Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Judge Alvin Hellerstein has issued an order setting a schedule for briefing and an evidentiary hearing on Donald Trump's removal of the New York criminal prosecution to federal district. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.8.0.pdf

I eagerly await seeing what legal and evidentiary support Team Trump will offer for the proposition that falsifying business records in contravention of state law related to any act under color of federal office.

[not guilty]

I suspect that the four most feared words in Trump World are "Call your first witness."

[John F. Carr]

Worse than "Next witness, Donald Trump"?

[Frank Drackman]

You know nothing of Donald, Nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly reference)

[John F. Carr]

Trump's argument is that, as to some counts, the state is effectively charging violation of federal law. There is a federal question. But a federal question is not enough to remove a criminal case.

The case is asigned to Alvin K. Hellerstein. I know two things about him. 1: He is 89 years old. 2: He rejected a deal between Harvey Weinstein's insurers and his accusers on the grounds that the settlement would not be distributed fairly. He has experience with defendants with a tendency to grab women.

[not guilty]

Trump’s notice of removal, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.1.0_1.pdf, fails to show that the conduct of which Trump is accused is for or relating to any act under color of his federal office.

In order to remove a state criminal prosecution of a federal officer to federal court:

“There must be a causal connection between what the officer has done under asserted official authority and the state prosecution. It must appear that the prosecution of him, for whatever offense, has arisen out of the acts done by him under color of federal authority and in enforcement of federal law, and he must by direct averment exclude the possibility that it was based on acts or conduct of his not justified by his federal duty.”

Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 131-32 (1989), quoting Maryland v. Soper (No. 1), 270 U.S. 9, 33 (1926).

[John F. Carr]

The next sentence reads

But the statute does not require that the prosecution must be for the very acts which the officer admits to have been done by him under federal authority.

I do think Trump falls short of justifying removal. Mesa was charged with vehicular manslaughter while driving her mail truck. The crime was clearly related to her federal job and she still had to make her case in state court. Nothing in federal law required her to run over a bicyclist.

[not guilty]

Just as nothing in federal law required or authorized Donald Trump to falsify business records.

[Gandydancer]

I believe Blackman has recounted the argument here, basically that the case against Trump is pretextual and that local prosecutors ought not be allowed to pressure federal officeholders with the threat of future prosecutions. Sounds rather penumbraish to me, but just pretending that the argument hasn’t been made doesn’t cut it.

[not guilty]

"I believe Blackman has recounted the argument here, basically that the case against Trump is pretextual and that local prosecutors ought not be allowed to pressure federal officeholders with the threat of future prosecutions."

Whether there is a colorable federal defense to the underlying state charge and whether the state-charged conduct is for or relating to any act under color of federal office are separate inquiries. Gandydancer here seems to conflate the two.

To establish that the state court litigation is for an act under color of federal office, the proponent of removal must show a nexus, a "causal connection" between the charged conduct and asserted official authority. Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 424 (1999); Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 409 (1969). The ordinary meaning of the words "relating to" is "to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with," Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383 (1992), quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1158 (5th ed. 1979).

To support removal, Trump must show a causal connection or nexus between falsifying business records in contravention of state law and the office of the President of the United States. I shall be very surprised if Team Trump adduces evidence of any such nexus.

[David Nieporent]

Whether there is a colorable federal defense to the underlying state charge and whether the state-charged conduct is for or relating to any act under color of federal office are separate inquiries. Gandydancer here seems to conflate the two.

To be fair to Gandydancer, he is accurately reporting Blackman's ludicrous argument.

[Gandydancer]

And it’s not Blackman’s argument, he merely recounted, linked to, and maybe endorsed it. I don't really recall. There’s no textualism involved, as I understand it (which is one reason why I didn’t much like it) so making a textual attack on it is beside the point, but that’s all I’m seeing here.

No, I’m not confused, and doubt anyone can honestly think I am. But honesty is in short supply from not guilty. As is any honest effort at reading comprehension.

[Mr. Bumble]

Let the games begin!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Fuck yo momma!

[Frank Drackman]

Yo Momma so ugly she makes Onions cry!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yo momma so fat that astronomers have been considering and reconsidering characterizing her as a planet for the last 20 years. They’ve wasted a lot of their time and everyone else’s time doing it!

[Frank Drackman]

TLDR, Like Yo Mama so Fat, even Fatty Lovers don't like her.

[Frank Drackman]

Yo mama Pussy so rank she corner the Lotrimin market

[David Bremer]

Seeing the reply thread again, I am reminded that this blog's commenters have gone from being dominated by lawyers and law students providing insightful commentary to being dominated by real-life versions of Michael Scott.

[Frank Drackman]

Thats what SHE said!!!!!!!

[Kazinski]

A couple of weeks ago we had a long thread on Bud Light and it's marketing stubbed toe partnering with trans "influencer" Dylan Mulvaney.

I bring this up again not because it has any real importance, but because of the assertion by several of the usual suspects that there was nothing to the story, or that it was at the least highly exaggerated.

Well here is a report from a StLouis station quoting a st Louis business journal and an industry observers saying Bud Light same store sales are down 23.4% year over year.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/business-journal/bud-light-sales-figures-drop-partnership-dylan-mulvaney/63-23bad335-4277-464f-9fc9-94a59062cc18

[Mr. Bumble]

It is not only Bud Light, but also other Trannheuser-Busch brands.
They're feeling the squeeze from both sides as gay and trans supporters are also boycotting their brands.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If our remaining bigots want to enjoy a victory lap as they move toward irrelevance in modern America imposed by better people in the culture war, those bigots are entitled to spend the time they have remaining before replacement as they wish.

Those bigots will have the Volokh Conspiracy as a gathering place, where they can huddle for warmth, as they approach increasing irrelevance and replacement.

Carry on, clingers. But only so far as your betters permit. Or tenure protects.

[Frank Drackman]

You know you have a "Klinger Problem" when you have a "Klinger" first thing in the morning. Sounds like that "Prison Drank" is pretty strong, coach.

[Theendoftheleft]

Apt usage of the word ‘imposed’, fascist pig.

Given your own repeated explicit statements espousing bigotry, what force should be lent to YOUR usage of 'bigot'?

How are you going to control all the dissidents thus, AIDS, when THEY have the guns and will use them on you and everyone you love?

Besides, your country is going down the tubes anyway (with the blame largely lying at your feet). Why should the rest of the world be bothered?

[Nige]

If that's true, that's some powerful transphobia and quite the major meltdown over a, what, 40-second tik-tok? I mean, if you think 'haha we tanked their sales because we fucking hate trans people' makes you look less like a pack of weird hyper-sensitive over-reactionaries who apparently have nothing important to worry about, you're quite, quite wrong.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Some people are against mutilating children and abolishing women's sports. The gay rights movement should stick to autonomy for consenting adults.

[Nige]

Some people are weird about trans people and think if they frame it in the most sensational way that'll make it ok.

[Frank Drackman]

well it's hard to talk about chopping off boys dicks/girls tits and giant males competing with skinny females and not make it a little "Sensational"
and you're a little homo-fobe yourself,
the "LGBTQ-MOUSE" term is
"fabulous"

Frank

[Nige]

it is hard for edgebot to talk

[Frank Drackman]

you're the one who sounds like a robot, but I get it, too much typing tires the fingers, you need them later to jerk off.

[Nige]

edgebot males clumsy pass. No thanks, edgebot.

[David Nieporent]

Some people are against mutilating children and abolishing women’s sports.

I'm against those things too, but I don't see what they have to do with this topic.

The gay rights movement should stick to autonomy for consenting adults.

Yeah, that's what this topic is.

[Gandydancer]

You can't see ANYthing when you're so far up your own ass.

[Kazinski]

Actually the topic was selective rejection of news sources because they are saying things you don’t want to hear.

But I suppose alternatively the topic is beer marketing. Looking at beer marketing through the last 40 or so years, it became pretty plain that the best way to market beer is to make beer drinkers think that guys that attract skimpily clad young women drink a certain brand of beer. That certainly seemed to drive a significant amount of sales.

Then there were campaigns driven around over the hill celebrities that beer drinkers seemed to identify with, John Madden, Dick Butkas, Bubba Smith, Mickey Spillane, etc.

Then there were made up personas like the Dos Equis guy, who wasn’t really a beer drinker.

But what I think is plain is beer drinkers feel an common identity with their brand. And there are some things they don’t want identified with them, and if their brand gets too closely identified with something they don’t identify with then bye, bye brand.

And it’s not even necessarily trans related, if Bud Light had a campaign that too closely identified them with grandmother’s knitting circles, and Bud Light drinkers decided that didn’t conform with their self image, it wouldn’t mean they had a phobia about grandmothers knitting.

[FivebySixThree]

wasn't it NAMBLA that decades ago were effectively saying if not by age eight it is too late or similar perverted nonsense... well it seems they found a legal means to get in front of school children.

[Davedave]

"wasn’t it NAMBLA that decades ago were effectively saying"

Reminds me of the old joke about the two men in the barber's shop. Barber asks the first man 'would you like aftershave?' and the reply is 'god, no, I don't want my wife to think I smell like a whorehouse'. Second man says 'slap it on, _my_ wife doesn't know what a whorehouse smells like'.

_I_ don't know what NAMBLA says.

[Gandydancer]

That excuse doesn't work in the age of search engines.

[Davedave]

I didn't say I couldn't google it. I said I don't know.

Also, I don't want to be on that watchlist.

[Gandydancer]

I come here now from downthread where you reveal yourself to be an utterly shameless liar.

No, putting NAMBLA in a search engine will not get you on any lists, at least until and unless the (D) wanna-be totalitarians take over. The Man-Boy Love types are anyway next on the list to become a pet class after the Drag Queen Story Hour types are fully ensconced.

[Nige]

The amount of dumb shit you have to confuse and conflate and mix in with the rest of the satanic-panicking is wild.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Wait, what were you lying about? Oh, right, that the Satanic Panic crowd is the one against diagnosing "gender dysphoria" in infants and toddlers..

Mentioning anatomically correct dolls was an interesting choice for Ehrensaft, who before her involvement in the gender movement was involved in spreading the Satanic Panic, during which therapists inappropriately used anatomically correct dolls to guide children into fabricating wild accusations of extreme sexual abuse at the hands of Satanic cults.

But Ehrensaft is perhaps most famous for a 2016 talk in which she explains that pre-verbal children are capable of sending “gender messages” to signal their transgender identities. The examples she gives are of an infant boy pulling at the snaps of his onesie in order to “make a dress,” and a toddler girl pulling barrettes out of her hair as a way to demonstrate that she is a boy.

Yep, hysteria over the sexualization of infants and toddlers is back in style, and the people abusing the science of psychology and engaged in full-fledged Lysenkoism are exactly the same.

[Nelson]

Whoosh. I don't know who this woman is, but she is several sandwiches short of a picnic.

[Nige]

She sounds, uh, less than credible, but 'gender dysphoria' is not 'sexualisation.' Those little kiddie beauty pagaents? That's sexualisation.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

‘gender dysphoria’ is not ‘sexualisation.’

Gender dysphoria is an extremely rare psychological disorder. Diagnosing it in infants and toddlers is without question sexualizing those children. Bringing up beauty pageants is a fallacious distraction.

A professional who was front and center in the Satanic Panic is front and center of the false diagnosing of gender dysphoria. She is also a proponent of teaching kids about gender. People are not "confusing and conflating" what is being taught to kids. They are reacting to the new "panic". The claims that if kids are not taught about gender as early as possible, regardless of parents wishes, it is tantamount to child abuse. The completely unnecessary sexualization of children to protect them from a threat that is not real. Just like during the Satanic Panic.

Why are you are assigning the panic to the wrong side?

[David Nieporent]

I think I've figured out the problem: you don't know what the word "sexualization" means.

[Nige]

Diagnosing it in infants toddlers seems a bit pointless at best, but it still isn't sexualisation.

'The claims that if kids are not taught about gender as early as possible, regardless of parents wishes, it is tantamount to child abuse.'

I have never, ever heard of anyone making that claim.

'Why are you are assigning the panic to the wrong side?'

Literally because of the sort of thing you just wrote.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The “gay right’s people” - meaning ordinary gays - are angry at the new focus on “gender-affirming” treatments so early in life because it’s their belief that a lot of the very young who seem uncomfortable with their traditional gender role are simply gay. And they see the transgender movement as a war against gay kids. I don’t know but it certainly seems plausible.

So putting responsibility for the current transgender craze on gays demonstrates a lack of understanding of how complex this is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never stopped David or Nige before.

[David Nieporent]

Bevis, Elected spokesperson for the Ordinary Gays.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s like you never knew me.

[Nige]

'meaning ordinary gays'

No. They're not. No, they don't. Because it isn't. There's nothing remotely plausible about it at all. The only transgneder craze is reactionaries losing, or pretending to lose, their minds over a vulnerable minority, passing opressive laws agains them rather than confronting any actual issues.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, Bevis is right that some gay people are upset about this, the most prominent of whom I'm aware being Andrew Sullivan. But I don't think it's a major position, and certainly not among activists.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The gay rights movement should stick to autonomy for consenting adults.

Right-wing bigots object to that, too.

Especially the ones gullible enough to rely on superstition.

[Theendoftheleft]

Like the superstition of human equality and the social constructivity of all human values? Like the inability to face the reality that you're an unequal evolutionary dud?

You know what's going to happen when you lose this cold war? You're going to miss the Americans conservatives desperately, because this will be your fate when others wield global power instead:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/isis-goes-medieval-on-gays

Good luck, Icarus.

[Gandydancer]

There's the "pack of weird hyper-sensitive over-reactionaries who apparently have nothing important to worry about" who have tanked Tranhauser-Busch's sales, and then there's you folks who whine about it. The votes are in and the weird is you.

[Nige]

Good for them. Bunch of anti-capitalists couldn't have done better.

[Gandydancer]

“Good for them” is also weird, as a response to “The votes are in and the weird is you.”

It is not, btw, "anti-capitalist" to deride an out-of-touch ad campaign. Your ideas are weird in so many dimensions.

[Nige]

I didn't say it was. I said anti-capitalists couldn't have done better than these people mad at a 40-second tik-tok video.

[Gandydancer]

As you know perfectly well it was an ad that associated the popular brand with perverts. Naturally Bud Light drinkers are mad at Trannyhauser-Busch for associating them with perverts instead of athletes.

[Nige]

Again, a 40-second tik-tok vid obliterated what passes for your brains.

[Moderation4ever]

While it could be the trans issue, it might also be that some of the Bud Light customer switched briefly, found out what real beer should taste like and stayed with favor.

[David Bremer]

Exactly. Bud Light is commodity beer. It's pretty much indistinguishable from any of the other yellow fizzy water in that segment. When your product doesn't distinguish itself on quality, changing up your marketing risks driving people to the other commodity provider. And once that switch is made, there's no reason to go back.

This also may not have anything to do with trans rights per se, but about making provocative political gestures. I generally don't like corporations making political pronouncements (in either direction). So if the choice is between yellow #2 pencil A which chases political clout and yellow #2 pencil B which doesn't, I'll chose B.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The same clingers who express disdain for Bud Light flocked to Chick-fil-A when that chain went all-in on Bigot Chicken.

[Frank Drackman]

Chick Fil-A could be owned by the Bin-Laden family and I'd keep going, Spicy Chicken sandwich is delicious.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I’ll one up you—they could be owned by the Bush family and I’d keep going! Bush killed twice as many Americans as OBL while killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims!

[David Bremer]

You're remembering it incorrectly. After the CEO made anti-SSM comments in his personal capacity, the chain was the target of boycotts from the left. Politicians also pushed to keep Chik-fil-A out of their districts. It was in response to those boycotts from the left that the right came out in support of the chain.

In other words, it's fully consistent with what I said above. The company stayed out of politics. And did so at a time when other companies were getting involved in them. So people supported that.

People stopped buying Bud Light after the company got involved in politics, not because some InBev executive said something about trans rights. That's the difference.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Chick-fil-A has been associated with the Christian (and southern, backwater) right for a long time, and for damned good reason.

[Frank Drackman]

Guilt by Association?? sort of like Joe Pa and Jerry Sandusky? Good point Coach!!!!!!!!!!

[Nelson]

"The company stayed out of politics."

Not really. They supported a good number of charities that explicitly opposed same-sex marriage. They stopped donating to most of them by the end of 2012 (the year of the ci troversy) and the last one, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, by 2020.

So they were political, but quietly, then responded to their CEO opposing equality by immediately yanking their support for almost all anti-gay-marriage organizations they used to support.

That sounds like politics to me.

At the end of the day, people love their chicken. I'm a pescetarian, so no chicken for me, but their waffle fries are amazing. They do what they do very well and are reaping the rewards for focusing on food, not marriage.

[Ben_]

Bud Light isn’t some peerless, unique product with no good substitutes.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

it might also be that some of the Bud Light customer switched briefly, found out what real beer should taste like and stayed with favor.

"Real beer" (microbrews and even some of the well-made brews from large concerns) have been readily available and quite popular for decades. The idea that anywhere near 1/4 of Bud Light's customers just suddenly discovered quality beer in the past couple of months is not to be taken seriously.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bingo.

The reason Bud Light (and Coors Light, and Miller Light, and Corona, and Corona Light, and Yuengling Light, and others like them) taste the way they do is that that taste is what consumers want.

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, if 24% of Bud Light customers had never tried any other beer until this tranny showed up.

Tell me another.

[jb]

A couple of years ago conservatives were having a meltdown about cancel culture. These days they're apparently into showing off how good they are at it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does a single Volokh Conpirator have the stones to address this “cancel culture” episode or the general issue of the bigotry at this blog?

Maybe the Conspirators could ask Dylan Mulvaney for tips on character and courage.

[Mr. Bumble]

Or ask whether "she" prefers tampons or pads.

[Nige]

This is a normal question normal Bumble likes to normally ask people.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Still no character or courage from the right-wing law professors who operate this blog.

This vindicates the faculty colleagues and administrators who lack respect for the Conspirators.

[Frank Drackman]

Fuck the Faculty, fair's fair, they've been fucking students for years.
Weren't you technically "Faculty" Coach??

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, you don't even have the courage to enumerate the candidate-offending statements.

All you do is lie, you fascist pig. Fucking clinger.

[David Nieporent]

Was their crusade to cancel Colin Kaepernick before or after they had this meltdown?

[David Bremer]

Yeah, but the most successful person in the effort to "cancel" Colin Kaepernick (i.e., keep him off an NFL team) was Colin Kaepernick himself.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Boycotting a beer is now cancel culture? Does the hatred on the left toward Chic-fil-a or Hibby Lobby fall into that category as well?

[Mr. Bumble]

No fair! No fair!

[Nige]

If you like. The question is, do you support ‘canceling’ a beer because there was one forty-second online ad featuring a trans person, or do you support ‘cancelling’ a fast food or retail outlet because their owners are homophobic. You can obviously support neither, but that’s just fence-sitting.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I support people buying whatever beer they want for whatever reason they want.

I recommend that companies stay away from controversial political crap because you risk a reaction like Budweiser got for no real gain. Going in you know you’re likely to piss off at least half of your customer base. Don’t stick your hand in the hornet’s nest.

It’s a reach to call the owners of CFA and HL homophobic since they have gay employees that they treat like everyone else. I support people eating at CFA and shopping at HL. Or not doing so. For whatever reason they want.

I do object to things like city governments trying to deny CFA slots at airports and so on because of their political views. Dang that pesky 1st amendment. Since you don’t believe people you disagree with should have the same civil rights as you, I’m sure you’ll disagree.

[Nige]

I would prefer that companies avoid political stuff by, say, not contributing millions and billions to influence politicians. Their advertisements are nothing but expensive nuisances. Some people like to see them have better representation, some people lose theor mind if they have better representation. My indifference to ads in general doesn't prevent me from seeing who's in the right in such cases. CFA and HL were characterised as homophobic for specific reasons, having or not having gay employees wasn’t one of them. I don’t think companies should have civil rights, just people. If they were denied those slots for that reason, they presumably would have gone to court and won.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I recommend that companies stay away from controversial political crap

Have you communicated that concern to the jackasses at Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, MyPillow, Black Rifle Coffee, Papa John's, Domino's, Carl's Jr./Hardees, Cracker Barrel, Ace Hardware, Advance Auto Parts, Amway, Bass Pro Shops, Cabela, John Deere, Farmers Insurance, Miller Coors, TD Ameritrade, Uline, Yuengling, etc.?

[David Bremer]

There is a difference between getting involved in these issues and simply not doing what people on the left want. As noted above, Chik-fil-A didn't get involved in politics. Hobby Lobby simply opposed being forced to offer benefit its owners didn't want to offer; it didn't try stopping anyone else from providing the benefit.

Papa John's and MyPillow involved a vocal person identified with the brand making statements in their personal capacity. Papa John's fired their guy. MyPillow is now largely seen as a political grift. I have no objection to people choosing to avoid them because of their founders' actions.

I'm not going to hunt down your objections to the other companies, but I don't recall them hiring/supporting political lightning rods. Let me know if they hire Trump, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, or other right-wing loudmouths to sling product.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Chick-fil-A was associated with the Christian right (backwater, drawling right, especially) long before the Bigot Chicken controversy approached center stage. And that association was warranted.

A number of those companies were heavy advertisers with Tucker Carlson (and in some cases worse).

[Frank Drackman]

the difference is Chick-Fil-A is actually good, while Budweiser tastes like piss.

[MoreCurious]

So, in addition to being an illiterate middle-schooler hiding in your mother's basement and pretending to be a doctor, you're a piss-drinker?

[Frank Drackman]

Had to do it during SERE training (I'd tell you...)

[Bob from Ohio]

"into showing off how good they are at it"

I hope so, "cancel culture" bites libs more than conservatives, it should been encouraged.

[Nige]

To hear conservatives whine about it they're martyrs to the old cancel culture. They're lying, obviously, but still.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, and the story doesn’t end with your great victory over InBev’s Bud Light profits. Here’s a story of the Ontario couple who were assaulted under “suspicion of purchasing Bud Light,” which they didn’t even buy…

https://www.rawstory.com/bud-light-lgbtq/

[Bob from Ohio]

Anyone yell "This is MAGA country"?

[Nelson]

I don't think anyone seriously proposed that Bud wasn't going to lose business in the short term. Conservatives love Bud's beer-flavored water for some reason, so they were vulnerable to a boycott by conservatives.

The question is, does it continue? Bud Lite could literally lose 50% of it's market share and remain the market leader by almost 2 points. Before the boycott, it had almost 18% of the beer market. Second place was just over 7%. That's of all beers, not just lite beers or pilsners or InBev beers.

