here so often that if you've missed it, you just haven't been paying attention. A few days ago I said that in hindsight the Democrats should have abandoned Clinton and allowed him to be removed from office. Does that sound to you like the viewpoint of a rabid partisan?

[Sarcastr0]

Because I push back when people talk about the Biden Crime Family, you say I support Biden in all things.

In reality, pure partisans are rare among the sort of liberal who comes around here to engage.

But you are happy to write people's positions for them, to reduce them to one side or the other, with you as the only truly independent voice.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Pure partisans are rare among the sort of liberal that comes around here to engage”.

You are truly blind to the bullshit on your own side. Seriously, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve seen you type, and that’s saying a lot.

By the way, Mr Nonpartisan, did you ever figure out the evil entity that is putting Stacy Abrams’ artificial noise on sonograms? You were so hardline in support of her stupidity that you simply must know who it is. I mean, only a true nonpartisan could understand the truth of Abrams allegation.

[Sarcastr0]

You always pretend I'm saying I'm nonpartisan. Just as Krychek_2 dings Dems all the time, I am also not reflexively party faithful.

did you ever figure out the evil entity that is putting Stacy Abrams’ artificial noise on sonograms
Case and point, I'm not going to defend Stacy Abrams, who says a bunch of dumb shit. But I will also not knee-jerk agree with every out of context quote someone on here posts about her.

[John F. Carr]

In late 2019 polls found public opinion weakly favoring impeachment, by 50% to 45% plus or minus a little depending on the poll. Americans who had been on the fence about Trump leaned impeachment. His 40% base of strong support was undamaged.

Impeaching Trump was never going to have negligible support. A third of the people would support impeaching Trump just for being Trump. In the Supreme Court case involving the impeachment of the other Nixon, Judge Nixon, the justices wondered whether there was an excuse bad enough to justify judicial intervention. If an official were removed on the grounds that he was a "bad guy", would that justify judicial review?

[bevis the lumberjack]

You can’t do an impeachment without broad public support. Just like Clinton. He committed perjury as a sitting president. A criminal act is certainly worthy of consideration as to impeachment. But the public didn’t get behind it, so there was zero pressure on the Democrats to act. Just like there was zero pressure on the Republicans to act over Ukraine.

Nixon’s stuff was fully aired and he was widely reviled. Plenty of cover, even pressure, for republicans to turn on him.

There’s a political component to impeachment. What you and I think of the president’s actions is not the only criteria.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nominee Richard Nixon George McGovern
Party Republican Democratic
Home state California South Dakota
Running mate Spiro Agnew Sargent Shriver
(replacing Thomas Eagleton)
Electoral vote 520[a] 17
States carried 49 1 + DC
Popular vote 47,168,710 29,173,222
Percentage 60.7% 37.5%
"Widely reviled"?

[Krychek_2]

Mr. Bumble, I don't think those numbers would have held at the time Nixon left office.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Lol, no. You can’t commit “perjury” in a civil deposition. Wow, hopefully you aren’t a lawyer. 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

He identifies as a lumberjack.

[Life of Brian]

You can’t commit “perjury” in a civil deposition.

Well, congratulations, Mr. SBF -- you've finally said something so incontestably false that I can't just ignore you like I usually do. For federal cases, 18 U.S.C. § 1621 makes the point clearly enough:

Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

Wow, hopefully you aren’t a lawyer.

Ditto, my friend. But I'm not particularly worried.

[Bored Lawyer]

"If an official were removed on the grounds that he was a “bad guy”, would that justify judicial review?"

Somewhat off-topic, but to me the obvious answer is NO. The whole point of delegating a power to a different branch of government is that the judicial branch has no power to deal with it. End of story. That the other branch is (arguably) full of corrupt scoundrels, and their decision to impeach is (arguably) a manifest injustice, is a matter for the voters, not the justices. The voters, of the People in Constitutional terms, are the ultimate sovereign authority, not the justices.

[Bob from Ohio]

"something unprecedented"

A riot? Many precedents.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Got any previous instances of a riot precipitated by a sitting president?

He may not have intended that it happened, but causing it based on reckless rhetoric over a made up grievance is still causing it.

[Michael Ejercito]

Explain how he precipitated the riot.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He fabricated a grievance and extorted an angry crowd to fight to make it right. And once it started he was very slow in trying to stop it.