What happens when the outrage of the moment moves on to something else? People will go back to price-based beer purchases, which will play to Bud Lite's favor.

My guess is the sustained loss for Bud Lite will be under 5% once conservative media moves on, leaving them with around a 10% lead on the next closest brand. The other InBev brands won't lose anything, although they may pick up some of the people who permenantly switch from Bud Lite to a different InBev beer.

At the end of the day, this will probably be a rounding error for a company like InBev. Bud didn't permenantly lose any market when they were bought by a Belgian company and conservatives went on a "Freedom Fries"-level freakout. This will probably end up about the same way.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

The most alarming thing I saw in Trump's CNN show (and admittedly I didn't watch the whole thing) was his advising the Republicans to use the looming debt-ceiling crash and default to demand concessions. That's in the same recklessness-class as advocating that we carry out a nuclear first-strike against someone we don't like.

[Mr. Bumble]

Using a "crisis" to get concessions is SOP for politicians of all stripes.

[Nelson]

Except a default would be an unmitigated disaster for America and a violation of the Constitution. But, bah! Who cares, right?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I don't understand why Biden lets the debt limit question fester. Seems like he has power now to put it to bed. Just announce that the 14th Amendment decides the question, and that he will obey that constitutional mandate, starting now. Why isn't that game, set, and match? Does anyone suppose the SCOTUS will order a default on the debt? Does anyone think the Rs will impeach Biden for not risking default—and hand that to the Ds as an issue to campaign on? Who thinks McConnell would back that as a political tactic?

Is there some kind of insane impulse in the Democratic Party to milk the default issue for political advantage? What is going on?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Is there some kind of insane impulse in the Democratic Party to milk the default issue for political advantage?"
That is exactly what they have done every time this comes up.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

When have Dems ever threatened to vote against a debt-limit increase and trigger a default, in order to get concessions from Republicans?

[Mr. Bumble]

Part of the problem is your sides inability to read and comprehend English.
Re-read the quoted comment and try again.

[Commenter_XY]

Part of the problem is your sides inability to read and comprehend English.

Is it comprehension? Or a deliberate choice to respond to something you did not write? I'm thinking the latter. 🙂

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Or a deliberate choice to respond to something you did not write? I’m thinking the latter.

Sarcastr0 does seem to have a few disciples here.

[Michael P]

Yes, Biden should just announce he is now dictator for life. That will resolve the whole question.

The Fourteenth Amendment theory is transparent fiction. Nobody has suggested it in any previous debt limit standoff because everyone before now knows the 14A does not do what the nutty left now claims.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If 'everyone before now' knows this, then it should be easy enough for you to, you know, actually prove.

Despite that, there seems to be a total lack of evidence for your assertion.

Odd.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do the platinum coin.

[Michael P]

Debt means debt, not a planned expenditure. It's too bad you fail so badly at English, troll.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So you don’t have any evidence to share with the rest of the class?

Typical.

[Michael P]

You're acting like a sovereign citizen nutter complaining that the court is not talking about him because his name is not capitalized JASON CAVANAUGH.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Third try.

You're demonstrating that you cannot provide any evidence for the things you claim as fact.

At least you're historically consistent.

[Gandydancer]

"Everyone knows" is of course always an exaggeration when applied to Democrats, who generally don't actually know shit from gold.

But feel free to identify the folks who "knew" that the 14A empowered the President to ignore the debt ceiling. No need for a long list -- a few significant non-fringies will do.

[Michael P]

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/president-obama-backs-away-invoking-14th-msna17784

The theory was originated by Slick Willy a decade ago, and marginally less insane heads on the left prevailed then. Nobody thought it was plausible enough to even joke about the theory before then.

[Michael P]

No, I am demonstrating that I am not as dumb as you.

Unlike you, I am not insisting that your failure to provide a detailed argument means that the (insane) position you adhere to does not exist.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If that's your best piece, then your argument is in real trouble, as it doesn't say nearly what you want it to.

[Ben_]

If you don’t buy a thing, the non-payment for the thing you didn’t buy is not a "debt".

Hopefully that helps. I know concepts are hard for people like you who see everything through a red mist of rage and hatred. But this one is very simple.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Debt means debt, not a planned expenditure.

That is so illogical it can't even be wrong. But it certainly is not right. Every bond the U.S. government sells creates a planned expenditure. That is what full faith and credit means.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, this is what sophistry looks like. "Everything is debt, it doesn't actually pick out a particular category of spending."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Which, I suppose, is a concise expression of your rage and frustration that meddling with the full faith and credit of the United States cannot become a means to extort your preferred policies.

[ducksalad]

We could start with the bolded text:

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law , including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

How can violating an explicit limit on your authority, set by Congress, be “authorized by law”?

I’ve heard the theory that Congress can’t prevent incurring new debt if borrowing is necessary to pay off old debt. But it’s not necessary if discretionary spending could be diverted instead. The President would need to show that all other available funds had been diverted, without regard to how painful those diversions might be.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So . . . defund all of that can't-keep-up, deplorable, parasitic, Republican backwaters for a while?

[ducksalad]

Fine with me. Start with the block grants that the states “voluntarily” accept in exchange for letting the feds impose conditions that go past their constitutional authority. Even if Biden selectively hit Republican states only, in the long run everyone would benefit from Republican states getting weaned off those grants. You wouldn’t have to send your money down there, they could repeal the unwanted regulations they adopted to meet the conditions, and the next time the block grant programs came up for renewal the senators from those states would vote against and the whole thing would die.

Excellent idea, Rev. Thank you for suggesting it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fine with me.

The desolate, parasitic backwaters wouldn't last more than a couple of months without subsidies from modern, educated, diverse, successful communities.

How would the depleted human residue that remains in our can't-keep-up southern and rural stretches manage without the handful of street pills needed to get through another day in West Virginia, Idaho, Alabama, or Arkansas?

[Gandydancer]

He's not worried, and there's no sign that you'd care, so go ahead, "Reverend".

[Theendoftheleft]

Your blue states don't meet replacement rate. You need mass immigration precisely because the immigrants don't believe what you believe, ie, regarding breeding and families.

YOU will be replaced, AIDS. Your values are garbage, and your culture is shit.

[Nelson]

"How can violating an explicit limit on your authority, set by Congress, be “authorized by law”?"

Because the debt is what was is being talked about, not the limit. Every law that authorizes spending creates debt that is authorized by law. It isn't that hard to understand.

The debt limit is a completely different thing. It is the debt, not the limit, that "cannot be questioned".

[Brett Bellmore]

" Every law that authorizes spending creates debt that is authorized by law. It isn’t that hard to understand."

It isn't that hard to understand that this is just sophistry motivated by a desire to make spending plans untouchable.

[Nelson]

It's sophistry to say that laws authorizing spending makes that debt authorized by law? You'll have to explain why, unless you don't know what sophistry means.

[Voize]

Every law that authorizes spending creates debt that is authorized by law. It isn’t that hard to understand.

The debt limit is a completely different thing.

It is, but not for the reason you think.

What we call the "debt limit" isn't actually a limit on how much money the government can owe. It is a limit on how much the government can borrow, or more specifically, a limit on the aggregate redemption value of "obligations" (bonds) the government can issue.

Other kinds of debt, like the debt that consists of bills or payroll coming due, isn't limited by the debt ceiling. That is why the government can rack up bills authorized by appropriations, and the debt ceiling only comes into it later when it needs to borrow to cover those already incurred expenses.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Fourteenth Amendment theory is transparent fiction."

When a credit card limit is reached and the holder can't charge more, is he "questioning" the debt?

[Gandydancer]

IIt isn't the only way in which the wording of the 14A is shit. But, anyway, it's not the inability to charge more that's the problem, it's the alleged potential need to fail to pay the interest on the amounts already on the card.

[Nelson]

"When a credit card limit is reached and the holder can’t charge more, is he “questioning” the debt?"

Yes. This isn't new debt. It is past debt that is now due. The only way to create new debt (which is what you are trying to say the US is doing) is if another spending bill passes. That hasn't happened.

You aren't one of those people who are too stupid to understand that this is all past debt that was authorized years or decades ago, are you?

If you are, this might help:

If you buy a car with 60 monthly payments and 10 months in you have maxed out your credit card, you aren't spending any new money when the bill comes in month 11. You are following up on your obligations from 10 months ago. That is what's happening right now.

But America's obligations are things like salaries, military equipment, and Social Security payments. Unlike the car from the example above, the repo man can't take back a B-2 bomber or the salary obligations to employees.

Here's another analogy to understand what default would do. Right now the US had an amazing credit score. We've never missed a payment on anything since the country was founded. If we default, our credit score in the international market will plummet.

You think financing the debt is expensive now? What happens when Treasuries get diwngraded, like in 2011 when Rs did the exact same thing they're doing today? The answer is that the cost of financing future debt rises. Estimates are that it cost the US 10-12% more for almost a decade, and that was when we didn't default.

The debt is over $31 trillion. We will continue to sevice that (plus future) debt. How much more expensive will it be if Rs force a defaul? 25%? 50%? 100%?

A default would cost us billions of extra dollars for a decade or more, and would gain absolutely nothing.

Given the catastrophic and self-inflicted damage that a default would cause, Rs are a child playing with a match in a roomful of gunpowder.

In fact, it's worse. Since almost everyone except Donald Trump and the MTG/idiot fringe understands exactly how bad a default would be, it's more like an adult flicking a lighter in a roomful of gunpowder.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

If you believe that 2A authorizes or guarantees an individual right to carry weapons without being part of a state militia, then words have no meaning and any amendment can mean anything. The Third Amendment can mean that a progressive income tax is forbidden, or, mandatory.

[Ben_]

Any state can declare all humans who have ever lived "members of our state's militia" then. Do you think no state would ever do that?

Why do you want to arrest innocent, harmless people for exercising their clearly enumerated rights anyway? You like the idea of imprisonment for people who are not like you, no matter how innocent they are.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why do you want to arrest innocent, harmless people for exercising their clearly enumerated rights anyway?

Ben_, you are entitled to a presumption of innocence only at the outset of a criminal trial, when all your liberties are at stake. You do not enjoy that presumption with regard to obedience to generally applicable laws. Due process and equal protection demand that everyone be treated alike by the law. And that demand cannot be read as a prohibition to make constitutionally legitimate laws which burden everyone alike. If prohibitions to control criminal conduct are needed, the existence of a class of non-criminals cannot be presumed. Insistence on such a class cannot become basis to put making such laws outside the powers of government. Obedience to law is not an obligation of criminals only. You do not enjoy impunity. Obeying the law is not punishment.

[Ben_]

"Obeying the law is not punishment," said the totalitarian bigots as they passed laws to punish people who are not like them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ben_, people pass laws they intend to be bound by themselves. Punishment is by its nature directed at people singled out for reasons particular to themselves. Gun control laws would not be a punishment applied to you. You would be a fool to think otherwise.

[David Nieporent]

No, Lathrop. People pass laws that they intend to bind other people.

[Ben_]

You're an old man. What medications are you taking? We can start advocating to make the medications you need, but we don't need, illegal. It'll be justified because we "intend to be bound by [the new laws that only target you]" ourselves.

Unlike arms, there's no mention in the bill of rights for your (or your family's) vital medicine. So it will be doubly justified.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you believe that 2A authorizes or guarantees an individual right to carry weapons without being part of a state militia, then words have no meaning and any amendment can mean anything.

You still believe that Jussie Smollett was assaulted by two MAGA hat-wearing racist homophobes while walking back from Subway at 2am, don't you?

[Gandydancer]

"If you believe that 2A authorizes or guarantees an individual right to carry weapons without being part of a state militia, then words have no meaning and any amendment can mean anything..."

Bullshit. The 2A says nothing about the right to bear arms that it recognizes other than that it exists. You learn that it is an individual right from materials not included in the 2A's text. This deducts nothing from the meaning of the words in the text, nor does it make them infinitely malleable.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Considering the grammatical argument you propose has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, you're the idiot who doesn't understand words.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms. "The people" doesn't change its meaning from one amendment to the next, you fucking dolt.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why isn’t that game, set, and match? "

Well, duh: Because he doesn't want to cut spending until the budget is balanced. I mean, that IS what you'd do if you were genuinely trying to follow the Constitution, which both absolutely forbids default, AND forbids additional borrowing without Congressional approval: The only remaining constitutional option is cutting spending!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Whatever will they do if they can't enrichen themselves and make everyone else poorer???

[jb]

The President can't unilaterally cut spending that Congress has already commanded.

[Brett Bellmore]

The President damned well CAN violate a statute when the only alternatives to violating it are constitutional violations. That's kind of what it means to say the Constitution is the highest law of the land.

[jb]

Fair enough. Since there's no other guiding principle, does that mean that he just cuts spending as he sees fit? Like maybe stop paying social security to residents of districts of House members that refuse to vote for the debt ceiling.

[Gandydancer]

Absent other guidance in the law there is no alternative to executive discretion. So: Yes.

But the ability to cut spending by district may not actually be unaddressed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty much, yeah. Once you're forced off the road, you can't be required to drive in your lane. Doesn't mean you should deliberately aim to run over pedestrians, though.

If Congress doesn't like a President's choice of what to cut, they can enact a statute laying out priorities for spending if there isn't enough money.

[Nelson]

A better appraoch would be cutting off funding for things Rs love. Furlough anyone who works in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, making new gun purchases impossible. Freeze grant money to religious organizations. Stop construction and maintainence of the border wall. That kind of thing, avoiding anything that impacts the general public.

With a strategic enough approach, they might be able to balance inflow and outflow, since revenue would still be coming in.

As long as it hit R priorities and didn't really impact the average American it would be a brilliant political move. Complaints would be easily attributed to the Constitutional requirement to pay our bills combined with the Rs unwillingness to raise rhe debt ceiling. It wouldn't even risk getting the same treatment from Rs when they're in power, since Ds don't play politics with the debt ceiling.

But because it would be a brilliant move, so the Ds are completely incapable of pulling it off. They're the gang that can't shoot straight.

[Armchair Lawyer]

While amusing, there's a problem with what you propose.

1. The gun and religious bit break amendments to the Constitution, and there's no real effective wall building.

2. But more importantly, there's not enough real spending there. (Unless you start calling Catholic hospitals religious organizations, and selectively cut off Medicare and Medicaid to those, which has a host of general public issues...)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Furlough anyone who works in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, making new gun purchases impossible.

Many on the left have wondered why transactions are allowed to proceed if the background check isn't done in 3 days. Thank you for explaining it to them.

[Nelson]

"the Constitution, which both absolutely forbids default, AND forbids additional borrowing without Congressional approval"

We aren't talking about additional borrowing. This is borrowing we already did, some of it decades ago.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible how many people here don't know what the debt ceiling is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who's going to buy ultra vires bonds that aren't backed by full faith and credit of the US?

[Gandydancer]

Junk bonds are bought and sold all the time when the price is right.

[Nelson]

And it costs the issuer a lot more to get those people to buy. What happens when servicing the debt doubles because Rs forced a default?

[Gandydancer]

Other expenditures will need to be cut, if that happens.

But that is beside the point supposedly presented by the question. The Treasury would still be able to borrow even if its bonds were regarded as relative junk.

[John F. Carr]

All he has to do is tell the Justice Department to lose the lawsuit by unions claiming the debt ceiling is unconstitutional.

[Kazinski]

Who is questioning the validity of the debt?

No one is.

The House has passed a measure extending the debt limit. It's up to the Senate to pass the House bill or one of its own.

If Biden doesn't sign the resulting bill does that mean he's violating the constitution and should be removed?

[Gandydancer]

He's violating the President-with-Dementia Amendment every day and should be removed for that. But no one wants Kamala, so he's safe.

No, her's not Constitutionally required to sign any bill. There are alternatives, after all.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, it would mean that if, the bill presented did nothing but raise the debt ceiling. The president has not got a line item veto, and he can’t be put under obligation to sign anything at all, so long as congress attaches the other stuff to a debt bill.

Note that Biden has insisted exactly that.

[Gandydancer]

"Kazinski, it would mean that if, the bill presented did nothing but raise the debt ceiling."

Nonsense. Biden would be under no such obligation, full stop.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Who is questioning the validity of the debt?"

Everyone who insists that, if the debt ceiling isn't raise, we'll default. That's who. Because not questioning the validity of the debt means default isn't an option.

[Frank Drackman]

You're overthinking this, "Why"??
because Senescent J's been stupid as fuck since he was just "Stupid as Fuck" Joe, now he's got the Alzheimer's on top of it.
Seriously, you put Senescent and Stuttering John Fetterman's Brains together, you maybe get to Imbecile level.

Frank

[BadLib]

Is there any controlling case law to back the 14th Amendment ploy up?

"Questioning" the "validity" of a debt is questioning if the debt exists or owed. That is quite different than defaulting.

If, for example, someone asserts "I have no money to make my mortgage payment this month" (or just decides not to pay their mortgage because they would rather spend that money on life-saving medicine for their child), they are not "questioning" the "validity" of the debt - they are just defaulting. On the other hand if they assert that I never entered into this mortgage and don't have any title interest in the property and some scammer forged my signature", they are "questioning" the "validity" of the debt.

The second (and last) sentence of Section 4 identifies certain types of debts and declares that "all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void". This suggests that the first sentence is referring to the act of holding a debt "illegal and void" when using the words "questioned" and "validity".

Originally Congress authorized specific sources of funding (such as issuing bonds at specific interest rates) for each expenditure they authorized. This was the context in which the 14th Amendment was drafted and passed.

In 1917, in response to spending for WWI, Congress delegated some of the decision making on the sources to fund authorized expenditures to Treasury.

Finally in 1939 Congress introduced the first aggregated debt limit.

It does not seem to me that the 14th Amendment applies to default in the first place. But, even if it did, it's not clear that the President has a "Constitutional duty" to completely ignore the Congressional debt limit rather than attempting to minimize the debt limit breach by eliminating all spending (such as by laying off all federal workers, cancelling all contracts per their cancellation clauses, etc) which Congress has not specifically mandated be spent for specific purposes (vs. merely authorizing the expenditure).

[Gandydancer]

No, the 14A doesn't mean that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"“Questioning” the “validity” of a debt is questioning if the debt exists or owed. That is quite different than defaulting."

The point of the clause was to assure the nation's creditors that we weren't going to cheat them. Ever. So as to secure their willingness to continue to loan us money.

It's pretty clear that if you tell the bank, "Yeah, I owe you this money, I freely admit it. I'm just not going to pay it." they're not going to think, "Yeah, that guy is a good credit risk."

They're going to stop loaning you money.

So your approach doesn't achieve the goal of the clause.

That said, your bottom line is reasonable: Faced with not enough revenue, and no further capacity to borrow, that is exactly what a President should do: Cut spending.

It's rather conspicuous that this is the only response a lot of people in DC won't admit IS an option.

[Nelson]

You can't actually cut spending in most cases. You can only delay some payments, like to pension funds or by furloughing salaried workers. You'll stillnhave to pay, just later. That isn't the same as cutting.

[Ben_]

Just because someone was paid before doesn't mean they "have to" be paid next time. Workers can simply be let go rather than furloughed.

If it's not a debt -- and Treasury has no authorization to issue debt above limits -- then there's no absolute requirement to pay it. And there's especially no 14th Amendment validity clause requirement to pay it.

This particular bad-faith scheme isn't going to work.

[Nelson]

"Workers can simply be let go rather than furloughed."

And what us the cause for firing them? "Republicans can't accept reality" isn't a valid reason for termination.

And then, of course, you have to go through the time, effort, and cost of hiring new people after the inevitable happens and the debt limit is raised. Gee, that doesn't sound like a collosal waste of resources for no purpose at all, does it?

"If it’s not a debt — and Treasury has no authorization to issue debt above limits — then there’s no absolute requirement to pay it."

Everything spent based on laws passed by Congress is a debt of the United States. It doesn't matter how long ago that spending was authorized (Social Security us a prime example).

Saying, "If it's not a debt" is like starting a sentence with, "if I had four arms". It isn't reality.

"And there’s especially no 14th Amendment validity clause requirement to pay it."

The lawyers here could explain the argument to you. It seems to be more reasonable than the alternative, guven the fiscal context of the time.

"This particular bad-faith scheme isn’t going to work."

The one where Rs threaten to economically kill the US if they don't get their way? We can only pray it won't.

[Gandydancer]

To start with, Social security payments are not a debt of the United States.

The US doesn't need any cause other than its unwillingness to further pay them to fire workers. You can't sue the Federal government unless it gives you leave to do so, and that can always be withdrawn.

And, no, you DON'T have to go through the time, effort, and cost of hiring new people after the debt limit is raised. You don't HAVE to raise the debt limit at all or replace anyone. You're confusing your desire to do so with a need for the government to do it, but the Constitutional obligation to pay its debts is on a whole different level than any necessity to provide you with the policy choices you like.

The dumbness of your post is excessive. Try to do better next time.

[Ben_]

"And what us the cause for firing them?"

Treasury is empty of money so nothing to pay them with. And there’s no authorization to owe them for additional work because debt is limited by law.

"Everything spent based on laws passed by Congress is a debt of the United States. It doesn’t matter how long ago that spending was authorized …"

"Authorized" is not "spent". Congress can authorize a time machine if they want. It doesn’t make one magically appear.

The Constitution doesn't mandate selling more debt any more than it mandates the military to invade Canada and ransom it back for money for the US Treasury.

[Ben_]

"…Just announce that the 14th Amendment decides the question…"

In other words:

Why try to work in good faith when there are still lawless stunts that haven’t been entirely repudiated by the courts yet?

That’s the Democrat mentality on everything.

And when that doesn’t work, Democrats ramp up direct calls for violence.

[Nelson]

"there are still lawless stunts"

The Constitution is the ultimate legal authority in our system. Following the Constitution cannot be a "lawless stunt". Ever.

[Ben_]

The Constitution doesn't give Treasury the power to sell debt obligations above the limits Congress has authorized.

[Sarcastr0]

Congress, by appropriating the funds, has authorized.

[David Nieporent]

One can't authorize by implication what one has expressly rejected.

[Sarcastr0]

I disagree – the bonds are *strictly necessary* to execute the appropriations act.

The President has 2 directly conflicting requirements. I’d say go with sooner in time, not in potential conflict with the 14A, and not breaking the US economy in deconflicting.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, the President could do all sorts of things that he doesn't have the power to do to pay off the debt. You could just as easily argue that Congress has given the President the power to unilaterally raise taxes to pay off the debt. But it hasn't done any of those things.

[Ben_]

"You could just as easily argue that Congress has given the President the power to unilaterally raise taxes to pay off the debt."

Or the President could claim the authorization to sell the Everglades to oil companies for money for the US Treasury. Because spending was authorized.

But obviously the President can’t just do whatever, directly in the face of clearly-written laws. It’s amazing how totally and completely Democrats have embraced lawlessness.

[Ben_]

"Congress, by appropriating the funds, has authorized."

Incorrect, and transparently so.

If there were only one way for additional funds to be added to the treasury, then your contention wouldn’t be so obviously wrong. But there are many ways: taxes, fines, selling government land or rights or other things of value, printing money, and a lot more. Spending authorization doesn’t imply any specific funding mechanism. And debt is limited by law.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Does anyone suppose the SCOTUS will order a default on the debt?"

The last time the US defaulted on its debt, the court said it didn't count.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If Biden is going to get creative, he could simply go through the budget and approve enough items to meet what’s in the Treasury, but put the rest on hold. In fact, I think he has to do this, since the alternative would be to do what only Congress can do – raise money on the credit of the United States. Or he could go to Bahrain for the money.

Barring the latter option, he'll have to make cuts to the budget until the budget is fully funded. He'll have to triage and approve only the essentials - military bases abroad, Import/Export Bank, etc., and make cuts in the inessentials - pension obligations, interest payments on the debt, etc.

Just kidding, I meant vice-versa. I hope.

[Commenter_XY]

After the pandemic, and the designation of 'essential' jobs and 'non-essential' jobs, I can understand the Just kidding, I meant vice-versa. I hope. comment.

Whoever paid off POTUS Biden the most will keep their federal largesse. It is not terribly complicated.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe a good start would be getting rid of those non-essential jobs.

[Commenter_XY]

But, but, but....all federal bureaucratic jobs, all of them, right down to the custodial services guy who cleaned Sam Brinton's office every night are essential. Aren't they?

Are there any non-essential jobs in federal government? (being caustic here)

[Mr. Bumble]

"Are there any non-essential jobs in federal government?"
Or non-essential spending?
Maybe it would be a good idea to claw back all appropriated but unspent pork.

[Commenter_XY]

I have a nomination for the cut list: Groundskeeping and custodial services at the White House, Executive Building, the Capitol building, and the Senate and House buildings until the debt ceiling imbroglio is resolved.

Let them live in their trash and shit, until they clean up the sewer known as the debt ceiling.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Essential" means something different in this context.

If means the proverbial crap hits the fan if they don't show up each and every day, no matter the disaster or crisis. Like Fire or Police. Even if there's a raging blizzard out, they need to show up.

"Non-essential" workers are things like construction workers, janitors, car mechanics, farmers, and so on. It doesn't mean they aren't important. It simply means if they skip a day due to weather, it's not the end of the world. They can make up the work the day after.

[Gandydancer]

That may be what it ought to mean but it doesn't.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts used to tell "non-essential" workers to stay home during extreme weather events and emergencies. Critics asked why the government had so many non-essential workers. The governor changed the wording of the order.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did they still get paid for staying home?

[Gandydancer]

In Taxachusetts of all places? Are you kidding me? (Not that the reddest states have the stones to not pay the drones for not working.)

[bernard11]

Whoever paid off POTUS Biden the most will keep their federal largesse. It is not terribly complicated.

Come on, XY.

This is really a stupid, offensive, baseless, comment. Beneath you.

[Gandydancer]

Actually it is any pretense that Biden et al are not corrupt that is a really stupid, offensive, baseless, comment.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody cares what Trump says on a topic like that; it would be like taking advice on operating a 747 from a homeless guy begging for spare change.

The most alarming thing was the fact that he still refuses to admit he lost bigly, fair-and-square, in 2020. Which means that if he gets the nomination in 2024 he will try again to overthrow the government when he loses.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "bigly".

[David Nieporent]

74 electoral votes and 7 million total votes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Popular votes don't elect presidents and a change of less than 60,000 vote in thre states would have changed the electoral count.
Hardly "bigly".

[Davedave]

"a change of less than 60,000 vote in thre states would have changed the electoral count."

How are you so gullible? Check the numbers, it just ain't true. When will you stop letting yourself be lied to? The people doing it are laughing at what a fool you and your chums are.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's not true, it was more like 43K. 43K votes would have shifted 37 EC votes from Biden to Trump.

As Biden won the EC by 306-232, that would have transformed a Biden victory into a tie. Ties go to the House, where the House votes by state delegation to decide the winner, each state having one vote. Since Republicans had a majority of a majority of state delegations, it's presumed that Trump would have won the tie breaker vote.

I don't know that this was a safe assumption, but it wasn't an unreasonable one.

Another 22k votes in Nebraska's 2nd district would have given Trump an actual EC victory, and kept it out of the House, (Getting you to his just under 60K.) but a shift in Pennsylvania would have been more plausible, as the margin was barely over a percent there, and it was one of the states where the courts dubiously authorized election law violations, and would likely have gone the other way if the illegal votes had been invalidated.

[Davedave]

Your link refutes your points. FFS, who do you think you're fooling?

[ducksalad]

Everybody, Davedave is counting on you not clicking the link. It says pretty much exactly what Bellmore said:

But the margins this year were even tighter in the three states that put Biden over the top in the Electoral College. He won Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin by a total of less than 45,000 votes.

Bellmore said less than 43K, and the margin according to the latest totals on Wikipedia is 42,918. The difference between less than 45,000" and 42,918 are because the article was written shortly after the election, before final tallies, recounts, and corrections had been posted.

Bluff attempt failed, Davedave.

[Davedave]

It doesn't say what Brett said. You're just failing at basic arithmetic.

[ducksalad]

Note that I'm posting quotes from the article and you aren't.

[Gandydancer]

Stop with the yap-yap and show us YOUR arithmetic, DaveLiarDave.

I will add about “fair and square” that I didn’t follow the count closely enough to know if it made a difference, but what I saw in Cobo Hall after 4am sure looked a lot like Michigan being stolen.

[Davedave]

The quotes here show anyone who can do basic arithmetic that the claim was wrong.

[Gandydancer]

So, despite my math degree I can't do basic arithmetic. Fine. Do some and show your work, DaveLiarDave.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "No, it’s not true..."

I'll let y'all argue about the precise number here and only point out the same metric was calculated in the Clinton-Trump election & that magical number was almost certainly less.

So what?

[ducksalad]

75000 in 2016 versus 43000 in 2020.

Agreed that the situations are very similar, but the Clinton-Trump difference was certainly not less.

But you did say “almost” certainly so you’re off the hook, unlike Davedave.

[grb]

ducksalad : “But you did say “almost” certainly so you’re off the hook”

Nah. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to devise a google search to come up with a number (despite being reasonably good at that sort of thing).

Also, I suspect it would be numbers, not number. Like the dueling numbers in the recent election, I bet we’d see dueling numbers in the 2016 number, which was – remember – tighter.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's actually pretty simple: You hunt up the report on election margins by state, (Absolute, not percentage.) and add up Biden's margin of victory on the states in increasing order of margin, starting with the least, until you get enough EC votes to reach a tie, or Trump winning, depending on which threshold you pick. That's how I got just under 43K to reach a tie decided by the House, (Where Republicans have an advantage.) and just under 60K to get to an absolute win for Trump.

2020 was considerably closer by this sort of calculation than 2016.

[John F. Carr]

I read that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's attempt to decide the election was not necessary. Biden would have won without the court's help.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you're discounting the court's help by rewriting the election laws.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to Brett Bellmore:

Thanks for doing the legwork to support my claim but as always denial is more than just a river in Egypt. At least grb could admit to being wrong. David, on tne other hand, went silent and Davedave sputtered nonsense as per usual.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Our system's structural amplification of hayseed votes is about all the dwindling inventory of conservatives have left to keep them politically relevant in America.

Well, that and the race-targeting voter suppression.

And gerrymandering.

Those crutches have diminished, and will continue to be addressed by better Americans in a way that promotes democracy, progress, and decency.

The culture war isn't quite over but it has been settled. That's why clingers are so disaffected, delusional, and desperate.

[Theendoftheleft]

Talk of delusion is merely a function of your projection, AIDS. Do you know what the rest of the West, including election lawyers, thinks about what you fuckwits have done?

*Ballot harvesting
*Decreased ID requirements (eg signatures)
*Last-minute judicial decisions to count late ballots
*Race-based and other forms of dubious gerrymandering (by blue teamers, not just red)
*Not clearing state voter rolls of thousands of non-state citizens before elections
* Cessation of counting in various states (at the same time, for the same amount of time)
* etc

No other Western country would do what you do; indeed, we seek to protect the integrity of our elections from precisely those things. Far from being the defenders of democracy and the rule of law, those practices are the indicia of a banana republic. You are the opposite of what you claim to be, and the whole world sees it. You have discredited your country, you delusional authoritarian twat.

Further, once the American people come to understand what you’ve actually done, they are going to hold you accountable for it with your life, fascist pig.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Further, once the American people come to understand what you’ve actually done, they are going to hold you accountable for it with your life, fascist pig."

Eh, probably not. In the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence,

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

It's going to take a bit more before enough people see that "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,"

But I think it's coming, sadly. The left are rapidly losing what remains of their restraint, and lashing out at their enemies in ways that are really hard to obscure.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Biden can do whatever he wants, no one will stop him.

That's the bottom line.

[Bob from Ohio]

"demand concessions."

Legislation in a split government usually involves one side getting something and the other side getting something in return.

This is no different. House has passed a bill, Dems can just adopt it if they won't negotiate.

[bernard11]

The debt ceiling "negotiation" by the lunatic GOP is more like, "Quadruple my allowance or I'll burn the house down."

[Bob from Ohio]

The lunatics passed a bill.

"The House GOP's plan would freeze spending at levels adopted in fiscal year 2022 and cap future federal spending increases at 1% annually for the next decade."

Horrors!

[Nelson]

And? The Cinstitution requires us not to default. Cinstitution beats partisan bill every day and twice on Sundays.

[Ben_]

So what? There’s nothing you can do about it. And there’s no reason for anyone to care about your hateful opinions.

You might want to try growing up instead of throwing tantrums, because tantrums don’t get the debt ceiling raised.

[EscherEnigma]

I assume you'll hold to this position the next time Republicans hold the White House --but not both the House and Senate-- and Democrats are, breaking tradition†, decide to force concessions?
________
†The Republicans have famously threatened default and forced concessions using the debt ceiling multiple times. They did it to Clinton and Obama, and are now trying it with Biden. But I can't find anything that suggests Democrats did anything comparable under Reagan, Bush, Bush, or Trump.

[Ben_]

Congrats on pretending to believe in tradition so you can attack others for not living up your pretend standards.

Everyone knows that game now though.

[EscherEnigma]

Sarcastically saying I expect you to hold to your claimed standard in the future says nothing about my own beliefs.

[Ben_]

I already expect leftists to do anything they can get away with. Absolutely anything.

The only question will be how many people like you endorse and approve each evil escalation.

[EscherEnigma]

You seem to know a lot about me.

Please, tell me more. I love hearing about myself.

[Gandydancer]

You're a Lefty, so you have shit for brains.

[Bob from Ohio]

"forced concessions using the debt ceiling multiple times"

Spending concessions. If Dems wan to cut spending, they can "force" away.

ha ah , Just kidding, no Dem wants to cut spending

[Gandydancer]

"... use the looming debt-ceiling crash and default to demand concessions [is] in the same recklessness-class as advocating that we carry out a nuclear first-strike against someone we don’t like."

You are a lunatic.

[mydisplayname]

The argument that the Fourteenth Amendments affects budgets rather than debts is specious and is touted only by academics who wrongly believe that a budget is the same as a debt (and there are many such academics, to be sure: many times I have reminded faculty that a budget of $X does not mean that $X exists or will exist).

Quoting the budget itself, "the following sums in this Act are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2023." A budgeted item does not become a debt until the money is actually in the treasury and is actually conveyed, by contract or otherwise, to some party.

The first precondition is easy-ish, as the Federal Reserve can simply direct the Treasury to print enough money to satisfy the budget. But who would accept payment from a super-fiat fund interesting only to a super-foolish investor? So, the debt ceiling effectively remains in place. [The alternative, impeachment, can wait until all of the influence peddling documentation is ready.]

[Krayt]

The government has plenty of revenue stream to cover debt payments (as well as social security), so this isn’t even an issue.

Politicians want to keep the outgoing streams into voters' hands. We are not dealing with honest people.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, fine, fire the military. Explain to voters why it happened. Assholes negotiate by making demands and turning over the table if the demands aren't met. From time to time, you have to let the assholes turn over the table, and then help bystanders understand that they mistakenly elected red-faced, spittle spewing, screaming assholes.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The conspirators sometimes post links to timely law-review articles.

They missed one: "A Critical and Historical Analysis of Ohio’s Post-Millennium Regression to Major-Party Monopoly," by Mark R. Brown in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly.

https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2173&context=hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly

[ducksalad]

Saw that one. It does a pretty good job of recounting what the Republicans did to Libertarians in 2014 Ohio. Add to that what Democrats did to Greens in 2022 North Carolina. And a dozen other cases one could easily cite against both of them.

I’m inclined to completely dismiss Republican complaints about mystery ballot boxes and Democratic complaints about voter suppression. They’re both systematically corrupt on this issue and have lost any moral standing to demand fair elections. It's like the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels accusing each other of corrupting the police.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No one on the left is mourning Ashley Babbitt, who was shot and killed by a sovereign defending a border.

This is the solution to the border crisis — unroll Concertina wire across the border, and simply shoot anyone trying to cut their through. An A-10 would work nicely, ammo a bit expensive but worth it. And leave the bodies decomposing in the sun.

And the nice thing about an A-10 is that it can cover a lot of land while flying slow enough to actively patrol a fenceline, it makes a distinct sound in flight, and it's gun even moreso.

It wouldn’t take much — a dozen deaths per mile — to be effective, particularly if the goal was to literally decimate the invading groups, leaving 90% alive to flee back and tell everyone what happened.

“Gringo Loco! Grinko Shoots!”

Let that message get around and the problem will end!

[not guilty]

Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed by a sovereign defending a border???

That doesn't make sense. More like a case of suicide by cop.

[Commenter_XY]

More like a case of suicide by cop.

Doubtful. I believe Lt. Michael Boyd panicked, and killed (not murdered) Ashli Babbitt. It sort of looks that way to me based on the footage I have seen. It is understandable (that isn't the same as condone, not guilty) that he panicked, given the rioting and chaos.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The worst part is he almost shot three fellow officers in the process.

But I'm making a point here -- the people most upset by my proposal to use deadly force to defend our border have no problem using it to defend our capitol. And unlike Rome, we have the ability to defend our borders -- if we wish to.

[Commenter_XY]

The worst part is that there was a riot in the first place, Dr. Ed 2.

Ashli Babbitt, an air force veteran, should never have entered the Capitol building behind a throng of rioters through a broken window, should never have been banging on the door of the room with Lt. Boyd and assorted congress-critters, should never have attempted to breach the damned door. She is not a martyr.

These were all very serious misjudgments by Ashli Babbitt. She, and she alone made those choices. Ashli Babbitt paid for those misjudgments with her life. The point is, Dr. Ed 2, Ashli Babbitt never should have put herself into that position in the first place.

My hope is that her family, the people she left behind and grieve her lost life, have other good memories to recall when they remember her.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Ashtray Babbitt looked like she was high on pcp. I think the cop made the right call.

[Frank Drackman]

Well you would know about PCP. I think yo Momma made the wrong call stopping your abortion in the middle.

[hoppy025]

And Biden should never have stolen the election by relying on the votes of illegitimate citizens who should never have been allowed to vote.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Stolen election kooks are among my favorite culture war casualties.

And a key element of this white, male, right-wing blog's target audience.

[Theendoftheleft]

Mine are the gays: at best, you're all going back into the closet when America loses this new cold war.

[Gandydancer]

He didn't. He relied on forged "absentee ballots" for his margin, looked like to me.

[David Nieporent]

That's amazing! Without even being in the room or having access to any of the data you can tell that ballots were forged! Have you considered applying this skill of yours in other contexts?

[Gandydancer]

You weren't in the room and there is no data, yet you conclude Trump raped Carroll. Explain.

After 4am, when all the observers had been sent home and all results elsewhere were in (giving Trump a substantial lead), van loads of "absentee ballots" appeared in the basement of Cobo Hall. Supposedly they'd all been signature-verified in the (Democrat) county clerk's office out of sight of observers, so all that was needed was to count them. This was done (as many times as necessary?) and, voila, Biden won!

There are a number of obvious ways to look at the resultant vote stream to see it it looked legit, but that wasn't done. Nothing to see here, folks!

[Nige]

The difference is in one case evidence in a trial persuaded a jury, in the other case the evidence sort of dissolved before it reached any of several courts.

[Gandydancer]

No, the difference is that in one case a bogus case went to trial and a corrupt jury voted against Trump on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, while in the other case the completely undissolved evidence I mentioned went and remains unexamined by the corrupt court system.

The only thing “dissolved” is any pretense you might once have had to honesty.

[Nige]

That's certainly the sort of thing Trump claims, but he's a convicted sex offender.

[David Nieporent]

Joke gandydancer still fails to understand basic legal concepts like evidence, and thinks only MAGA loons should be allowed to judge Trump.

And still has complete delusions about things that never happened in Michigan and that were rejected on the merits by judges who actually examined the evidence.

[Gandydancer]

George Floyd made "misjudgments" too, but you and your ilk still got all upset that he ended up dead. (I'll pass over the fact that HIS death WAS self-inflicted.) What Byrd did was criminal homicide, pure and simple.

[David Nieporent]

the people most upset by my proposal to use deadly force to defend our border have no problem using it to defend our capitol.

The people must upset by your proposal to commit mass murder understand that the relevant issue is 'defend' against what?

If someone breaks into your house to kidnap or kill you, I have no problem with you shooting them. If someone walks down the street on his way to work, I do have a problem with you shooting them. See the difference?

[Armchair Lawyer]

And if you’re at a protest, technically trespassing, but not an immediate lethal threat, can the police shoot you then?

You seem to imply below, that’s fine.

[Sarcastr0]

Your scope is bullshit, as I told you the last time you tried this.

She wasn't alone - she was at the head of a violent mob. That's the threat.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The unarmed woman, just partially in a room, with 3 armed cops was an imminent lethal threat?

[Sarcastr0]

You failed to address the mob.

[Gandydancer]

Byrd didn't shoot into the mob/crowd. He murdered Babbitt.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The mob which was "outside" the room? Except for Babbitt (and she was just partially inside the room).

But please go on. Please explain exactly who in a mob the police can shoot with lethal force. The unarmed? The elderly? The children? The isolated individuals?

[Sarcastr0]

Being at the head of a mob and breaching a room is a deadly threat.

Fuck off with your tendentious questions. You understand the state of affairs, and I think you realize your case is weak, which is why you're being such an asshole.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Being at the head of a mob and breaching a room is a deadly threat."

Incorrect. But thanks for playing.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you're not an expert, you just tell multiple lawyers you know better than them on the Internet.

[Gandydancer]

As Armchair Lawyer observes the :"mob" was on the other side of the doors and the barricade and, i will add, NOT attacking any of the cops in their midst. One small unarmed woman climbed onto the sill of a broken window. There were multiple armed cops on the other side of the barricade from her. So one shot her in the neck, killing her. The rest of the "mob" had no way to get through the doors and barricade except that one small opening.

The idea that Babbitt, or the mob collectively, constituted a deadly threat to anyone in the corridor AT THAT POINT IN TIME (which is when the shooting needs to be justified) is absurd and ludicrous. As are you.

[Gandydancer]

It wasn't just 3 armed cops. Those were just the three standing at parade rest in front of the doors, NOT being attacked by the "violent mob", including the guy in the fur-lined hat carefully NOT touching the cop he was reaching over to bash the window. Then there was the whole squad of "assault weapon"-armed SWAT team members on the stairs, also in the midst of the "violent mob" and NOT being attacked. Byrd, on the OTHER side of the barricade and hiding behind a corner also had armed companions.

[David Nieporent]

He fired a single shot at an attacking mob, which doesn't really seem like panicking.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet he was the only one to discharge his weapon (in the face of an "attacking mob").

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Stop the ste…the last words of Ashtray Babbitt that will inspire a new generation of patriots! I wonder what she meant by “ste”? 😉

[Frank Drackman]

Lucky for that rent-a-cop he's a spook and Ashli B was white, other way around and he'd be in Federal Prison.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The blacks have just about free reign to do whatever they want to us Whites.

No one will stop them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another day at a white, male blog operated by right-wing law professors, another display of overt bigotry.

Does a single one of those law professors have the courage needed to address that bigotry or the character required to stop attracting such a bigot-rich audience?

Cowards. Paltry cowards.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not one Conspirator will say anything about the bigotry that appears at their blog every day.

Shameful.

Carry on, clingers. Without the respect of better Americans.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Indeed. He was the closest person to the barricaded doorway and after Babbitt was shot, nobody else tried to breach that defensive line.

You’re an idiot.

[Gandydancer]

Byrd was not the closest to the doorways. He was hiding behind a corner a a couple yards away from them. Closest to the doorways were the three cops standing within a foot of the doors on the "mob"'s side of the barricade and doors. NOT being attacked.

[David Nieporent]

That's right; she wasn't going after cops for the sake of attacking cops; she (and the rest of the mob she was with at that spot) were going after the people who were in the room that Byrd was guarding.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No clear evidence that her intent was to cause any harm to these individuals who may or may not have been in the room beyond Byrd, and it's not clear if Byrd (or Babbitt) knew they were there.

[Sarcastr0]

No clear evidence that her intent was to cause any harm to these individuals
Just Olympic level willful blindness.

Everyone knows the intent of that mob, and to what purpose they beat up all those cops. Everyone but you, I guess.

[Gandydancer]

Actually, you can see on the video all the senators being escorted across the corridor behind Byrd and out of the building. By the time Byrd shot Babbitt there were no senators available to be attacked.

The unorganized group of protesters of course had no single intent. but none of the officers in their midst were being attacked.

Anyway, shooting Babbitt legally would have required that she at that moment posed an imminent danger of significant bodily harm. Which she didn't. Your attempts to deflect from this fact, well known to you, are unavailing no matter how desperately you'd like us to forgo noticing it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Apocryphal from Old Texas: Remote frontier town. Huge gang of cowboys arrives off the range. First day, they riot, overpower local sheriff. That night a telegram goes out to the Texas Rangers: "Send help immediately, or rioters will destroy this town."

Next morning the train pulls in. One guy gets off. Sheriff is taken aback. "Is there only one of you?" he asks. The reply: "There's more than one riot?"