I’m not sure he intended to start it because I don’t think he’s that subtle or smart. Be he was horribly reckless.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Fabricated?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, I was still in short pants, but I hear this LBJ dude engendered some pretty serious rioting.

[Michael P]

Obama inspired rioting after Michael Brown was fatally aggressive towards a police officer, at least by the same standard that Trump allegedly did.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

But that's (D)ifferent.

[John F. Carr]

Ronald Reagan was the "teflon president", so consider that metaphor used up.

When I see Trump emerging from scandal I think of the mud wrestling scene in Stripes. Throw as much dirt as you like, he's going to get back up. (Unless the MPs get him.)

[Frank Drackman]

"Convicted?, no never convicted"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGfzWwT-35M

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

A Freudian slip on the capt's part since Nixon was neither impeached and therefore could not be convicted except in the fevered minds of hateful opponents.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Were you around then? He resigned after every Republican on the Impeachment Committee who had voted against impeachment publicly announced they were reversing their votes and after being told by Republican Senators that no more than 10 Senators would oppose conviction (he would need 34 to survive).

[Mr. Bumble]

Were you? If so I suppose you were still watching Saturday morning cartoons.
And, to answer your questions I was around, having returned early from a tour in the fun and sun of South East Asia thanks to Nixon's winding down on American troops.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I turned 12 during the Nixon Impeachment nonsense (born on July 4th, can't get any more Amurican than that) but still loved the Saturday/Sunday AM Cartoons, Tennessee Tuxedo/Chumley, Bugs/Daffy/Roadrunner/Coyote, Underdog, Rocky/Bullwinkle, Jonny Quest,
Dad had returned year before from lovely Thailand after a year of Bombing N Veet'nam and Cambodia (like bombing Cambodia was really "Secret", or needed to be (OK, maybe don't stir up the dirty Hippies) ) I think it was the one Article that didn't pass (could be wrong on that, I was watching cartoons)

Frank

[BrotherMovesOn]

Still throwing pebbles at actual practitioners I see.
Captcrisis contributes more to this site in one daily post than you have in the entirety of your history here. Why the sour attitude?
Did Captcrisis come around to the AutoZone and lecture you on how to properly stock shelves?

[John F. Carr]

Nixon resigned because his conviction was certain.

[Mr. Bumble]

True, but he was not impeached nor convicted. You're a lawyer; words are supposed to have meaning.

[Frank Drackman]

And William Jufuhson was impeached and not convicted, funny how many supposedly ed-jew-ma-cated Fake News peoples get that wrong.
Trying to think what Senescent J could do to get 67 Guilty Votes?
Maybe saying the "N-word" in pubic, but as long as he was saying it about C. Thomas or Tim Scott he'd be golden. And like with Nixon/Clinton/Trump/Senescent J, who really wanted Agnew/Gore/Pence/Common-Law Harris in the Oval Orifice??

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

We're not drafting a contract. Your technicality is pedantic and pathetic.

[Mr. Bumble]

GasloightO
Blah, blah, blah,
yada, yada, yada.

Nixon was not impeached and therefore he could not have been convicted.
To say otherwise is to distort history.

[Sarcastr0]

The tape sealed Nixon's fate.
The word choice not being technically correct does not change the substance of the statement.

Whiners in defense of Nixon.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nixon resigned=true.
His conviction was certain=speculation, but probably true.

[Sarcastr0]

"It’s almost comical to compare the “smoking gun” tape which ensured Nixon’s impeachment and conviction, to the things Trump has done, openly and unashamedly."

Replace with "...the “smoking gun” tape which ended Nixon’s Presidency"

There is zero change to the thesis of the sentence.

You're quibbling about irrelevancies, akin to someone crying about someone else's typoes. You are smart enough to know you're doing this, and it sucks.

[Sarcastr0]

Hand waive your way to me being a hypocrite all you want - I'm right here, and feel free to call me out the next nit I pick.

[Frank Drackman]

That was a "Stripes" reference, you know, when Winger and Ziskey are at the recruiting office (joining the Army in 1979? they had to be at end of their ropes) and the Recruiter asks if either has been convicted of a felony, "Convicted? No, Never Convicted"

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Not really, Nixon was a liberal hated by the GOP establishment…Trump governed like Jeb! would have up until he surrendered to the Taliban in February 2020 and then everyone knows what happened in March.