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Also recounted in David Mamet's Spartan.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Are you arguing there's a legal standard that a police officer can shoot indiscriminately into an attacking mob?

[Michael P]

I think he was arguing that it seems more like cold-blooded murder.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know where you got 'indiscriminately' from, but I'm pretty sure that any person can shoot at an attacking mob; it's basic self-defense.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh my.... Oh my, no... Your understanding of the law regulating proper use of force by the police is....woefully incorrect.

The police absolutely cannot just "shoot into a mob" with lethal force. They need a particularlized, individual threat to use that sort of lethal force, and just against that individual threat.

For example, if a mob is pushing on their barricades, and they see someone in the mob pull out a firearm and point it at the police (or better yet for legal purposes, actually shoot at the police), the police can use lethal force against that individual. But they absolutely cannot just "fire into the mob".

The fact you appear to believe this is true is frightening.

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally, I can think the cop shouldn't have shot her, and still think she should have expected to have been shot doing such a stupid thing. It's similar to the way you think that shady looking dude shouldn't mug you, and at the same time realize that if you waltz through a bad neighborhood flashing a big bankroll you should expect to be mugged.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And don't cross an international border illegally unless you are willing to accept being shot by the troops defending that border.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, not any who have signed up to any of the various international conventions on refugees. Do you live in one of those countries?

[Gandydancer]

International conventions are not suicide pacts, and when found to be functioning as such should be abrogated.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, the Babbitt case is interesting.

Technically speaking, in order for the police to be justified in using lethal force, there needs to be an immediate, particular lethal threat to the police (or those they are protecting). And the use of force needs to be against that threat.

In the Babbitt case, you had 3 well armed police officers, in a room, with a female crawling through the window. She was not obviously armed. Regardless of what was going on elsewhere, those are the facts. So the question is, if an unarmed trespasser is crawling through a window, are the police justified in shooting her?

There are a lot of questions there. If we're going by the preponderance of evidence, the answer is probably no. You've got 3 armed cops, against one unarmed female, who is moving slowly due to the tight confines. And yes, there are others behind the woman, but it's the immediate threat that's must be looked at. If she was lunging for the firearm, or other actions, yes. But that wasn't occurring. She was climbing through the window. And you've got to translate this to similar actions...which looks real bad.

If you're going beyond reasonable doubt (especially with a DC jury in this case), that's a harder sell. But a civil lawsuit? Likely would've been a loss for DC.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Regardless of what was going on elsewhere,

All armchair, no lawyer.

Volokh Conspiracy fans make South Texas College of Law Houston students look like Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley students.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I probably would have considered any person jumping through a broken window towards multiple drawn guns during a riot to be a mortal threat. Tourists don't usually act like that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That's not actually the definition of "mortal" threat.

If it was, the cops would be justified in shooting every crazy person they saw. Which they are not.

[Gandydancer]

Byrd wasn't in a room. He was in a corridor encircling the Senate chamber (which was emptied of senators before he shot Babbitt). At various times there were varying numbers of armed cops at various places in that corridor, far more than three. There was a SWAT team and three armed cops standing at parade rest in the immediate vicinity of Babbitt on HER side of the barricade and doors/windows.

There is NOTHING "complicated" about this question: Byrd shooting Babbitt was blatantly criminal.

[Gandydancer]

I absolutely agree that her trespass was stupid. That is entirely irrelevant to whether what Byrd did was criminal homicide, so just stop with the attempt to change the subject.

[Davedave]

There goes the fake lawyer, demonstrating he is functionally illiterate yet again. The word you ignored completely changes the meaning of the sentence in question.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Why don't you elaborate?

[Davedave]

Because you lack the level of literacy needed to understand my answer, even if I write using single-syllable words.

Obviously since 'attacking' is three syllables it just didn't register with you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh...the word "attacking" (with non-lethal force) was implied.

You can tell by the example I used, where the mob was pushing on the barricades. Not just standing around.

Remind me to ignore you in the future, if you don't understand this.

[Gandydancer]

It’s not that DaveLiarDave doesn’t understand you. It’s that he’s a shameless liar. See just upthread where he lies about the content of a link supplied by BretB about the margin in the 2020 election. I mean, the link is right there and he simply lies about what it says even after it is quoted to him.

[hoppy025]

If the cop is a genetically defective mud person, Democrats will allow him to do whatever he wants.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the bigotry you have cultivated, Volokh Conspirators.

Do you still hope your children will respect you after they are exposed to the liberal-libertarian American mainstream?

[Frank Drackman]

Coach Sandusky, well experienced in getting children to "Respect" him

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You really think Jerry Sandusky has free access to the internet?

How does calling someone you know is not Sandusky, "Sandusky", function as any kind of insult? They (any basically everyone else who reads it) would simply conclude you are hopelessly deranged.

[Gandydancer]

He didn't shoot at the "mob", which was on the other side of a still-locked pair of doors and a barricade. He deliberately shot the precariously perched Babbitt, in the neck.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, why does it have to be panic? Why not a guardian doing his job to prevent a mass breach of security, with potentially deadly implications unless it was stopped?

I return to this question from time to time, because I have yet to get an answer. What do the folks who object to the Babbitt shooting think would have happened if that same mob had instead been trying to force entry to the White House?

[hobie]

Re the policeman, just invoke the Rittenhouse Doctrine (1. Be white; 2. be scared; 3. Fire) and the rubes here will back down on the Babbitt thing. Oh wait, the officer was black

[Michael P]

Why is the left so full of racists?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Great question to ask at the Official Legal Blog Of Slur-Happy Right-Wing Racists!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Is your argument that police can shoot indiscriminately into an attacking mob of people?

[Michael P]

No, his argument is that police can shoot indiscriminately into a swarming mob of people if there are potentially deadly implications. Presumably he meant deadly implications of swarming, not the shooting, which is inherently deadly force.

Query whether this means police can fire at will to prevent a mob from crushing anyone, even if that shooting is likely to provoke a stampede.

[EscherEnigma]

May I suggest you look at the summer of 2020?

The argument of police is that they can shoot indiscriminately into a peaceful mob of people.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, you're doing much better with the walls of text problem; I wanted to compliment you for that. 🙂

Look at the footage. What I see in the footage is a completely chaotic scene, active rioting, and people pounding on the doors. A very stressful, if not life threatening situation. I call it panic, others can call it misjudgment; regardless, Lt. Michael Boyd killed Ashli Babbitt. Further reporting has indicated Lt. Boyd has had documented instances of misjudgment (i.e. like losing a firearm) in his performance record. He panicked under pressure, IMO.

Answer: Anyone breaching the White House would be shot dead.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He panicked under pressure, IMO"

Only officer to shoot. Its lovely how the libs here complaining about "misogynist" Trump just laugh of the shooting of an un-armed woman.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Mr. Right-Wing Law And Order With No Mercy suddenly develops a soft spot for an un-American asshole rampaging with a bunch of drawling, half-educated, superstitious, un-American bigots.

Carry on, clingers. But only so far as better Americans allow.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It’s a shame you didn’t try to cross the same line she did.

[Frank Drackman]

Coach Jerry couldn't serve (Homo), much better now though

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I shouldn't have said that. You have my apologies Bob.

Your argument that her gender has anything to do with the general attitude of why it was justified that she got shot is bullshit.

Law enforcement showed remarkable restraint in not shooting more of them sooner with the violence they perpetuated and the risk they posed to our elected officials.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, D.C. Law Enforcement showed remarkable restraint in not shooing any of the N-words who burned St. Johns Church. Of course, probably because many of the N-words burning the Church were members of D.C. Law Enforcement.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No need to restrict your language here, Mr. Drackman. The proprietor seems to like racial slurs as much as he can't resist blurting out a steady stream of reports concerning transgender sorority members, lesbians, transgender parents, drag queens, Muslims, transgender restrooms, white grievance, and transgender anything.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" why does it have to be panic? Why not a guardian doing his job to prevent a mass breach of security, with potentially deadly implications unless it was stopped?"

A mass breach of security....

"I return to this question from time to time, because I have yet to get an answer. What do the folks who object to the Babbitt shooting think would have happened if that same mob had instead been trying to force entry [into the country itself]."

My point exactly.

Launch the A-10s....

[Gandydancer]

No one else shot at the unarmed "mob". So Byrd alone prevented the massacre of the Senators? Why was the mob still delaying the start of more than some pushing? When the Bastille was stormed a lot of Swiss Guards had their heads stuck on pikes by that point.

[Gandydancer]

Bullshit. There were three cops standing outside the doors in the middle of the protesters... and the guy in the fur-lined cap was carefully NOT touching the cop he was reaching over to bash the window nearest Byrd. If THEY didn't panic then Byrd has no excuse.

The rules on self-defense are well known here. What Byrd did was murder Babbitt.

[hoppy025]

She was shot by a semi-retarded negro cop. Listen to the interview. He speaks like his IQ is 80.

[Frank Drackman]

what do you mean "like" ??

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does anyone figure UCLA, Georgetown, Chicago, Northwestern, and the like have learned anything from having their movement conservative faculty hires associate their institutions and reputations with a bigotry-saturated blog?

I sense the Volokh Conspirators have pulled up the ladder and smashed it to bits.

Which is fine by me.

[Gandydancer]

So your work is done, Artie. You can lay off on the tedious repetition, now.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's a marketplace of ideas. Every expression of old-timey bigotry deserves to be labeled bigotry.

The Volokh Conspirators' employers surely have reached conclusions concerning their conduct, statements, character, and credibility.

Internet wanderers encountering this blog would not necessarily know that this blog is afflicted by ugly, stale, right-wing thinking in general and obnoxious bigotry in particular. That makes calling out the bigotry a public service at the modern marketplace of ideas.

[Gandydancer]

Keep beavering away, then. I guess you have nothing better to do with your life than serve as a volunteer internet equivalent of one of those beside the road pathetic souls shaking arrows to attract passers-by to low-rent scams.

[Nige]

Murdered because they might commit a misdemeanour while keeping the US economy afloat by doing thousands jobs too low-paid for actual citizens. You're getting the balance wrong. Enough have to be allowed in to work under horrible conditions while demonising them enough that it's easy to get rid of them individually and in groups while keeping Trump's based fired up on xenophobia. If child labour takes off outside red states sufficently to replace them, then maybe they'll let you pick a few off on your southern safari.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"thousands jobs too low-paid for actual citizens"

That is bullshyte and you know it.

They actually get paid MORE than actual citizens because they get the full value of their labor -- their employer doesn't have to pay FICA or Workers Comp or Unemployment or a half dozen other employer taxes that I forget about.

So the ILLEGAL ALIEN gets $20/hour while the American only gets $15 (because the employer is paying $5 in employer taxes).

This is all undeclared so the ILLEGAL ALIEN pays no income nor FICA taxes, and is living in subsidized housing and receiving free medical care so has way more spending money than the American does.

Even worse, they exclude Americans. There have been ICE busts at meat packing plants and a line of Americans showing up the next day seeking the jobs that the Illegal Aliens had been holding.

And the most pissed off people are the LEGAL immigrants.

[Nige]

You have no idea what an illegal alien gets an hour or what conditions they work under. Meat packing plants have been busted for hiring *children* that's how much they don't want to have to pay what an adult citizen would demand.

[hobie]

Nonsense. In my factory the legal Americans and the illegal Cubans and Venezuelans all get paid the same amount.

Yes, my company doesn't have to pay their healthcare.

No, they don't get free healthcare and lodging. They, all of them, pay for that themselves.

No, there are not a line of Americans dying to work at my factory. Just the opposite. Hence our reliance on these brown replacements. Great workers, BTW.

So, hey, keep lying about things you know nothing about

[John F. Carr]

If you want to kill crowds of civilians use cluster bombs rather than 30 mm anti-armor rounds.

Air Force pilots would refuse the order. Remember when the military leadership reassured Congress that Trump could not just wake up one day and decide to nuke somebody? The military would refuse to comply.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Court Martial those who refuse -- and I'm not so sure many would because this is defending a fence against terrorists, not shooting civilians. There is a reason why I am NOT suggesting cluster bombs or napalm -- the goal is to stop people, not kill them.

[John F. Carr]

While most military prosecutions are handled less formally, the pilot who refused to shoot up a crowd of illegal immigrants, undocumented migrants, or Latin American refugees could insist on a formal trial. The pilots and potential jurors are all trained on the laws of war.

We are approaching an era when the U.S. could spread realistic fake news in Mexico about a massacre at the border. Then none of us will know what is real.

[Nige]

Military personnel are obliged to disobey unlawful orders, aren’t they? There are a few places where shooting unarmed civilians wouldn’t be a war crime. North Korea. The Russian border during the Cold War.

[Frank Drackman]

Its obviously not a "War Crime" in the US, Michael Byrd got a promotion out of killing Ashli Babbitt

[Nige]

edgebot thinks Jan 6th was a war

[Frank Drackman]

I said it's NOT a "War Crime" dumb ass, Nige bot spending too much time playing with "Little" Nige bot

[Nige]

edgebot concedes Jan 6th not a war.

[Gandydancer]

"edgebot" never claimed J6 was a war, so his agreeing that it was not is not a "concession", you lying piece of shit.

[Nige]

Gandy also concedes Jan 6th was not a war.

[Gandydancer]

No, I didn't "concede" that you are a lying piece of shit, I >said that you were a lying piece of shit. You are also a moron.

[Nige]

Gandy is sad he had to concede.

[Nelson]

"No one on the left is mourning Ashley Babbitt"

Nobody should mourn Ashli Babbitt, period, unless they knew her personally and liked her. And even those people should know she got what she asked for. If you try to breach a position defended by armed people, you risk getting shot.

The rest of your post is just sick.

[Commenter_XY]

When does legal influence peddling cross the line to illegal influence peddling? What action(s) make influence peddling illegal?

Can a VC Conspirator tell me how the law addresses that?

[David Nieporent]

If I were you, I would start here.

[Commenter_XY]

I remember reading about that case! Is it a stretch to say that McDonnell defined crossing the line when it is truly quid pro quo...you do this 'official act' in the form of a policy change to benefit me directly, and I will give you money.

Is that a fair summary of how to interpret McDonnell?

[not guilty]

McDonnell v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016), turned on the meaning of what constitutes an "official act" for purposes of the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201. The nut graf is:

In sum, an "official act" is a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy." The "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy" must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee. It must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official. To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision or take an action on that "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy," or agree to do so. That decision or action may include using his official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an "official act," or to advise another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an "official act" by another official. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)—without more—does not fit that definition of "official act."

136 S.Ct., at 2371-72.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, I don't think I was too far off = my quid pro quo cooment

[Gandydancer]

"That decision or action may include ... advise[ing] another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an 'official act' by another official. "

So was Justice Fortas asking LBJ for a pardon for his criminal Wall Street patron an official act?

[not guilty]

I don't think so. Assuming arguendo that Fortas made such a request -- which Fortas denied -- your ellipsis curiously omits language about use of official position.

The relevant language from McDonnell would be "Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)—without more—does not fit that definition of 'official act.'”

[Gandydancer]

No, I did not omit any relevant language, so the “curiously” bit is an uncalled-for slur. Here is the full text: “That decision or action may include using his official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an “official act,” OR to advise another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an “official act” by another official.” I omitted “to exert pressure on” since I assumed Fortas’ words to LBJ were in the nature of advice rather than pressure and the “or” made any lack of pressure irrelevant. Thanks for once again demonstrating that you are a slimeball.

Your quote is not the relevant one since Fortas’ request (if it took place) was not merely “talking to” LBJ.

EDIT: Wikipedia: "Wolfson... asked Fortas to help him secure a pardon from Johnson, which Fortas claimed that he did not do."

[Dr. Ed 2]

How much more of the Biden Crime Family will we tolerate?

We're WAY beyond the worst of Watergate here....

[Frank Drackman]

Like with Richard Milhouse, who considered Spiro T to be his Impeachment Insurance, Senescent J could stumble into WW3 and nobody wants Common-Law H

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wasn't that such a neat and helpful coincidence for the Democrats that the FBI arrested Santos on the same day as the GOP presser?

What uncanny timing!

[Gandydancer]

Not feeling any sympathy for Santos. Using legit DOJ enforcement opportunities for political gain is not an outrage. (Concealing the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop was, however, corrupt.)

[Estragon]

“Swinging from a lamp post” Ed is mad as hell and he’s not going to take it! He’s going to strafe the border with an A-10 by gum!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, strafe the border -- and anyone standing there DIES.

Deserves to die.

[David Nieporent]

You are a sadistic lunatic. Nobody "deserves to die" for a victimless "crime."

[Gandydancer]

American citizens are indeed the victims of this ongoing theft of their patrimony.

But punishment is the wrong framework for inflicting death on invaders in self defense.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators.

And the reason your law schools would pay you to get the hell off campus.

[Nelson]

"We’re WAY beyond the worst of Watergate here…."

Tell me you are a virulent partisan without telling me.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any surprises in CNN/Trump town hall?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Trump shockingly did not pivot to being presidential.

[Frank Drackman]

the current "Presidential" being not doing anything other than rose garden appearances before 2pm. Best part was the panel of Talking Heads on CNN afterwards. Curiously, they didn't seem confident that "45"'s 0-24 prospects were doomed.
I give CNN credit, they didn't bus in an Antifa crowd from MA.

Frank

[Nelson]

I was surprised that he believes (and more, was willing to say in public) that the US defaulting would be good.

It shows a complete lack of understanding of what the debt limit is and what default would cause.

The election stuff, while completely insane, was completely predictable.

[not guilty]

Judge Juan Merchan in New York has granted the prosecution's motion for a protective order regarding discovery materials and information in the state court prosecution of Donald Trump. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23807797-protective-order-5-8-23

Seems reasonable to me.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course it would.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte.

It's a bullshyte prosecution to begin with.

[David Nieporent]

Did a trucker tell you that?

[Frank Drackman]

How do think the shit paper you wipe your ass with got to Whole Foods??(never been to Whole Foods, bet they have some $$$ shit paper) Fair number of "Truckers" (they prefer to go by "Commercial Drivers") are Afro-Amurican/Hispanic (not many Asians) it's one job anybody with decent coordination and a HS ed-jew-ma-cation can get with a few months training. UPS feeder drivers make more than most School Teachers (deservedly)

Frank

[Krayt]

Dammit. Do I now have to stop saying edjumication, a wonderful Bushism, because someone might misinterpret it?

[Frank Drackman]

Be like Frank and not give a fuck what peoples thank,
Occasionally I'll get lip from some young Surgeon (you know, 45, 50)
and I'll say
"I'm a Doctor, I've been to War (and shot at), and have 0.4 hrs FA-18 Pilot in Command Time, and you're a fat meatball Surgeon" (in MASH they loved calling themselves "Meatball Surgeons" now they're "Acute Surgical Specialists"
OK, usually I'll just ignore them or just flip a bird

Frank

[Davedave]

OK, Walter Mitty.

[Frank Drackman]

OK Boomer

[MoreCurious]

Ask your mother to take you to a shrink -- you might be able to get help with these delusions of yours.

[Frank Drackman]

Sorry your life's so miserable you can't imagine their are peoples who make a shitload of money for "Working"

[MoreCurious]

Obviously no one is paying you for your command of the English language.

[Nige]

A Tucker, more like.

[Commenter_XY]

Question for VC Conspirators: Best & Easiest Air Fryer thing you make

VC Conspirators, Commenter_XY has a problem....what to do with a brand new Air Fryer, still in the box, waiting to liberated and used in the kitchen. I have read a lot of reviews, raves on air fryer hacks, crispy this or that. It is time for Commenter_XY to elevate his game, and get to know and love the air fryer.

For those of you who have an air fryer, what do you make?
If you had it to do all over again, what would you do differently vis a vis features/use of the air fryer?
For those of you with an air fryer, what can you make in less than 15 minutes?

If there is one thing you'd tell someone who is first learning how to use it, what would that be?

[Mr. Bumble]

For what it's worth:
You have it, so use it. Why not try making something you enjoy that you would normally fry and use that as a baseline.

[Brett Bellmore]

We got an air fryer years ago when the craze started. Total waste of money, the result was nothing like frying. It's been collecting dust ever since.

Maybe we just bought the wrong one, it was an impulse buy, we hadn't researched which ones had the best reviews.

[Moderation4ever]

I have a small air fryer that I find useful as a small oven for making small amounts of food. Great for a single order of fries or an egg roll. I also have a convention bake mode on my oven and find that I use that most often for regular cooking.

[Brett Bellmore]

I end up just oil frying. After all, even at 64 and regularly eating fried foods, my cholesterol and lipids are just fine. Lucked out and got mom's relevant genes, not dad's, thank goodness.

[Moderation4ever]

I would agree that oil frying is really better. It is also messy, so I leave oil frying to restaurants. that way I get the flavor and someone else is doing the cleaning.

[Jmaie]

Get one of these:

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B08H8SW2W2/reasonmagazinea-20/

Granted you still have to deal with oil disposal, but this eliminates splatter and keeps the oil temperature steady better than anything but a thermostatically-controller deep fryer.

[Brett Bellmore]

But thermostatically controlled deep fryers are actually pretty affordable. Not much more than that pot you linked to.

That was pretty nice, though; If we tended to deep fry while camping I'd be tempted to get one.

[Davedave]

“what to do with a brand new Air Fryer, still in the box, waiting to liberated and used in the kitchen”

Return it, or sell it. They’re junk.

Finally found something I can agree with Brett on. They're that bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect we agree about a lot of things, we just don't tend to discuss them.

For instance: Bruce Campbell is the King of B movies. Can it really be disputed?

Rey is a Mary Sue.

Whatever it is Apple Jacks taste like, it isn't apples.

[Davedave]

I have no idea what any of that means, so looks like we're back to the norm.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You never ate Apple Jacks?

[Davedave]

I thought you drink applejack.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I got one as a gift and use it somewhat regularly, I probably wouldn’t replace it if it broke. Despite the name, think of it more as a replacement for a toaster oven than a deep fryer.

[Nelson]

Agreed. I roast Brussels sprouts and broccoli in mine and it does a great job. Making almost anything heat-and-serve, especially in the summer when you don't want the oven pumping heat into the house, is a great use.

I also use it like a salamander to broil cheese on hoagies to get a nice melt (or browning, if you prefer). Actually, anything broiled works well, but there isn't a whole lot of clearance between the rack and the elements, so you need to take the rack out for bigger things.

[Michael P]

New York is officially uncharitable: https://apnews.com/article/sisters-of-charity-new-york-nuns-catholic-religious-women-ee5de7caeb0dc130148f8fb806404f3c

[Krayt]

The congregation continues to shrink and age — and not a single new sister has joined their U.S. group in more than 20 years.

It's been decades since the average age of a nun has been advancing by almost one year per year. My aunt was a nun and her large order would get 4 or fewer new ones a year.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If Catholic Charities weren't making a killing with illegal aliens....

[Nelson]

Yeah, they just keep helping the needy regardless of who they are or where they come from.

What would Jesus do?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you see so many Democrat serfs crying about their student loans, their suffering from the massive debt, and begging the Federals to do something about it?

Is it because the Democrat serfs are too stupid to realize it was the Federals who created this debt slavery system to begin with?

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think anyone is wrong to worry about the debt incurred in getting an education. When I was in high school economics class, I was told that long term debt was acceptable for buying a house and getting an education. That advice has changed because of the value of an education has dropped. It is important to remember that college education cost is one of the first debts a young person now takes on. We know that older people are concern with social security and Medicare, why is it not a similar case for a young person with college costs.

Just as we need to rethink SS and Medicare we need to rethink financing college education.

[Brett Bellmore]

When I was in high school economics class, it was still possible to get a college education without long term debt; It was cheap enough you could finance it by working summers.

[Mr. Bumble]

I've mentioned this before. Pre student loans (1966) state college tuition in NJ $75.00/ semester.

[Moderation4ever]

It is worth noting that college tuition has risen faster than the minimum wage. It also worth noting the value of the education has changed. On my first day, on my first job after college I made more than my father who had worked for more than 30 years. I don't think that is as true today.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I KNOW it's not true today -- over half of college grads have a job for which no college degree is required.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course college tuition has risen faster than the minimum wage, or for that matter, the prevailing wage. It's DUE to the student loans! They enabled the colleges to get away with raising their prices.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and we've seen institution inflation. Those colleges I mentioned were formerly normal schools and are now "universities" with six figure salary presidents and the accompanying bloated administration.

[Nelson]

This is true. Any subsidy, even just the difference between a lower interest rate and a normal interest rate, will raise the price of the productbit's used to buy. That's just basic economics.

[Nelson]

A graduate entering the workplace today will have the same amount of income 10-12 years earlier than they would have if they went straight into the workplace.

Said another way, making more money earlier in your working life means that each additional dollar is worth more than that same dollar would be worth in 10 years.

The question becomes "does this additional income balance out the additional cost of college?". That is completely dependent on your chosen field and the cost of your college education.

If you want to be a teacher, there is no alternative. You have to have a college degree to be a teacher. If you want to get into management, you can start at the bottom and work your way up without a degree, so the determining factors becomes the cost of the degree and the income in your field.

But mostly, what a college degree earns you is time. You start making more money, younger, so you have more pre-child years to save. You can afford bigger purchases (like a house) younger. You can invest earlier, resulting in bigger gains.

Money has a time value that means that if two people are making $50,000, the one who is 10 years younger (or, if you prefer, 10 years earlier in their working years) is effectively making more because they have more time over which it can grow.

With all of the variables, most people don't have the math to determine which path is mathematically superior. But most people think that making more money earlier in your working life is better.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's a nice speech, but it ignores my point.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is Diane Feinstein the oldest woman alive? From her pictures, she looks to be about as old as Methuselah. Like she knew him personally.

[David Bremer]

She's only the second-oldest person on the Senate.

I once was in a meeting with a financial-services regulator who made a big deal about how people experience cognitive decline starting at at 55 or 60, so they shouldn't be sold certain type of financial products (because they can't understand them).

And then I remind myself that 1/3 of the senate is over 70 and debating how to handle the $34.1 TRILLION debt limit.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why does Hunter and Joe have 30 LLCs?

[David Nieporent]

Who said Joe had any?

Why does Donald Trump have hundreds of LLCs? Could it perhaps be because it's a basic and widely used business form for businesses with a small number of owners?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol what business is Hunter and Joe in?

[David Nieporent]

Do you think if you keep saying "Hunter and Joe" it will retroactively create involvement by Joe Biden?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You believe everyone in the family, and extended family, made millions EXCEPT Joe?

[David Nieporent]

I don't believe "everyone in the family," with or without Joe, made millions. But I do believe that the documents released yesterday (a) do not show any criminal activity of any sort; and (b) do not mention Joe Biden receiving anything, let alone millions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can get you a great deal on this bridge in Brooklyn....

[Nige]

I mean, do that instead of pointing to where the documents show Joe Biden getting millions.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey remember that laptop that the Democrat CIA recruited people to refute in order to illegally influence a US election that had the evidence on it that you're requesting?

[Nige]

'Big guy.' That's the evidence.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well, frankly Nige, you're 99.9% ignorant of the contents of the laptop.

So there's that.

[Nige]

If there is any other evidence in the laptop, nobody has pointed it out.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta “Hey remember that laptop…”

The laptop had all the explosive scandal of a drenched squib. Never was a nothing more nothing than the laptop. Wanna list of the petite little scandalettes your laptop gave us?

1. Hunter got a business associate a handshake w/ Daddy

2. Joe knew more about sonny’s biz than he liked to admit.

3. Hunter may have wanted to cut dad in on a deal long after Joe had returned to private life. The deal went nowhere anyway.

4. Hunter didn’t always lead a clean & pious life!

And that’s it, soup to nuts. Blink and you’d miss the scandal meter faintly twitch. Has there ever been a more jokey “scandal” than Hunter’s laptop ?!?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Don't forget the child rape and the banging his underage neice part.

[Nige]

Or the Hilary face-carving video!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's "illegal" to sign a letter expressing an opinion in hopes of influencing (more precisely, countering disinformation you believe is being spread in) an election?

I'm not familiar with that one. Please cite.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : “Don’t forget the…. (gibberish)”

To sum up:

1. BCD offers up a hysterical comment on the all-important laptop.
2. I point out there was zilch on the laptop.
3. BCD responses with lies about stuff not on the laptop.

Of course we all know BravoCharlieDelta is a fever-brain lying clown; that’s a given. And you can argue it’s wrong to respond to his more egregious dishonesty, but still:

The laptop was in the hands of two Joe Biden’s most virulent enemies, Rudy Giuliani and the N.Y. Post. If the filth BCD refers to isn’t just the product of his own sick mind, we would have expected Rudy or the NYP to release those facts. But they didn’t. Thus BCD is either extremely gullible or crudely lying (always a close race with him).

quod erat demonstrandum!

[David Nieporent]

Did you buy it from Donald Trump?

[apedad]

Man shot 14-year-old girl in back of head after she played hide and seek on his property: Deputies

The property owner, David V. Doyle, 58, allegedly said he saw shadows outside his home, “at which time he went inside and retrieved his firearm.” He told detectives that he returned outside, saw people running away from his property, “at which time he began shooting at them and unknowingly hit the girl,” the sheriff’s office said.

This case follows a number of similar, well-publicized cases in which residents allegedly shot innocent young people who ended up on their property.

In Missouri, Andrew D. Lester, 84, allegedly shot Ralph Yarl, 16, in the head and arm when the teenager mistakenly showed up at his home. Yarl intended to go to a friend’s nearby home to pick up his twin younger brothers. He survived, though loved ones said he will face a challenging recovery process.

In New York state, Kevin D. Monahan, 65, allegedly shot and killed Kaylin A. Gillis, 20, when she was the passenger in a car that pulled up in his driveway. She and three other young people were looking for another friend’s home, but they were lost, and the rural area did not have a lot of cellular or internet service, said authorities.

In North Carolina, Robert Louis Singletary, 24, allegedly shot and injured Kinsley White, 6, and her father William White after several young children were playing basketball in a neighborhood and a ball rolled onto his yard. He turned himself in to Florida law enforcement, authorities said.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/man-shot-14-year-old-girl-in-back-of-head-after-she-played-hide-and-seek-on-his-property-deputies/

Everyone one of these incidents is not only a shot towards an innocent person but also a shot towards 2A, and they will eventually kill 2A.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol no they won’t.

Why do you think the Federals want us disarmed so badly? The criminals will still have guns.

Do you think it's because the Federals want exclusive jurisdiction to kill us by destroying our health with Big Food feed and polluting our water with Big Pharma chemicals and our with Big Ag pesticides?

[apedad]

“Do you think it’s because the Federals want exclusive jurisdiction to kill us by destroying our health with Big Food feed and polluting our water with Big Pharma chemicals and our with Big Ag pesticides?”

No I don't think that at all.

But obviously you do.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think the Federals subsidize and mandate ethanol in fuel when it's objectively worse for the planet?

That are intentionally forcing contributions to global warming as they claim to believe it. Why?

[David Nieporent]

Do you think it’s because the Federals want exclusive jurisdiction to kill us by destroying our health with Big Food feed and polluting our water with Big Pharma chemicals and our with Big Ag pesticides?

No, because he's not mentally ill, which is what it would take to believe that.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think our food system, agricultural system, and water systems are so bad from incompetence, or from malicious intent?

I don't think glyphosate being banned around the globe but welcomed in the US is from incompetence. Maybe you do because you're a filthy bootlicker?

[Nige]

No, it's because of greed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

But you want these same greedy people to control your healthcare?

Why?

[Nige]

Greedy corporatons already control your healthcare by interposing themselves as entirely unnecessary but completely mandatory insurance middlemen.

They only use glyphosphates in the US because of the agricultural lobby. If Big Ag decided that the health of the land and wildlife and people were more important than massive profits to glyphosphate manufacturers, it'd be banned tomorrow.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who does Big Ag lobby?

[Nige]

Jesus I thought you did your own research.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They lobby Congress dimwit, the same people who made all these rules that have fucked up our country

[Nige]

On behalf of big greedy corporations. Anyone in Congress who objects is a 'socialist' or are 'east coast liberals trying to destroy small farms in rural America.'

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who made them mandatory?

Are auto insurance companies entirely unnecessary? If not, what's different between them and health insurance?

[Nige]

Not everyone has a car. Everyone needs healthcare.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What about clothing, food, and shelter?

[Nige]

That's what the social safety net is for. Which conservatives keep trying to destroy because they think poor people have it too easy.

[not guilty]

Firearms are objects of religious veneration. Child sacrifices to America's Moloch are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment guaranties of freedom of religion. https://www.nybooks.com/online/2012/12/15/our-moloch/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Gun nuts, like anti-abortion absolutists, will pay a steep price for hitching their political wagons to the wrong side of history, the losing side of the culture war, and the weaker side at the modern American marketplace of ideas.

Educated, modern, reasoning Americans should not get too cocky, though. If conservatives devise a machine that mass-produces uneducated, bigoted, drawling, superstitious, gullible, easily frightened, on-the-spectrum, economically inadequate, rural, elderly white males -- and Republican lawyers such as the Volokh Conspirators figure a way to register the newly minted hayseeds to vote -- Democrats could have a real problem on their hands.

Other than that, though, the trajectory of the culture war should continue to be a glorious liberal-libertarian arc shaping progress against the wishes and efforts of right-wingers.

[Michael P]

Civil society strikes a bargain: The government enforces laws and protects citizens, and in return citizens don't perform vigilante justice.

Leftist governments are willfully violating that bargain. These kinds of shootings are the entirely foreseeable consequence.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, go with this argument. Innocent people getting shot are attempted vigilante justice.

Sure to get everyone on your side about guns.

[not guilty]

Michael P, in each of the child killings listed above by apedad, what do you claim was the relevant action or inaction by the government? Please be specific.

[Michael P]

You count as badly as you do everything else.

[not guilty]

I understand that you want to dodge my question, but at least make a pretense of being responsive.

What do you surmise that I am counting?

[Michael P]

You wrote "child killings" so I surmise you counted more than one. Such a count would be wrong.

[not guilty]

Fair enough. I should have written "child shootings" rather than "child killings."

Now explain, in each instance cited by apedad, what you claim was the relevant action or inaction by the government that gave rise to the children's injuries.

[jb]

Ah yes, the lefty enclaves where law and order has broken down so vigilante shootings of random innocents are required. Where are these hellholes? (checks cited story) Oh yes: Louisiana, Alabama and North Carolina.

[Frank Drackman]

They are hellholes (more accurately shitholes) but not in the sense that you mean. They're shitholes in the sense that Somalia, Zimbabwe, South Africa are shitholes.

"Feel Me? "Bro"???

Frank

[Michael P]

Did you say Louisiana? https://www.newsmax.com/us/louisiana-murder-racial/2023/05/10/id/1119366/

[EscherEnigma]

... which explains why these keep happening in red states and rural areas, which are notoriously run by "leftist governments".

[Gandydancer]

It explains why the op compiled this particular list and didn't mention the weekly death tolls in Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, ... You, know, all the places where murder actually happens at high rates.

According to the FBI some 64% of murders committer in 2021 where the race of the perpetrator is known were committed by blacks. Why is apedad's list such an outlier?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Innocent my arse -- those kids knew they ought not be in his yard and who knows what they had done there in the past.

Don't trespass -- don't get shot.

[Nige]

You've gone feral.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This does seem to be a change. Off his meds?

[Kazinski]

Whether they could be cited for trespassing has nothing to with the standard for using deadly force. He should be charged with negligent homicide at the least.

But it's somewhat telling that people citing this incident aren't citing the much more common incidents of spur of the moment shootings in Chicago, or St. Louis, as a reason to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

He should be charged with negligent homicide at the least.

How would that work? He intentionally shot her, so it seems to me that either he has a valid justification defense (in which case he didn’t commit a crime at all), or he doesn’t, in which case he’s guilty of second degree murder.

[Gandydancer]

Now do Lt. Michael Byrd.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Does it matter? No one cares about what happens in the inner cities--that's why it continues to happen.

But people do care about what happens "on their street", and this seems to be happening more frequently "on their street". If true (and, possibly, even if not true), people may then act in response to it--despite never reaching that point of engagement/action in respect of the inner cities.

Surely, these stupid killings are not a "good" thing for the gun rights movement? (Dr. Ed, you're excused from answering.)

[John F. Carr]

On the facts described in these cases, I say "bad shoot" all around. You can go to court to deal with a neighbor who keeps going into your yard.

If we start talking about snowmobilers trespassing and the sheriff doesn't care, then I feel sympathy for the homeowner who strings an obstacle across the trail. Sympathy from afar. I won't be on the jury. I live in a county where that isn't much of a problem. I don't own any land that is attractive to snowmobilers.

[Bob from Ohio]

Let's post murder blurbs!

Here's one:

"CHICAGO - Four teens were charged and ordered held without bail Wednesday in the fatal shooting of off-duty Chicago Police Officer Aréanah Preston.

Murder charges were filed against Joseph Brooks, 19, Travell Breeland, 19, Jakwon Buchanan, 18, and a 16-year-old, according to CPD Interim Supt. Eric Carter."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let’s post murder blurbs!

Prof. Volokh likes the way you think!

(So long as you focus on blacks, Muslims, residents of Democratic jurisdictions, drag queens, transgender citizens, and lesbians, obviously.).

[Frank Drackman]

Like Willie Sutton said about banks, thats where the Murders are (Blacks, Moose-lums, Residents of DemoKKKrat jurisdictions, Drag Queens, Transgender Citizens, )
OK, maybe not so much the Lesbos,

Frank

[Gandydancer]

Now that's a case with a more typical demographic mix than apedad's list. Note the photos: https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/areanah-preston-shooting-suspects-charges

[Armchair Lawyer]

The Biden family's secret accounts.

During the Biden Vice Presidency, a series of 15 shell companies were set up. These companies ultimately funneled over $10 Million from foreign sources to various Biden family members. Including $1 Million from Romania (Where Joe was pushing "anti-corruption" efforts) and lot of money from China.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12068135/Republicans-dig-10-MILLION-foreign-money-linked-payments-Biden-family-members.html

This appears to be corruption, influence peddling, and potential bribery.

[David Nieporent]

Narrator: it in fact does not appear to be any of those things. Also, people who don't get their notions of the business world from Hollywood do not talk conspiratorially about "shell companies."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Is the narrator going to tell us what it does appear to be, or just leave the audience in suspense?

[Armchair Lawyer]

The narrator is going to likely obfuscate, and redefine words to fit his own understanding, without citing proper definitions.

[bevis the lumberjack]

David, why did they give Hunter the money to spread around?

[bernard11]

Where does it say they gave the money to Hunter Biden to "spread around?"

Hunter Biden traded on his name, no doubt, to get some BS contracts. For all the references to the "Biden family" there is nothing at the link that says Joe got paid.

In fact, the very use of that phrase is a nasty way to insinuate that Joe Biden is a crook without having to support the claim, or ber held accountable.

It's slimy. And if you think Comer's interpretation of the information is honest you're nuts.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hunter got paid. Hallie got paid. James got paid. An "unknown" Biden got paid. "Robert" got paid.

[Gandydancer]

" For all the references to the “Biden family” there is nothing at the link that says Joe got paid."

Why do I have to rely on the link rather than other knowledge?
Joe is worth how much, despite being a lifetime "public servant" paid well, but not enough to explain his wealth?

I was going to bring up the Biden residence rent thing, but that turns out to have been Hunter being Hunter. Amusing, though:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/big-twist-hunter-biden-apartment-application-media-ignored

[David Nieporent]

Why do I have to rely on the link rather than other knowledge?

Because you don't have any of the latter.

[Gandydancer]

Know-nothings (a/k/a Democrats) are your target audience, but that's not me.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The constant references to "the Biden family" tells you all you need to know about these allegations.

[Gandydancer]

This "Big Guy", who needed to get his percentage, who was that?

And all that unexplained money Biden has -- it came from where?

This posture of determined ignorance isn't as good a look as you imagine it to be,

[David Nieporent]

All what unexplained money Biden has?

[Gandydancer]

Look up his estimated net worth and compare it to his total salaries. If the huge discrepancy isn't unexplained you ought to be able to come up with one unrelated to the corruption obvious in his family's activities.

[TwelveInchPianist]

NYT publishes take about how Cleopatra should be played by a black actress because she was "Culturally Black".

Time to accept that a large part of what these grievance studies departments produce is meaningless drivel.

[David Nieporent]

That was one of the more incoherent pieces I've ever read.

[Gandydancer]

He doesn’t name the author of the NYT drivel, which he ought, but what he said is not demonstrably incoherent.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what you mean. "What he said?" The authors of the piece were women, and what they said was completely incoherent.

[Gandydancer]

Your being determinedly stupid isn't the same as his being incoherent. Who were these "women" and what connections do they have to grievance studies departments?

Also, are YOU aware how dumb it is to claim that Cleopatra was “Culturally Black”?

[David Nieporent]

Also, are YOU aware how dumb it is to claim that Cleopatra was “Culturally Black”?

Um, yes. That's why I called the column that made that claim "incoherent." Are you stupid or just illiterate?

[Gandydancer]

OK, I ran across an article on this silliness. The authors of the piece are Edith Gwendolyn "Gwen" Nally and Mary Hamil Gilbert. The latter's "academic interests" include "Women & Gender Studies" and "Feminist Theory". The former is "an Assistant Professor of Philosophy and an Associate Faculty member in the Classics Program and the Race, Ethnic, and Gender Studies Department at the University of Missouri". So, yes, TwelveInch is absolutely right that this article is evidence that the denizens of grievance studies departments produce meaningless drivel.

[Sarcastr0]

As to this very important issue, there are and I expect will be plenty of white cleopatras in stuff. Your white cleopatra needs will be fulfilled, no need to get all white resentment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Focus, Sarcastro. The comment's not complaining about a black actress playing a white character. Not sure what's motivating your dishonesty on this one.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because he is generally an ass wipe.

[Bob from Ohio]

"what’s motivating your dishonesty"

Its his hobby?

[David Bremer]

Saying that the role shouldn't be limited to a black actress =/= saying that it must be a white actress.

[Bob from Ohio]

"As to this very important issue,"

If a white man got cast in a Toussaint Louverture bio [for instance], you'd be howling to the rafters along with the rest of your tribe.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, that's right. Race, being a social construct, is not symmetric.

[Commenter_XY]

Race is a biologic fact, not a social construct.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yikes!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Wow, is that wrong!

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's really not. Look it up.

You'll find some people calling race biological. They're...not coming at it from a scientific point of view.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ass wipe strikes again.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0 it is human genetics. I mean, science. It is just a biologic fact. What is there to argue?

[Sarcastr0]

No. Race is not genetics.

Look up how the Italians went from swarthy foreigners to white.

Or how we started caring about skin color to begin with.

[Commenter_XY]

And you do research science grants, Sarcastr0?

[Sarcastr0]

Including sociology, yes. But I'm not leaning on my own authority here; I can provide you links to studies if you want them.
But based on your stubborn repeated ipse dixit I don't think you're interested in being challenged.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, you cannot change objective reality. There is genetic variation between races. That is just objective truth. It is fundamental science. There is no moral judgment, Sarcastr0. It is just genetics. Not a bad thing. What is there to challenge?

Now...How we treat each other, based on race, is a completely different question to me. That ain't science, like genetics or biochemistry. I call that basic human relations. I think those are the people you alluded to when you said, You’ll find some people calling race biological. They’re…not coming at it from a scientific point of view.

I've read Professor Bernstein's articles. Where I personally came out is here: All of us are created in the image of our living God, so we are bound to treat each other as human beings (with all our frailties), who are imbued with holiness. There are genetic differences between races (black, brown, yellow as examples) - this is just genetic variation, that's all. It is the outwards appearance. But in our hearts and minds, we are all still human beings. That is how I address the people who use biological differences between races for less than honorable purposes.

[Sarcastr0]

That is just objective truth. It is fundamental science.

You're very confident, and very wrong. Your science is like 30 years out of date.

Read something on the science.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You’re very confident, and very wrong. "

The projection here is amazing.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m the only one to provide a link. You all are just stamping your feet.

You are ignorant. And refuse to engage with new information because you want to stay that way.

The GOP, folks!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’m the only one to provide a link."

A link! That changes everything! The link doesn't help you, because you don't understand the discussion.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Look up how the Italians went from swarthy foreigners to white."

Most Italians have always been white, as Bernstein points out.

Scientism is the irrational belief that your biases are supported by science.

You're quibbling over semantics, not science.

[Sarcastr0]

Bernstein writes often on how race is a bad substitute for genetics.

His next steps are wrong, but he has the science right.

Here is a decent runthrough: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

I have plenty of actual scientists who agree with me, and a line of research going back quite some time.

You have being a dick on the Internet. Maybe don't invoke sciencism when you're so unequal to the task of actually engaging with the science.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You have being a dick on the Internet."

Me? You're the one constantly calling people asshole, tool, fuckface, whatever. Your entire repertoire is poo-flinging. I mean, you just called me a dick.