[Frank Drackman]

you say that like it's a bad thing

[Bob from Ohio]

Just think, if Nixon had Clinton's Senate, he would have finished his second term.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just think if Nixon had contested the 1960 election and had become President instead of Kennedy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The CIA deep state took out Nixon, but couldn't take out Trump.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Until they "fortified" the 2020 election, that is.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump governed like Jeb! up until he surrendered to the Taliban…the Deep State was able to get easily manipulate Trump.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Trump has been amd still is getting steamroller by the Deep State.

It's why I can't vote for him. We need someone who will burn down the Federal Class.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just who might that be?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Ron DeSoros…whose best buddy is the offspring of two neocon senators that covered up for decades the fact a senator humped another senator’s young daughter and produced a neocon baby.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Blackmun who restated belief that death penalty is always unconstitutional"

Man, did Nixon have, other than Reinquist, bad S/C picks.

Blackmun, 2nd worst justice ever. Burger, dumb and largely useless. Powell, before Breyer, the modern definition of mediocre.

[hoppy025]

Biden is a disgusting piece of human excrement. He's 100 times more deserving of impeachment, along with his puppet master Barack Hussein Obongo, than Nixon was.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Democrat DOJ that harrasses and investigates any Biden whistleblower are worse.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

along with his puppet master Barack Hussein Obongo

Everyday bigotry is the signature element of the Volokh Conspiracy.

Well, that and this blog's courting of and acquiescence in that racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, antisemitism, Islamophobia, etc. That despicable point attaches to every Volokh Conspirator, without exception.

One could simply figure this is a natural part of a white, male, right-wing blog, but the involvement of law professors might have precipitated hope for something better.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does a single Volokh Conspirator have the courage or character needed to address the rampant bigotry that afflicts -- and, in my judgment, is intentionally precipitated by -- this blog?

Just one of you?

Just this once?

[Frank Drackman]

Keep Self Responding to yourself and you'll go blind, "Coach"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Calling out cowards, bigots, and hypocrites trading on the franchises of mainstream institutions for paltry partisanship is never out of order, although I do not expect an illiterate clinger to understand that point.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you want me to censor you again?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you want me to censor you again?

That question reminds me of standing next to the stage before a Rhythm Kings show. It was a small room for a Rolling Stone, but Bill Wyman (who avoids airplanes) traveled by boat to America for a series of small shows because he liked to perform with Albert Lee, Georgie Fame, and a few others.

A man approached Bill, who was smoking a cigarette as he adjusted his amplifier, and said “you need to put that out, now; you can’t smoke in here, not even before the show.”

“Hi, I’m Bill Wyman,” Bill replied, extending his hand. “And who are you?”

The man identified himself as the owner of the club, told Bill a bit about how he and his partners had renovated the place and were so glad to have Bill on their stage. The club had a strict “no smoking” house rule. “I’m sure you understand.”

Bill paused after the story, blew a smoke plume, and smiled. “As I said, who are you again?”

The owner was perplexed.

“Look, mate,” Bill said. “I’ve come by liner to your country for a series of these shows, which have been quite nice. And I would like to make this a nice night, too, for you and your customers. I play for fun, and for the fans. I really don’t make much profit with these gigs. I leave the profits to you. But I smoke, and I am going to smoke, either here on this stage or on that bus out front, driving to the next show after we pack up our kit and leave you to explain to your customers why the band have left. Now I hope you’ll let us get back to sound check, and you enjoy the show.”

Your comment evokes Bill’s question, and Pete’s: Who the fuck are you?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol I was thinking the exact same thing about every name in your little story. wtf, are you 100 years old? Who are those people? People from the War from the War of Northern Aggression?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not familiar with the Rolling Stones? Bill Wyman?

Maybe try to experience sunlight periodically.

[Commenter_XY]

Dude, seriously...Obongo? Don't do that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You expect the leopards to sport stripes?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Deep State has the ouster of 3 presidents under their belt with zero accountability.

No wonder they control Congress.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Truman abolished the OSS bemuse of Soviet infiltration -- Eisenhower then later created the CIA.