And you couldn't even muster an honest comment about women of Ancient Greek lineage being labeled "Culturally Black".

Science is a process, Sarcastro. What's the experiment that proves that race is a social construct and not a "biologic fact"? If you can't answer that, then you're probably quibbling over something non-scientific, like proper terminology and how to define the question.

So is race a social construct or a biologic fact? Well, in some senses it could be said to be a social construct, and in others it can be said to be a biologic fact. But there's really no science involved until you define your questions better.

[Sarcastr0]

There you are, denying the science I cite and calling me a liar to boot.

Yes, you have nothing but dickery.

What’s the experiment that proves that race is a social construct and not a “biologic fact”?
I linked an article. But these days you're not one to care much to engage with actual facts, just resentment.

"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded," Pääbo told Live Science. "It is all a question of differences in how frequent different variants are on different continents and in different regions."

So quit with your 'race is a land of contrasts' bullshit - no one is buying it - and do your homework.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There you are, denying the science I cite and calling me a liar to boot.

Wow, you managed to squeeze a lie and a complaint about being called a liar into the same sentence. And I also called you a poo-flinger. Don't forget that.

Here's a clue: Claims like "race is a social construct" and "race is a biologic fact" are two imprecisely defined to be subject testing. Your study claims that race is too imprecise to be a useful variable in understanding genetic diversity, which might be a valid point, but it certainly isn't the only way of looking at race. It certainly doesn't disprove the claim that "race is a biological fact".

It too bad science bureaucrats don't understand science.

Dick.

[Sarcastr0]

Claims like “race is a social construct” and “race is a biologic fact” are two imprecisely defined to be subject testing.

No. This is you not doing your homework and trying to bluff with 'everything is unclear, maaaaan. I mean, is science ever really truth? It's a proooceeeessss.'

This has been extensively written about by real scientists, who are pretty food at precisely defining things.
You're trying to argue against what you think the science is, and you are wrong.

Because you refuse to do your homework. I've linked it and quoted it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No. This is you not understanding science.

[Sarcastr0]

You could read the article. Or another one in the subject.

But nah you will declare yourself the arbiter of real science without doing your homework.

I’d call it lazy, but really it’s that you’d prefer ignorance and anger to changing. It’s fear.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. I did read the article. It doesn't say what you claim it says, Sarcastro.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Still not right. Hasn't changed at all.

[David Nieporent]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

You have a racial genotype. That's biological. But racial classifications are often socially constructed. (The Bernstein Signal?)

[Sarcastr0]

We don't even have a racial genotype - genes cannot tell you what race you are; our buckets are too weird and small.

The driver for race is random geographic boundaries, history, apophenia, and phenotype. All of which, even phenotype, are a bad correlation with genotype.

[Gandydancer]

What role does “symmetry” play in the question of whether Toussaint Louverture ought be played by a white actor?

[Sarcastr0]

Even in a fictional world black to white hits different than white to black.

Because social construct, etc.

[Gandydancer]

What role does “symmetry” play in the question of whether Toussaint Louverture ought be played by a white actor?

[Gandydancer]

Why should ANY depiction of a Ptolemy be black, or asserted to be “Culturally Black”? And who was the loon who said so?

[John F. Carr]

Thirty years ago I remember the mainstream media gushing over a black man playing a white character, I think it was Simon Legree from Uncle Tom's Cabin.

(We didn't say mainstream media back then.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That would change the atmophere of Uncle Tom's Cabin quite noticably.

[ducksalad]

It could work. Sort of analogous to this:

https://www.jta.org/2019/10/23/culture/theres-a-long-history-of-jews-playing-nazis-on-screen

[Frank Drackman]

You mean Colonel Klink wasn't Aryan???? Well at least we still have Sergeant Shultz and General Burkhalter.

[Gandydancer]

Not remotely analogous. Many Ashkenazi Jews, in particular, would generally have little difficulty playing a plausible Aryan-German. A black Cleopatra is as ridiculous as John Wayne playing Ghenghis Khan (which he did, btw).

Denzel Washington in Branagh’s 1993 Much Ado About Nothing was jarring. Sorry, the Prince (or whatever that role was) can’t be black.

[ducksalad]

My wife and I really liked Denzel Washington in that movie.
In fact, she (sadly) displayed an unseemly amount of admiration. But anyway I figure the play's neither historical nor realism so it's fine.

[Gandydancer]

In the original presentations the women were played by men, but this was a movie not set on obvious sets. Since DW has no eye-candy appeal to cisgendered me his presence was merely jarring.

Not a fan of randomly black Hobbits either. There's a YouTube rant called "The Hobbit is Not Very Good" that goes on way too long but does address this in some detail, among many other things.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Core inflation in the US: 5.52% last month. Biden-flation continues.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Real wages year over year drop again. Dropping 1.1% from April 2022 (And April 2022 had real wages drop 3.1% from April 2021)....

People are getting poorer. At least most people.

[Michael P]

The well-connected still have plenty of foreign investment funds, though, from foreigners investing in access to powerful US politicians.

[Estragon]

Is there any way we can get Jack Texeria and Dominic Pezzola bunking together in federal prison? I feel like those two would really hit it off! Sadly, nobody wants to bunk with Stewie Rhodes. He never shuts up about his eyepatch and he has really bad breath. I’m surprised the warden lets him have internet access 18 hours a day to post here as “Dr. Ed 2”

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm laundering the warden's drug money through offshore accounts for him -- of course I have internet access...

/sarc

[MoreCurious]

Many of us have long believed that Trump is a misogynistic pig with no redeeming social qualities. A jury has now confirmed our beliefs. Will Republicans finally come to their senses, see him for what he is, and find a new standard-bearer who better represents the morals, ethics, and family values of both the old Republican Party and the vast majority of decent people? In other words, is he the best the Republicans can do?

[Michael P]

Will deranged leftists ever understand how the US legal system works, or will they continue think that a preponderance-of-evidence standard in a loony jurisdiction is iron-clad proof? The evidence points to the latter!

[David Nieporent]

I love how deranged rightists simply define any place with black people in it as a "loony jurisdiction."

[Mr. Bumble]

Never fail to play the race card even when it's not in the deck.
Where did Michael P mention "black people".

[Michael P]

He's just applying the Mayor Eric Adams standard. If you take sanctuary cities at their word, it's racist because some of them have mayors Of Color. If you point out the obvious political biases of their population, it's racist for the same reason.

People with bags of hammers for brains find this compelling logic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The loons in NYCC are WHITE....

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I love how deranged rightists simply define any place with black people in it as a “loony jurisdiction.”

Hands up, don't shoot! Amirite?!!!

[Frank Drackman]

never heard that term, down South it's still "Niggertown"

Example, "Hey Frank, you tried that new Taqueria??" "You kidding me? it's right in the middle of Niggertown"

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought NYC was Hymie Town (per the "Rev." Al).

[not guilty]

The "Hymietown" reference was by Jesse Jackson, not Al Sharpton. In 1984 IIRC.

[Mr. Bumble]

They all look alike to me.

sarc

[MoreCurious]

Will Trump-huggers ever understand that Trump is poison -- a man devoid of morals and ethics who will continue to destroy the Republican Party? Is he the best the Republicans can do?

[Mr. Bumble]

Now substitute Biden for Trump and Democrat for Republican and answer your question.

[MoreCurious]

Your feeble use of whataboutism tells me that my question was too complicated for you. Shall I use simpler words so maybe you'll understand it? Or maybe you're reluctant to admit that the only way the Republicans can beat Biden is with a person with a lifetime of decent, moral, and ethical behavior -- you know, like Republicans used to be before they sold their souls to the devil.

[Krychek_2]

The amazing thing isn't that Republicans sold their souls to the devil. The amazing thing is how cheaply Republicans sold their souls to the devil. They obviously don't place a high value on their own souls, and if I had known Republican souls could be had so cheaply, I'd have bought a dozen to give away as door prizes at my last dinner party.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you and MoreCurious would support a DeSantis nomination?

[Krychek_2]

If I were advising the GOP (and actually wanted the GOP to win) I would tell them that DeSantis would greatly improve their odds in November. Trump's nutty base may still love him but most of the rest of the country just wishes he would go away.

But DeSantis has his own electability problems in November. His anti-abortion and anti-gay views may make him popular with the GOP but they are going to kill him in the Northern suburbs he needs to win over if he wants to carry the electoral college. I don't see many Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania soccer moms voting for someone with his social views.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the GOP's chances are better with DeSantis, too, but even if they were equal I'd favor DeSantis, just on the basis that we shouldn't be running a candidate who's older than dirt, and demonstrably isn't that great at high level political infighting.

GOP leaders in Congress rolled Trump multiple times. I think they'd have a harder time doing that to DeSantis.

ANYBODY the GOP nominates next year is going to have a tough time winning, even if Biden strokes out in the middle of a debate. The Democrats have near absolute media dominance, and they've turned most of our educational institutions into indoctrination camps, that's a hurricane force headwind to run against.

And the Republicans let them gain and maintain that dominance, too. The Stupid party, indeed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Brett, simple choice. Against all odds the choices are Biden or Trump. Who do you vote for?

[Nige]

This is the ultimate outcome of utterly absorbing the Republicans' endless anti-media narratives - blaming the GOP for letting it happen to themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

Feh. Trump. Trump did some stupid stuff, and got rolled repeatedly, but he, or his staff, weren’t actively fighting to do the wrong thing. Not from a conservative perspective, except maybe that idiot bump stock ban, and he only did that because the NRA gave him the go ahead.

The list of actively bad things Biden has put work into doing is getting awfully long at this point. Emptying out the strategic petroleum reserve. Suppressing oil and gas production. Throwing our border with Mexico wide open. Sabotaging the Abraham accords. Telling Putin it was OK with him if Russia stole another chunk of Ukraine. A regulatory tsunami that’s going to destroy whole industries. “Milton Friedman isn’t in charge anymore.”

So, I wouldn’t like the choice, but it wouldn’t be a difficult choice, either. Just tragic.

Personally, I wanted Rand Paul. Not enough primary voters agreed with me.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, give it a rest. If the GOP can't win even with the electoral college, then maybe the problem is with the GOP. You guys could stop pushing policies that are wildly unpopular with the American people, just for starters.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think the primary problem actually is the Democrats controlling most media outlets and educational institutions. And, as I said, they only control them because the idiot Republicans let them. Never lifted a finger to stop it from happening, or until very recently, reverse it.

[Krychek_2]

Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 in part (there were other reasons too) because of the horrible coverage she got from the national media. October 2016 coverage was all about her emails. The idea that the national media only gives the GOP a hard time is a joke.

That aside, what specific steps would you have the Republicans take that wouldn't run afoul of the First Amendment?

[bevis the lumberjack]

“The Most Qualified Candidate Ever!!!!” got horrible coverage in the national media?

What else was different in the parallel universe you spent 2016 in?

[Krychek_2]

Bevis, are you saying she got good coverage? Because if you think she did, I'm not the one living in the alternative universe.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Bevis, are you saying she got good coverage?

Compared to the coverage that her opponent received? Absodamnedlutely.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, I think the electoral map and census changes make the 2024 electoral cycle friendlier to Team R. The POTUS race will come down to GA, PA and AZ. Charlie Kirk cited some interesting data on a recent Timcast. The POTUS race is Pick 'em (which is amazing to me, considering poor job performance by POTUS Biden).

The Team R marginally expands House majority. The Senate...who knows, but I would think just the math (number of candidates up for re-election) favors Team R.

There is a lot of time between now and next November. The race(s) will change many times.

[Nige]

As Brett said in another thread, the anti-Trump media fiendishly tried to sabotage Trump by covering the things he said and did. That this translated to anti-Trump coverage in the minds of Trump voters says more about Trump than the media.

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, yeah.

DeSantis does well with Republicans. But going to war with Disney is absolutely going to lose him independents. His "but they criticized my anti-gay law!" play really isn't going to persuade people.

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, right. The only reason the media said he was an agent of Putin is that he was.

[MoreCurious]

There's no basis for you to draw that conclusion. I've simply pointed out that Trump is unfit to be president. That does not imply that I would support DeSantis or anyone else at this point.

[Gandydancer]

No, you said "A jury has now confirmed our beliefs", which, given that it was a total atrocity of a baseless verdict is stupid beyond all belief.

[David Nieporent]

Gandydancer can detect forged ballots without seeing them and he can render trial verdicts without observing the witnesses.

[Gandydancer]

There were no witnesses. Not even the personal shoppers assigned to the two noticed the raping going on.

As Sherlock said, the informative thing is that the Hound didn't bark.

[David Nieporent]

There were no witnesses.

Anyone who testifies in court is called a witness. What you probably mean is that there were no eyewitnesses to the events… but that's of course wrong. E Jean Carroll was an eyewitness to the events.

She testified. The jury had a chance to observe her. And they found her credible.

[Gandydancer]

A preponderance of the evidence was not established by an uncorroborated improbable claim by an accuser, no matter that a corrupt and biased jury voted its preferences as to what to believe.

[Bob from Ohio]

"continue to destroy the Republican Party"

GOP is in better shape now than after Bush or the Dems after Obama. Control of one House, 49 senators, plenty of governors and state legislatures.

[Krayt]

Pols have so simulated the population to hate the other side, that anyone who comes along and can kick them in the nuts is just fine. That's what they vote for.

[Gandydancer]

No, Pols have convinced the population to hate them, and the only question is whether they still hate the other side even worse.

[Krychek_2]

Ten years ago, the idea that a man whom a jury had just determined committed sexual assault would be a viable candidate for president would have been unthinkable. But that's what "owning the libs" now comes down to for the MAGA crowd: They are willing to have as president a man whom a jury just determined committed sexual assault just because it will piss off the libs. That it's terrible for the country doesn't factor in. So, MoreCurious, for some Republicans the answer to your question is no. Trump really is the best that they can do.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy would like a word with your sudden discovery of moral fiber.

[Krychek_2]

Ted Kennedy was probably denied the presidency specifically because of Chappaquiddick, thus proving my point that it's not that long ago that that kind of behavior was indeed disqualifying. Had Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky come to light before the election Bill Clinton likely wouldn't have been elected president either.

I just love this whataboutism that isn't even on point. The right apparently seems to think that if both cases are about sex, then they must be on point. I guess that would be like a surgeon removing a liver rather than a kidney and saying, "Oh, well, they're both organs."

[David Nieporent]

Neither Paula Jones nor Monica Lewinsky alleged sexual assault.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do Juanita Broderick.

[Krychek_2]

Again, was this before or after the election? Had she alleged it before the election, he probably wouldn't have been president. If you're going to what about, please try to find something with facts that are actually comparable.

[David Nieporent]

Not only did she not allege it before the election, but she provided a sworn affidavit saying it didn't happen. In other words, the one thing we can be 100% certain of is that Juanita Broaddrick is a liar, because she has told multiple contradictory stories.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"because she has told multiple contradictory stories."

That's pushing it. She told a consistent story for 30 years, then denied it to get Paula Jones' lawyers off her back.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Jaunita Broderick did. Just as plausiblely as Jean Carroll did. Both told friends contemporaneously and Broderick’s friends even testified that she had a bloody lip.

And Krychek, saying that Ted was denied the presidency is probably accurate, but a real simplification. He was still deified by the Democrats. They didn’t reject him like you (and I) think the Republicans should Trump.

I agree with everything negative that everyone has said about Trump, but whitewashing Kennedy and Clinton doesn’t help your credibility in making the case that the Republicans are somehow faulty for not dumping Trump.

[Krychek_2]

Ted Kennedy was lionized because he spent 30 years fighting for causes liberals care about, and was quite effective in doing so. Unlike Trump, he was a workhorse who actually got things done.

None of which excuses his personal life. My own take on Chappaquiddick is that when he was confronted with real danger in a crisis situation, he immediately ran, and that's the real reason he shouldn't have been president. For as much as we know, he may simply have been giving Mary Jo Kopechne a ride home and there may not have been anything improper going on between them, but when a crisis hit, he was a coward and ran away. We don't need a president who is a coward and runs away from danger.

Should that have disqualified him from continued service in the Senate, or from being a national voice on issues Democrats care about? That's a separate question, and one on which I am conflicted and can see both sides.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, Trump is fighting for causes like having everyone use lame derogatory nicknames for people that he doesn't like. Don't dismiss that as nothing.

Kennedy was human scum, just like Trump. Whatever he and Kopechne were up to, bottom line is he drunkenly drove off a bridge and left a passenger to drown. There's a range of crimes that he could have been charged with, ranging from intoxication manslaughter through the regular manslaughters to negligent homicide. He got away with it because of his name and should have been shunned right out of the party. Expelled from the Senate.

As awful as Trump is, at least nobody has ended up dead as a result of his shenanigans. As far as we know.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

As awful as Trump is, at least nobody has ended up dead as a result of his shenanigans.

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Ashlii Babbitt.

Or not.

[Frank Drackman]

Thats funny Coach, almost as funny as the Floyd George Dance,
you try to pass a fake fin in a convenience store while high on Fentanyl and asphyxiate (not drown, there's a difference) starting
nationwide race riots (remember when we called thousands of Knee-grows looting and burning "Race Riots"??? now it's "Thursday in Manhattan"

Now THAT's how you tell a tasteless joke

Frank "Knock Knock"

[Gandydancer]

Floyd died of lungs filled with liquid (causing them at autopsy to weigh 2-3 times their "dry" weight). Why is this asphyxiation rather than drowning?

[EscherEnigma]

As awful as Trump is, at least nobody has ended up dead as a result of his shenanigans.

There was at least one spy that had to be quickly extracted after Trump outted them to Putin.

And that's that we know of.

[EscherEnigma]

More broadly though, he was literally president. People absolutely died due to his shenanigans. That really should go without saying.

So the question is bad. The question should be: "were the shenanigans worth it?"

[Gandydancer]

re: "extracted spy": Link?

[Brett Bellmore]

He didn't just run. He didn't have to have dived in after her, after all. All he really needed to do was promptly report the accident, instead of going home, taking a shower, and getting a good night's sleep first.

She actually lived long enough that if he'd reported it, she would have been saved; She didn't drown, she remained trapped in the car until she'd used up all the oxygen and asphyxiated. That took a long time.

It wasn't just cowardice, it was depraved indifference that killed her.

[Gandydancer]

In other words Trump in the Senate wouldn't arouse your disdain for the GOP voters who chose him?

Your pretenses to moral objection are unconvincing.

[Krychek_2]

If New York or Florida decided to send Trump to the Senate I'd roll my eyes but yes, I would find that far less objectionable than having him as president. Being one of a hundred senators is simply not the same thing as being president.

[Gandydancer]

That was not the question.

You: "Ten years ago, the idea that a man whom a jury had just determined committed sexual assault would be a viable candidate for president would have been unthinkable. But... the MAGA crowd... are willing to have as president a man whom a jury just determined committed sexual assault [even if]it’s terrible for the country..."

You: "Should that have disqualified [Kennedy] from continued service in the Senate, or from being a national voice on issues Democrats care about? That’s a separate question, and one on which I am conflicted and can see both sides."

It is of course not obviously "terrible for the country" if a man whose liability for a claimed rape was FALSELY determined to exist by a corrupted jury process. And compared to having someone remain in the Senate who fecklessly abandoned a young woman to her death... well, there's no comparison.

So I spit on your pretensions to moral concern. They're obviously faked.

[Nige]

I think you spray spit every time you open your mouth.

[Frank Drackman]

I think there's a Federal Statue pertaining to Witness Intimidation, look what happened to Vince Foster.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Have you forgotten Gennifer Flowers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennifer_Flowers

[Frank Drackman]

I had actually, it's like trying to remember all the James Bond Actors.

[Mr. Bumble]

All of whom were described as Bimbo Eruptions. Way to respect women.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Ted Kennedy was probably denied the presidency specifically because of Chappaquiddick, thus proving my point that it’s not that long ago that that kind of behavior was indeed disqualifying.

“that kind of behavior”? Kennedy killed a woman. You’re equating that with what Trump is alleged to have done? Also...did Chappaquiddick also deny him perpetual re-election to the Senate?

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, killing Kopechne is the exact equivalent of allegedly quietly raping the 53-year-old Carroll in a dressing room of a store where the good customers are accompanied by personal shoppers on some uncertain date. It's a real puzzler whether Kennedy should stay in the Senate to continue his good work after killing the girl. Have to think long and hard about that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not "just" them. For Clinton....
1. Juanita Broaddrick
2. Kathleen Willey
3. Leslie Millwee

Teddy had sexual assault claims from waitresses made against him.
And of course Biden has Tara Reade

So, the moral authority you seem to claim is misplaced.

[MoreCurious]

I suspect the New York civil case is just the beginning of the bad news Trump will face this spring and summer. I predict an indictment in Georgia followed by federal indictments involving January 6 and the Mar-a-Lago documents. If they happen, will these events finally cause the Republicans to wake up and realize that their party includes some decent, moral, ethical people, all of whom would be better suited than Trump to be president.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's more likely to result in Republicans waking up and realizing that the Democrats have escalated from scurrilous accusations to scurrilous legal actions.

I wonder if you could leverage the 14th amendment's due process clause to mandate a nation-wide statute of limitations or requirement that allegations must meet some threshold level of specificity in order to be the basis of a legal action?

[Krychek_2]

That would depend on whether the six conservatives on the Supreme Court are actually principled federalists. That would be a fairly significant federal power grab from the states, but since it would benefit Republicans, maybe the Supreme Court conservatives wouldn't care.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Justice Kagan is the wild card here.

She's a former Harvard Law Dean and while she leans left (!), there may still be enough due process and basic fairness left in her to make her say that this bullshyte needs to be stopped.

There is a classic line in _A Man For All Seasons_ where the king says that the laws of England are like trees in a forest, and if he chops them all down chasing the Devil, what tree will he have to hide behind when the Devil turns on him...

The other two, no, but Kagan might be bright enough to understand the consequences of the precedents being set here, and how they could be used against the Democrats in the future. (To their credit, the Red State AGs aren't pulling this stuff -- yet....)

And for those who remember who Richard Nixon was, imagine what his AG could have done with the powers being exercised today. Or what a (then Republican) California AG could have done to the Kennedy boys in the aftermath of Marilyn Monroe's death. Etc...

In a desperate attempt to defeat Trump, the left is setting lots of little brush fires in the tinder-dry woods without realizing the often-unintended consequences of such actions...

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they actually do understand the implications, but don't care on account of tacitly operating on the assumption that the tide will never turn, so that the Republicans will never have the chance to give them a taste of their own medicine.

There's a strong strain of 'end of days' thinking among Democrats, they're perpetually seeing the dawn of perpetual Democratic control of the country, starting right after the next election. It blinds them to the potential for blowback.

A beautiful example of this would be Reid and other Democrats openly discussing abolishing the filibuster for the Supreme court when the new Congress was seated... right before the 2016 election where they lost control of Congress!

Then whining like little babies when the Republicans actually did it.

[Nige]

The Republicans doing something being portrayed as payback for something Democrats didn't do is typical of the weird brain-rot that goes with this subject.

[Gandydancer]

It is indeed brain rot that you think that the GOP shouldn't react to Democrat shenanigans unless the D's succeed.

Not that I'm clear that the GOP did anything. What?

[Nige]

Yeah, the Republicans are always doing heinous shit then blaming it on Democrats for stuff they didn't do but could have.

[Gandydancer]

I REPEAT, BrokenBrain, what "heinous shit"?

[Nige]

You really are quite dense.

[not guilty]

"I wonder if you could leverage the 14th amendment’s due process clause to mandate a nation-wide statute of limitations or requirement that allegations must meet some threshold level of specificity in order to be the basis of a legal action?"

No on the statute of limitations. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments already provide that the accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation -- that is itself the threshold level of specificity.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Due process" can be construed to go a bit further than that, though. I kinda think it's a bit of a due process violation to proceed on a 20 year stale allegation, if the person leveling it can't even be bothered to identify when the supposed crime happened.

[not guilty]

Due process concerns can come into play in a particular case, such as when a criminal charge is timely commenced, but the government delays bringing the accused into custody in order to gain a tactical advantage at trial. That determination is by its nature fact specific.

Your question above posited a nationwide statute of limitations, based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The definition, prosecution and punishment of crimes is still primarily a state function, and the federal government's imposition of such a measure would be destructive of federal-state comity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it would be. Like a lot of other laws the federal government goes ahead with anyway.

[Nige]

The rest of the country will wake up to the fact that Republicans really, really think they are above the law.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Unlike Democrats, who are cheering on every Royal Decree from King Joseph regardless if there’s any legal basis behind the Decrees.

[Nige]

What a limp straw man. But we're talking legal issues here. Nobody but nobody is going to object if Hunter Biden gets indicted, let alone any actual Democrat against whom there is evidence of wrongdoing.

[Gandydancer]

Joe will object. He knows what Hunter can tell.

[Nige]

Again, Democrats are just as bad as Republians, look at the stuff they haven't actually done.

[Gandydancer]

We're talking about what Biden and his clan have done, not what Democrats haven’t done.

Where did Biden get his wealth, again? Hotels?

[Nige]

If we’re talking about that then we’re talkng about your imagination, fed by the right-wing fake-news machine. So, again, a lot of stuff that never happened.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Twenty-five years ago, it would be unthinkable that a POTUS who admitted to BJs from an intern wouldn't resign.

And then...

[SRG]

The English journalist David Aaronovitch reported that he was watching TV with his 8-year-old son and when someone said something like, “Clinton received a blow job from Monica Lewinsky in an alcove in the White House”, his son turned to him and said, “Dad, what’s an alcove?”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Back in 1973, when the AM radio station was playing a piece of a Nixon tape, they beeped the word "damn." I can't even imagine the word "blow job" being permitted by station managers, let alone the FCC.

[Frank Drackman]

More "Imagined History"
No nixon tapes were played on AM radio in the 1970's, I heard my first one at the National Archives in D.C. in 1983, they'd play 1 or 2 tapes each day in a big Courtroom looking room, with a "Historian" to tell you the background. They had headphones and transcripts to read along, but they wouldn't stop the tape or replay parts. There were lines waiting to get in when they started playing them, by the time I got there the interest had worn off and there were maybe 5 or 6 peoples. By 1988 they'd move the tapes to an Annex and you could listen to them at your own leisure, (no note taking! though)
in 1999 they were first offered for sale (just the Trial Tapes) and I bought the whole Schmear,
Now you can listen to almost every one online,
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/

Seriously, the stuff you "Mis-remember"

Frank

[Gandydancer]

The jury was shit and the verdict was shit. So of course the verdict changes my opinion of Trump not at all.

[Nige]

Gandy loves corruption and sex offenders.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't know about those things, but the defense was definitely shit.

[Voize]

What move did they have left, other than having him testify? Judging from his performance in the deposition that would have been a disaster.

[Sarcastr0]

When you don't like the outcome, just declare everything involved in reaching the outcome wrong and bad and then yell at people who, you know, looked at the actual trial.

Saves on brain power, I guess.

[Gandydancer]

If you looked and it wasn't shit then you are free to recount the evidence that Trump did it. But you can't because there was effectively none.

[Sarcastr0]

I have. Also the burden is in you who are declaring me very thing our of order.

Aggressiveness is not an argument.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Will Republicans finally come to their senses,"

Meh. The Dems didn't with Clinton.

[Frank Drackman]

and like with "45" William Juffuhson didn't get us into any stupid wars, and managed a pretty good economy, too bad they can't repeal the 22d? Amendment and run a Trump/Bill Clinton ticket

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Somolia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq would like a word with you.

I think that bombing that pharmaceutical plant was a new low in US military policy; Done entirely for 'wag the dog' purposes, it cut off a major supply of anti-parasitic drugs to Africa. All on the basis that the plant was also producing insecticides that COULD have been dual use as nerve agents, as though you couldn't say that of basically every pesticide manufacturer in the US.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, all bullshit uses of the Military, of course Somalia (Hey, I'm supposed to be the one with spelling Ish-yews!) was started by GHWB, and Clinton's Ear-Rock cam-pain was purely air attacks to distract peoples from his Monica Problems,
And you're surprised a POTUS who signed off on the Execution of a Retarded Black Man would have a problem with Parasites in Africa???

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Over a several day rampage Trump slaughtered 70 civilians in Afghanistan doing things like celebrating a wedding and harvesting nuts…and he ordered the assassination of a little American girl for calling him a pooop head as one of his first acts as president.

[Gandydancer]

You do know that you are generally regarded as a shameless liar, right?

[Kazinski]

When will Tara Reade get her day in court?

We can do better than both of our last 2 presidents.

[Gandydancer]

Only our last two?

[Sarcastr0]

If she finds the time between going on Russian state media to parrot Putin's anti-US talking points, the courtroom is not closed to her.

Though a jury's credibility determination may be a bit of a challenge at this point.

[David Nieporent]

She has no cause of action, so the courtroom is closed to her. Biden didn't call her a fabricating liar trying to sell books and/or help Trump win, so she can't sue him for defamation. And DC never revived adult claims for sexual assault the way NY did, so any such claim would be time-barred.

[Sarcastr0]

Point taken

[Michael P]

Matt Yglesias posted on his Substack that it would be crafty for Joe Biden to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve now so that he can use it later to prevent the re-election of Donald Trump.

Matt Yglesias seems to be living in a la-la land where using the federal budget for campaign stunts is legal and where the federal government is not about to hit the statutory debt limit.

[Sarcastr0]

It is legal, and the debt limit is an unrelated dumbass political stunt.

[David Nieporent]

That would not be an accurate summary of Yglesias's essay.

[Frank Drackman]

Petroleum???
Is that the same as Oil, that's refined to Gasoline, Diesel, etc etc
I mean isn't that burned in Internal Combustion Engines?? that produce CO2????
Fuck Sleep J and his Electric F-150 that costs $100,000

Frank

[Martinned]

Ofwat, the water and sewerage regulator for England and Wales, just published a draft new licence condition on customer service: https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Customer-Licence-condition-consultation-FINAL-.pdf

[John F. Carr]

"This Condition requires the Appointee to adopt high standards of customer service and support for the full diversity of customer needs."

Most exciting thing to happen in Wales since the last sheep huggers' convention!

[Martinned]

I'm glad that someone other than me actually opened that file. Misery loves company and all that...

[Mr. Bumble]

Most people are averse to opening things related to sewerage.

[apedad]

Sentence of Army sergeant convicted of murdering Black Lives Matter protester in question after Texas governor pledges pardon

An Army sergeant has been sentenced to decades behind bars for murdering a Black Lives Matter supporter at a protest in Texas in 2020, but he may not serve that time — because Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has vowed to seek a pardon.

Daniel Perry, 36, was sentenced to 25 years in prison on Wednesday. He was convicted on April 7 of murder in the fatal shooting of Garrett Foster, 28, at a Black Lives Matter rally in Austin, Texas, on July 25, 2020.

(At the time of Perry's guilty verdict, TX Gov.), Abbott posted a statement to Twitter that he had already requested that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles consider expediting a pardon — a highly unusual move, according to the AP, citing legal experts.

“Those who claim that Governor Abbott’s expressed intent is based on politics simply choose to ignore the fact that it was only the political machinations of a rogue district attorney which led to Sgt. Perry’s prosecution in the first instance,” the defense lawyer said.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/sentence-of-army-sergeant-convicted-of-murdering-black-lives-matter-protester-in-question-after-texas-governor-pledges-pardon/

Seems to me it's the Gov who's playing politics not the DA.

The impartial jury found the guy guilty after all.

[Kazinski]

That's why executives have pardon power in most of the states, to correct injustices in the courts. Of course in Texas it's the board of pardons and paroles, the took that power away from the governor decades ago for pardon abuse.

I hope you aren't saying juries are infallible, I'll have to remember that the next thread when the supreme court denies a stay of the death penalty.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The impartial jury found the guy guilty after all.

Because as we all know, there are no innocent people who have been wrongly imprisoned.

[apedad]

Justice Department Files Statement of Interest in Religious Land Use Case Involving Faith-Based Group That Feeds Homeless People in California

The Justice Department filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California explaining that the act of distributing food and drinks to people who are homeless by Micah’s Way, a faith-based organization that helps people in need, could be religious exercise under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).

The statement of interest was filed in Micah’s Way v. the City of Santa Ana, a lawsuit alleging that Santa Ana imposed a substantial burden on Micah’s Way’s religious exercise. At issue is the city’s denial of an occupancy certificate to Micah’s Way on the grounds that it was providing food and drinks to people who are homeless in violation of the city’s zoning ordinance. According to its complaint, Micah’s Way has a religious duty to help people in need, including by providing food and drink to someone who is hungry. After denying the occupancy certificate, the city informed Micah’s Way that it could not feed people who are homeless at its resource center under any circumstances and that if it continued to do so, Micah’s Way would be subject to fines and potential criminal prosecution.

The city filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing in part that providing food and drinks to people who are homeless is not religious exercise and that its denial of an occupancy certificate did not substantially burden Micah’s Way’s religious exercise. The department’s statement of interest argues that feeding people who are homeless may be religious exercise protected by RLUIPA and that the city’s denial of an occupancy certificate and complete prohibition on feeding people who are homeless may have imposed a substantial burden on Micah’s Way’s religious exercise, in violation of RLUIPA.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-statement-interest-religious-land-use-case-involving-faith-based

“The city filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing in part that providing food and drinks to people who are homeless is not religious exercise. . . . ”

Oooof. . . the city will probably lose just on that statement alone.

No (US) govt entity can decide what is a ‘religious exercise.’

I could see where a city could enforce zoning laws or maybe sanitary conditions – but they cannot decide what is a religious issue.

[Gandydancer]

"I could see where a city could enforce zoning laws or maybe sanitary conditions – but they cannot decide what is a religious issue."

Now distinguish deciding that claims that taking COVID drugs tested using aborted embryo cell lines is/is not a religious issue.

[apedad]

Year One of the Justice Department’s Comprehensive Environmental Justice Enforcement Strategy and Office of Environmental Justice

• On May 4, 2023, the Civil Rights Division announced an interim resolution agreement in an environmental justice investigation into the Alabama Department of Public Health and the Lowndes County Health Department (collectively ADPH) in Lowndes County, Alabama. The interim resolution agreement puts ADPH on a path towards ensuring the development of equitable and safe wastewater disposal and management systems in Lowndes County.

• The Division is continuing its investigation into the City of Houston’s operations, policies, and practices concerning illegal dumping, and the impacts on communities of color in Houston.

• ENRD filed a Clean Air Act lawsuit on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and sought immediate action by Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC to curb hazardous emissions from its plant in LaPlace, Louisiana. An elementary school lies 450 feet from the facility.

• ENRD attorneys filed a Safe Drinking Water Act lawsuit on behalf of EPA and negotiated an interim order with city and state officials to name a court-appointed manager and begin to stabilize the Jackson, Mississippi drinking water system.

• Felony convictions for mismanagement of an industrial waste landfill in Alloy, West Virginia (S.D. W. Va.).

• Indictments for selling contaminated grape juice to the National School Lunch Program in Yakima, Washington (E.D. Wash.), (E.D. Wash.).

• A sixteen-month sentence for a contractor who violated federal lead paint safety laws when renovating low and median-income housing in Indianapolis, Indiana (S.D. Ind.).

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-05/Office-of-Environmental-Justice-ONE-YEAR-FACT-SHEET.pdf

These Fed actions are GOOD things. . . right?

[Mr. Bumble]

Have they taken any action against those in the EPA responsible for the Gold King mine disaster?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Mostly, but I don’t get the Houston one. The complaint regards “illegal” dumping, from which you can infer that Houston has laws on the books making dumping in places other than established dumps illegal and that people are breaking those laws and dumping wherever they want, which probably doesn’t include River Oaks.

Hard to see how Houston deserves an investigation over that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is it where/how the city itself is dumping its own HazMat waste?
Lead paint dust from bridges, asbestos from boilers, PCBs from old transformers -- a large city is going to have more than you might think.

[Martinned]

Following 2 (!) mass shootings in Serbia, the people have taken to the streets demanding tougher legislation. The government has responded by freezing all new gun permits and starting a gun surrender programme. In the first three days, people already handed over 6,000 illegal fire arms.*

* If you're trying to work out if that's a lot: There are less than 7 million people in Serbia. Scaling up to US scale, that would be equivalent to about 300,000 weapons in the US. That would be a drop in the bucket, but only because the US has a higher rate of gun ownership than Yemen. Scaling it up by the differential estimated rate of gun ownership (120.5 per 100 people in the US, and 39.1 per 100 in Serbia, apparently) gets you to 925,000. Not bad for three days work.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Clearly in violation of the 2nd amendment to Serbia’s constitution. Oh….wait.

[Nige]

[Bob from Ohio]

"2 (!) mass shootings in Serbia"

Serbia, only 28 years from massacring 8,000 itself!

How many guns turned in then?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes, the Serbs have always been staunch allies in the fight against gun violence.

[Bob from Ohio]

As were the Dutch "soldiers" who stood by and did nothing.

[Martinned]

Really, you think the job of UN peacekeepers involves shooting at people? What part of "peacekeeper" do you not understand? Then again, if US policing practice is anything to go by, I can see why you might be confused...

[David Nieporent]

I think the job of a Protection Force (that's what the "PROFOR" was in "UNPROFOR") is to protect people, and if the Dutch troops and everyone in their chain of command had any sense of honor they'd have committed seppuku over their actions.

[Voize]

The Security Council sometimes authorizes a more active protective role, but generally the role of peacekeepers is as neutral observers and they are authorized to use force only in self-defense. Sometimes they aren't even armed.

[Nige]

Lots of guns held by patriots, apparently.

[John F. Carr]

A Massachusetts police officer has been decertified for attending the 2017 Charlottesville rally, and providing security for it. (Not, as far as I can see, for doing such a bad job with security that somebody got killed.) Decertification means he can not work as a police officer in Massachusetts and will be put on a national list. Traditionally, cities have bargained away their rights to fire bad cops. A new law allows the state to terminate the officer. The city has not violated the terms of its union contract.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05/08/metro/ex-woburn-police-officer-decertified-over-alleged-role-2017-charlottesville-white-supremacy-rally/

[bevis the lumberjack]

Damn, if only he’d limited himself to beating a citizen or shooting a couple of pets. Obviously poor judgment.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigots have rights, too.

But not necessarily the right to possess power over other citizens.

The world needs ditchdiggers, too.

[Frank Drackman]

OK Judge Smales

[Theendoftheleft]

Who has the guns, AIDS?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You could ask LaVoy Finnicum or Ashlii Babbitt . . . or David Koresh or the Weaver . . . but they learned that lesson the hard way.

[Theendoftheleft]

You've just claimed you'll force millions into the role of ditchdiggers. What happens when you don't have self-secluded sects, or one-offs, utilising their guns?

Your country is in so much more trouble than most of you realize. Keep talking this way, though, and see what happens.

[Gandydancer]

"The department found Donnelly used “racist and antisemitic language.”

Who knows what that means. Other than that claim, I'm not seeing the for cause described in anything approaching a convincing way.

[ReaderY]

Many kinds of political decisions involve balancing values or constraints. A speed limit might be described as a balance between efficiency and safety. When things go according to plan, going faster saves time. But when a mishap happens, going slower saves lives. There are other factors (noise, the environment, etc.) but this simplification explains the balance. A reasonable policy represents some sort of balance between the opposing considerations.

But in a party system in a democracy, people tend to coalesce around the considerations they find more important. And the opinions tend to polarize in competition and combat with each other. There becomes an efficiency party that advocates higher speed limits, as high as possible, and a safety party that advocates speed limits as low as possible. Each side argues, correctly, that if the other’s viewpoint were fully adapted, it would destroy everything they value. And that tends to drive them to argue any concession to the other party’s viewpoint is necessarily a loss.

One result of such a polarization is there is no constituency for reasonable policy. Society alternates between each party’s maximalist position, no speed limits and perhaps complete bans on automobiles. One never gets a reasonable policy, and the alterations between the extremes are themselves destabilizing.

And civil society deteriorates. The efficiency and the safety people pass through not regarding the other side’s position as having any legitimate validity and begin to regard each other as out to destroy the country, indeed begin regarding each other as criminal conspiracies to destroy the country. And each begins to feel an impulse to intervene in the democratic process to save the country from falling into the criminal conspiracy’s grasp.

The party polarization process, each side defining its values and identity against the other, follows through to its logical end of both ensuring that only extremes get through the political filter and become law, and also tending to destabilize the democratic process and tempting one side or the other to take power by force.

Is this where we have gotten ourselves?

[apedad]

"Is this where we have gotten ourselves?"

You mean the richest, most powerful, (and almost) longest lasting form of government ever recorded in human history?

[Mr. Bumble]

Because he’s the smartest guy Joe knows?

[Martinned]

the richest, most powerful, (and almost) longest lasting form of government ever recorded in human history

But not, apparently, the most modest or the best at teaching people history.

[grb]

Yep. That statement kinda jumps out at anyone who's ever read a history book...

[EscherEnigma]

"Richest" and "most powerful" are inherently subjective.

Longest lasting though? Both the Roman Republic (510 - 3a BCE) and the Roman Empire (31 BCE - 476 CE) beat us out by centuries.

And you've got to be parsing England in some weird way, they've had a monarchy for 1200 years. There are some fair ways to break that apart for different "forms of government", but there are no fair ways that get all of them close to our own 234 years.

And that's just two European examples! Head east and you've got Chinese Dynasties, head west and you've got the Aztecs and Incans...

[Mr. Bumble]

As for Rome, you excluded the Eastern Empire which lasted until
1453.

[Martinned]

400+ years of Han Dynasty in China
500-750 years of Abbasid Caliphate, depending on how you count
etc.

[John F. Carr]

"A speed limit might be described as a balance between efficiency and safety." While speed limits are sometimes described that way, that is not an accurate description either in theory or in practice.

[Frank Drackman]

Have you driven lately? where is a speed limit actually enforced?

[Gandydancer]

In speed traps.

[Brett Bellmore]

In practice, they consult traffic engineers about the safe speed on a road. Then they deliberately set the speed limit enough lower than that to assure that most people will speed, (It's well established that most people drive at a safe speed for conditions without having to be told what it is.) so that speeding ticket revenues aren't subject to a shortfall caused by a lack of people to ticket.

It's actually a balance between revenue and pissing off local drivers.

[John F. Carr]

Some towns aren't in it for the money. There are a lot of true believers. The point about pissing off drivers is a good one. Towns can get away with posting speed limits nobody obeys but they can't enforce those speed limits against locals. I read about a town that fired its police force when officers started enforcing the law as written.

The federal government is pushing a so-called "expert system" that once you look inside is designed to recommend a speed limit 10 miles per hour below the one that would be chosen based on traffic safety consideration.

[Kenneth Almquist]

That assumes that parties don't try to win elections by appealing to the center. For example, a number of people on the left talk about defunding the police, but the 2020 Democratic Party platform does not, at least in part because running on “defund the police” would have cost the support of centerist voters. Instead, the Biden Administration actually increased funding for police.

[ducksalad]

Both parties try to send one message to their activist base and a different one to swing voters.

[DaveM]

Here’s an eye-watering walk-through of the OpenAI/ChatGPT Terms of Service by attorney Steve Lehto. If my attorney let me agree to terms this outrageously bad, I’d fire him on the spot.

https://youtu.be/fOTuIhOWFXU

[John F. Carr]

I simply assumed the terms would be too awful to agree to and did not review in detail. There is a standard tech industry contract: 1. This product does nothing, or perhaps it does something harmful. 2. You pay us whatever we ask. 3. We may unilaterally change this agreement without notice. 4. You may not sue us.

[Martinned]

I tend to assume that, at least in any jurisdiction that might be relevant to me, contract law and consumer protection law would prevent many of the more egregious terms from being enforceable. Which seems like a much more efficient solution, from a transaction costs perspective, than requiring consumers to hire lawyers to read all the T&Cs for them.

[John F. Carr]

Arbitration means never having to say you're sorry.

If I could rewrite the Federal Arbitration Act I would exempt consumer goods and their virtual equivalents.

[Martinned]

Way ahead of you. In the black list of Directive 93/13, one of the types of terms that are presumptively unfair and therefore null and void is terms "excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract."

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31993L0013

It's nice to live in a civilised country...

[Mr. Bumble]

Since you aren’t free to modify the T&C does it make a difference. It’s pretty much take it or leave it.

[Martinned]

If these statutory protections didn't exist, I might have to opt for "leave it".

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Which seems like a much more efficient solution, from a transaction costs perspective, than requiring consumers to hire lawyers to read all the T&Cs for them."

As you point out elsewhere, people aren't going to agree to the contract if they don't think consumer protection law will save them. So it's the consumer protection laws that enable these egregious contracts.

[Martinned]

Wait, what??? How do you figure?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Like you said, "If these statutory protections didn’t exist, I might have to opt for “leave it”."

Nobody's going to sign a 50 page contract without fully understanding it if they think they'll be held strictly to the terms.

[EscherEnigma]

Nobody’s going to sign a 50 page contract without fully understanding it if they think they’ll be held strictly to the terms.

He's here all week, folks!

[Martinned]

How is making everyone read those 50+ pages more efficient than having some statutory baselines?

[Bored Lawyer]

One thing you have to be careful about is whether the user actually consents to the T&C. There are different ways of presenting them to the user and having him/her agree to them. Some pass muster, some don't.

I was recently involved in briefing this very issue. A good case to start with is Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017), which is here: https://casetext.com/case/meyer-v-uber-techs-inc

[John F. Carr]

I find the precedents inconsistent about when inquiry notice is enough and when some form of actual notice is required. Maybe there's a subtle distinction I missed.

More than once I have visited web sites that will not show you the terms of service. If you click to see them you get an error. Like the ancient sandwiches served with your liquor so the bar can pretend it is a restaurant. Inedible because they were not meant to be eaten.

[Bored Lawyer]

I know most people around here just want to talk about the antics of Trump and Biden. It's become a tabloid blog, almost.

In an attempt to make it more serious (which I acknowledge will likely fail), here is a topic to discuss.

TikTok challenge spurs rise in thefts of Kia, Hyundai cars
A dangerous challenge spreading on TikTok and other social media platforms has car owners and police departments on alert across the country — challenging young teens to steal certain cars off the street using a USB cord.

The target? Certain makes and models of 2010-2021 Kia and Hyundai vehicles that use a mechanical key, not a key fob and push-button to start the car. Investigators tell CNBC the trend started last year and the number of cars being stolen is continuing to surge across the country.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/08/tiktok-challenge-spurs-rise-in-thefts-of-kia-hyundai-cars.html

Here are some questions:
(1) What legal responsibility, if any, does Tiktok have to stop these challenges?
(2) If a class of car owners sue Tiktok, what are their legal causes of action? Does Section 230 immunize Tiktok?
(3) Can a state bring a criminal action against Tiktok if it fails to take down these challenges? Get an injunction?

Here are my very tentative answers:
(1) Once Tiktok is put on notice, it arguable becomes a knowing aider and abettor. Problem is, most courts hold that general knowledge is not enough, you need specific knowledge of specific posts.
(2) They could have a cause of action of knowingly aiding and abetting theft, but the knowledge issue above is a problem. Section 230 would likely immunize any claim.
(3) The section on state laws enforced by a state in Section 230 is vague:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

[David Nieporent]

Assuming TikTok's only involvement is hosting the videos, it has no liability whatsoever; it is immune pursuant to § 230.

[Bored Lawyer]

Basically, yes. Except for federal criminal law, which is expressly carved out. Though hard to see how that could apply.

Now the question is, should Section 230 be reformed to deal with such issues?

[Nige]

The first question is actually: to what degree is this being completely overblown, assuming it's real at all?

[M L]

That's only the first question if you're an idiot. It's a huge problem. (Not the TikTok videos, the thefts.)

"So far this year, Minneapolis police have received 1,899 Kia and Hyundai theft reports, nearly 18 times the number for the same period in 2022."

https://apnews.com/article/hyundai-kia-tiktok-theft-stolen-8e0a353d24be0e7bce36e34c5e4dac51

[Nige]

Ah, so a security flaw was exposed on Tik-Tok, and suddenly lots of them were stolen. That makes sense.

[M L]

And it was already a pretty big thing in 2022.

[John F. Carr]

Cars were stolen by similar methods through much of the 20th century. If you opened up the steering column you had access to the necessary components. If a cop saw damage around the ignition switch he had evidence the car was stolen.

[John F. Carr]

Some convictions in the so-called "Varsity Blues" college admissions cases have been overturned on appeal.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1129P-01A.pdf

The First Circuit applied Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) to reject the government's theory of "honest services" fraud. The trial was also contaminated by evidence of a conspiracy in which the defendants did not participate. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946). The panel rejected the argument that payments to the university itself to secure admission could not as a matter of law be bribes under 18 USC 666. Payments to university are bribes as long as they are made "corruptly". Whatever that means. Corruptly made payments to the university might not be fraud under Skilling but they are still illegal bribes.

The panel also upheld a conviction for filing a false tax return. One of the parents paid USC to admit his child and then declared the payments as tax-deductible business expenses and charitable contributions.

[Bored Lawyer]

One of the parents paid USC to admit his child and then declared the payments as tax-deductible business expenses and charitable contributions.

In for a penny, in for a pound, as the Brits say.

[David Nieporent]

I'm too lazy to look right now at the specific case you're talking about, but were these payments to the university, or to some specific individual at the university? (E.g., a coach.) Because many of the ones I'm familiar with were the latter. It's hard to see how giving money to the school itself to admit someone could be criminal; big donors do that all the time. But bribing a coach to lie to get the person admitted is a different story.

[Zarniwoop]

Actually winning the election was a big mistake for George Santos. He could have kept grifting GOP donors for a long time otherwise.

But it seems like there's quite a paper trail, and the incompetence he allegedly exhibited sounds stunningly bad. The unemployment fraud appears open-and-shut; there are bank records of fraudulent wire transfers.

And that's not even getting into potential crimes related to the Florida Ponzi schemes.

One word keeps coming to mind: "Toast!"

[John F. Carr]

Can he win the Republican primary next year?

[Martinned]

Being a liar seems like an essential job description these days. The last time someone tried to run for president as a Republican on a vaguely honest basis was McCain, and after he lost to a black guy they haven’t put up with that kind of nonsense since.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, Hillary and Biden are well known truth tellers.

[grb]

You know what’s really funny? Many Republicans actually admit they have a Trump Problem, and don’t believe their party head should be a phony two-bit huckster.

Their solution? Ron DeSantis, a phony two-bit huckster. He’s less mentally ill than Trump, but just as childish and more petty and mean. You sense the same insecurity in both, dressed-up in comical faux-manly “toughness”. DeSantis has opted for the full proto-fascist gravity of a Il Duce Jr-wannabe though, which doesn’t come off well when you’re battling a cartoon mouse.

Bottom-line? Trump was always a symptom, not cause. The ethical & intellectual rot in today’s Right predated and will outlast him. The base wants a reality-TV-style “tough guy” and will continue to do so after he’s left the scene.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's not like we have the option of somebody Democrats won't call a "phony two bit huckster"; If you call EVERYBODY a part nominated a monster, don't be shocked if they stop caring about the threat you might consider somebody a monster.

[grb]

I commented on Trump, who is a loathsome disaster of a human being, and DeSantis, who is nothing more than a gob of stunts & gimmicks compressed into a human-shaped mold.

I did not comment on, say, Nikki Haley, Larry Hogan, Glenn Youngkin, or even Mike Pence (who’s kinda freaky). I share nothing in common with any of them politically, but at least they’re not walking disaster zones, ethics-wise.

Of course that’s why they’re not credible candidates. Today’s Right demands a pro-wrestling-style leader and anyone who doesn’t provide that kind of entertainment is a defacto “rino”.

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree that there are Republicans who are much superior to Trump, or even DeSantis, in terms of personal morality.

If any of them got nominated, they'd still be called monsters anyway.

[grb]

Yeah, and Joe Biden is a crime lord. So what? Rhetoric is one thing; self-destructive non-functional lunacy in picking a party head is another. It isn’t just that the Right picks the wrong guy (like women attracted to abusers), but something even worse:

They’re attracted to Trump & DeSantis precisely because they’re sleazy dumbed-down huckster bullies, who ALWAYS prioritize carnival sideshow theatrics over substance. That’s what the base wants. Cheap entertainment. If you're not delivering that, be prepared to be called a "Republican In Name Only".

[EscherEnigma]

Hey now, be fair.

Trump might be a "dumbed-down huckster [bully], who always [prioritizes] carnival sideshow theatrics over substance", but DeSantis was a stock Republican until he saw Trump's success: there's good reason to think DeSantis just plays the part on TV.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That's what people thought about Trump in 2016...

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to grb:

And yet you settled on twice rejected Joe Biden who even Obama is claimed to have said; “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up.” as he has shown since day one of his presidency.

[Nige]

The grievance of someone who wants to blame somebody else for him voting for a monster.

[bernard11]

I don't think the Republicans should worry about the Democrats calling their candidate a two-bit huckster, any more than the Democrats should worry about Republicans calling their nominee a Communist.

Insulting opponents is a bipartisan tradition.

OTOH, maybe the parties shouldn't nominate actual two-bit hucksters or Communists.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I'd agree with that, I'd much rather the GOP nominated somebody like Rand Paul. And that the Democrats didn't try to make a communist Comptroller of the Currency.

But you know that if they did nominate Paul, he'd get the same treatment Trump gets.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Rand Paul almost certainly would be received in a presidential campaign the way he is received by the Senate.

Nobody likes him. Except maybe Ted Cruz, because thanks to Rand Paul when someone asks "who is the most disliked person in the Senate," a few people do not say "Ted Cruz."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you find it strange the timing of the arrest was to overshadow the GOP presentation of Biden's irrefutable guilt as well as the admission that the FBI was infiltrating his staff from day 1?

Does the FBI infiltrate every Congressman? Or just GOP ones?

[grb]

The Lizard People from Outer Space strike again!

Will our tin-foil hats save us ?!?

[Zarniwoop]

GOP presentation of Biden’s irrefutable guilt

Can I have some of what you’re smoking? It must be some really good stuff.

I this what you're referring to?
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3998325-house-gop-digs-in-on-biden-family-dealings-without-directly-connecting-president/

"House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and the panel’s Republicans on Wednesday dug in on their attacks on President Biden, unveiling new details alleging that more than $10 million flowed from foreign entities to companies associated with the Biden family and family members themselves.

But the 36-page report released by the panel’s Republicans on Wednesday that was based on bank records did not show any foreign money flowing directly to Joe Biden."

So, please let us know what crime you think President Biden committed, including a citation to the specific federal code allegedly violated.

Oh wait, you can't. Poser.

[David Nieporent]

But the 36-page report released by the panel’s Republicans on Wednesday that was based on bank records did not show any foreign money flowing directly to Joe Biden.”

So, please let us know what crime you think President Biden committed, including a citation to the specific federal code allegedly violated.

I reiterate that the documents don't even show that the Bidens who actually did receive money committed any crime either. It doesn't show anybody committed any crimes.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you're saying the Biden family depends on the kindness of strangers?

[Zarniwoop]

No ... that's not what he's saying, remotely, at all.

This has been yet another simple answer to a stupid question.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Whoosh or tactic? That is the question...

[Martinned]

Looks like the Dormant Commerce Clause suffered another defeat at the Supreme Court. I remember that this case was the subject of some discussion a while back. I think the judgment is right given the law as it stands in the US, but I would favour a broader reading.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf

Meanwhile, look at this:

GORSUCH, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, IV–A, and V, in which THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts IV–B and IV–D, in which THOMAS and BARRETT, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV–C, in which THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which KAGAN, J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

[SRG]

Yes, I was going to post that as well! Oy.

[David Nieporent]

A formalist decision; I'm not surprised that Gorsuch wrote it.

[apedad]

FDA updates blood donation policy to include gay, bisexual men

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Thursday loosened restrictions on blood donations by men who have sex with men, a change that could ease blood shortages by allowing more people to donate.

The agency said it will recommend a series of “individual risk-based questions” that will be the same for every donor, regardless of sexual orientation, sex or gender. Gay and bisexual men in monogamous relationships will be allowed to donate blood.

“The implementation of these recommendations will represent a significant milestone for the agency and the LGBTQI+ community,” said Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

The new policy eliminates current time-based restrictions in favor of a more inclusive policy the agency said was based on the best scientific evidence, while also maintaining the safety of the blood supply.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3999657-fda-updates-blood-donation-policy-to-include-gay-bisexual-men/

How long until the first cretin says they don't want blood from faggots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdusJxGj-2k

[Brett Bellmore]

And the bastards still won't let me donate over a 2010 lymphoma that would have killed me within a year if it hadn't been 100% cured. Idiots. I'm actually less likely than the average person to have leukemia on account of going through that chemo!

Meanwhile, it's actual scientific fact that male homosexuals have a disproportionately high rate of potentially blood transmitted diseases. Secret "throw out my blood, please" stickers weren't enough of a concession?

To be clear, it's a judgement call whether that elevated risk is enough to justify a ban. But I know how much elevated risk they'll tolerate for cancer survivors like myself: None.

So, is this a political decision? Of course it is.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe they're worried that disaffectedness, autism, bigotry, an antisocial nature, and delusional thinking are inherited?

[Ed Grinberg]

https://nypost.com/2018/04/07/chinese-sperm-bank-only-wants-donors-who-are-loyal-to-communism/

Great minds think alike!

[Sarcastr0]

You're the fucker that said gays have been at the forefront of every pandemic in history.

Maybe you're full of shit.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Just the STD pandemics like Pride Pox, AIDS, MRSA, Super Gonorrhea, and Blinding Syphillis.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, so? They pretty much have been, and what's wrong with stating the truth?

[Gandydancer]

It can't be the truth if Gaslightr0 doesn't like it to be true.

Next ting you'll be telling him that blacks commit more than their share of violent crime, racist.

[Sarcastr0]

Throughout history? Don’t be a moron.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd suggest you not be a moron. Promiscuous people doing unhygienic things is a classic disease vector, and that just about defines male homosexuality.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They're going to kill people so homosexuals feelings won't be hurt.

That's downright evil.

[John F. Carr]

"The implementation of these recommendations will represent a significant milestone for the agency and the LGBTQI+ community"

The decision only applies to the Gs and half of the Bs. The other letters can go on donating or not as before.

[EscherEnigma]

Yep. It's been a while, but it looks like I'll be back to donating by the end of the year.

How long until the first cretin says they don’t want blood from faggots.

I mean, if Reason actually ran an article on it, I'd say you could check back in a day and certainly have such comments. Every previous article on the topic has delivered such.

But for some reason, when the FDA brought up this most recent round of rules changes back in January/February, Reason never ran an article (or at least, not that I noticed). I think even Shackford may have gotten tired of the anti-gay abuse 'round here.

[grb]

Using trans folk as piñata for the Right’s easily-bored base proved more entertaining. You see one thing in today’s right-wingers : They want everchanging variety in the spectacles staged for their pleasure. CRT in the public schools? That was good for a sweet long time of hissing villains and cheering heroes (despite the fact there is no CRT in the public schools).

But over time it got old and our jaded Right wanted a new cartoon show to watch. Hundreds upon hundreds of anti-trans bills fit the bill (so to speak). Soon they’ll give the tiny little number of trans people a rest, moving on to another pro-wrestling-grade show to consume.

I’m guessing it’s DEI. Race always gets this crowd angry on cue, their hearts beating together with wild excitement.

[EscherEnigma]

Don't forget "Common Core". They were so mad about the "federal takeover of schools"... that was a pact between states.

[DaveM]

If the reason the standard is being changed is so medicine can be "more inclusive", then that is not science, that is politics. Objecting to politics being used to stomp all over medicine doesn't mark you as a cretin, it marks you as intelligent.

I have a very long history of donating blood (and platelets), but had to stop because my levels of iron became too low. That's a fact-based standard that makes sense. "Inclusivity" is nonsense.

[EscherEnigma]

The "science" hasn't been in favor of excluding gay men for quite a while.

So yes. You are a cretin, not intelligent.

[DaveM]

Well, if that’s the case, they should have led with the facts. Instead, they led with this “inclusive” nonsense.

You really can’t have it both ways. If you want to argue on the basis of the science of a thing, you have to leave your politics at the door. Otherwise, it looks like you’re not being factual.

This is really quite an obvious point. But it may be beyond those who are unable to separate politics from the rest of life. Unfortunate.

[hobie]

Ridiculous. I have known many straight, white men and women full of crack and heroin, hepatitis, aids you name it. Every human being is a degenerate to some degree. But singling out gay men is politics, not science

[apedad]

Supreme Court rejects pork industry challenge to California animal welfare law

https://thehill.com/regulation/3999651-supreme-court-rejects-pork-industry-challenge-to-california-animal-welfare-law/

YES!!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Thankfully I get my pork from a local farmer who isn't part of the system feeding California, so I'm unaffected.

Which reminds me, I have about 20 lbs of pork belly I have to turn into bacon; It's a barter arrangement, he'll get half the bacon back from me.

[grb]

My limit, pork-wise, proved to be chitlins. Of course I only tried them in a U.S. Army mess hall during basic training, when they were offered during a “food heritage day”. Being ever-adventurous, I said yes and immediately regretted the decision. They tasted (unfortunately) as you would expect, given their source and bodily function.

That said, Army mess halls have butchered many a more traditional dish, so maybe chitlins haven’t gotten a fair shake. I doubt I’ll ever have the stomach to give them a second shot though.

[hobie]

You need to have Mexicans or myself cook for you. Properly cleaned and crisped tripas are a revelation

[Brett Bellmore]

It's also a Filipino dish, I've had it; Deep fried like chips, served with vinegar. I got it down, but nothing I'd go out of my way to eat. I have made my own casings for sausage from hog intestines, it's a better use for them.

[grb]

What about that Elena Kagan! A group of old high school friends were going to send the Justice bagels and lox from Russ & Daughters, the legendary deli on the Lower East Side. But they abandoned the plan over Kagan concerns about the court’s ethics rules for gifts. This occurred in February 2021, two years after Thomas’ long luxury cruise in Indonesia - flying on Crow’s private jet and enjoying his luxury yacht and personal chef (valuation: 500k).

You can buy a lot of bagels & lox for a half-million dollars. (If you’re hopelessly corrupt, that is)

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/kagan-bagels-clarence-thomas-rcna83707

[BravoCharlieDelta]

MSNBC? lol wtf r u fr rn?

[M L]

If I head correctly the GOP house passed a bill that would CONTINUE spending more than govt revenues, i.e. DEFICIT SPENDING.

Yet because it is not quite as much profligacy as Democrats would like, Biden said "They’re literally, not figuratively, holding the economy hostage"

What a shit show.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fiscally, we jumped off the Empire State building back in 2007. In 2021 we strapped on a rocket backpack and went into a vertical power dive.

Passing the 20th floor, the Republicans suggest maybe inching back the throttle a bit, and get denounced as mad.

Well, that's true. If they were sane they'd settle for nothing less than an immediate balanced budget.

[M L]

Yeah. Not sure what is going to happen, probably just more of the same.

Also related:

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

[grb]

Total bullshit. Why didn’t we jump off the “Empire State Building” when Reagan exploded the deficit as Act One of his presidency? Why didn’t we “jump” when G.W.Bush sabotaged a balanced budget to dole out new entitlements and massive tax cuts? Why didn’t we “jump” in 2016, when Trump took a yearly deficit that had dropped seven years straight and turned it shooting back up, with plus-trillion deficits DURING an economic expansion?

As for Republicans “inching back the throttle a bit”, who the hell are you trying to kid? I spent over three decades as an honest-to-God left-wing deficit hawk until I got sick of being played. Every single word from Republicans & the Right on spending and deficits is a self-serving lie. The GOP always gives us a fine show of pious moaning whenever a Dem is in the Oval Office. When they’re in charge, its full-bore irresponsible party-mode, with hookers & champagne for all, burning wads of cash to light their cigars.

Nobody who’s been awake the past half-century can take a single word from the Right on deficits or spending seriously. Not a single damn word.

[M L]

It's a uniparty thing, unfortunately. You're right.

[Commenter_XY]

grb, may I ask a question? You were a deficit hawk. What would you do today to reduce the deficit. Not being facetious.

Whats on the chopping block for grb?

[grb]

Legitimate question and here's the answer : You won't get there by spending alone or without spending cuts. The best answer is to look at what worked before: The Clinton surpluses were based on three things:

(1) A robust economic expansion, which means lower government costs and higher revenue. But that only goes so far. Regan had an economy almost as good as Clinton's and he exploded debt. Trump had an expansion but he ran trillion-plus deficits. Still, I tout Obama's deficit reduction over two terms and most of it (truth be told) was from an expanding economy.

(2) The G.H.W. Bush / Congress deficit reduction package. (I'd give the older Bush more credit if he didn't campaign on reversing his major act of political courage in the following election)

(3) The Bill Clinton / Congress deficit reduction package.

Both of the latter two combined three things: Spending cuts, structural restrictions on new spending / tax cuts such as Pay Go, and tax increases. You need all three, both because that's the only way to make a serious dent in the problem and also because everybody needs to ante-up. Everyone needs to sacrifice. Which leads to another point: The tax increases have to be wide-spread. The middle-class won't need to take a major hit, but they need to contribute something. It can't be done by the wealthy alone.

And that's it. You make Congress pay for any new spending or tax cuts, you squeeze the growth of spending, you add broad-based additional revenue. As for specific cuts, I honestly don't know. Clinton accomplished a lot by squeezing the growth of Medicaid and Medicare. But I guarantee this: You do something like this package and cuts will be part of it. Politician will be forced to include cuts as a balm for the rest. That's what happens when deficit reductions isn't just right-wing bullshit. Everything has to be on the table,

[Commenter_XY]

I agree about the three things: Spending cuts, structural restrictions on new spending / tax cuts such as Pay Go, and tax increases.

My question: Is eliminating deductibility in the tax code by income equivalent to tax increases, or is eliminating deductibility an augment to tax increases?

I would actually go further and get social security off the government books. That would take 50-75 years to do. I am less certain about Medicare than I once was, though.

[M L]

Nah, we don't need tax increases or more governnent revenue overall. Rebalancing the tax burden so that some very high incomes pay a higher effective rate might be ok, and just tax reform to nuke all the special interest provisions. Then shutter many agencies like the dept of education.

[M L]

It's not "right wing" bullshit so much as GOP bullshit. They dont agree with their voters.

[Sarcastr0]

Check those Trump positions, dude. He’s all for big spending…on the right people.

[M L]

Exactly. Trump is a big-government liberal. He's a 1990s Democrat.

[grb]

M L : “It’s not “right wing” bullshit so much as GOP bullshit. They don’t agree with their voters”

1. The Right’s voters have never care in the slightest that Republican tax cuts brought massive debt. They don’t care that Supply Side claptrap is lying at the level of a child.

2. The Right’s voters have always been been satisfied with nebulous and airy promises of spending cuts. There are people today who believe Reagan proposed massive cuts but was thwarted by Congress. Nonsense. The average budge submitted by him to Congress differed by only 8 billion dollars from what was enacted. The “massive cuts” were all talk. It’s always all talk. That’s perfectly fine with the Right’s voters.

3. The Right’s voters didn’t give a damn when G.W. Bush jacked up spending. They didn’t give a damn when the structural measures to control deficits (like PayGo) were eliminated at the start of his presidency. They didn’t give a damn when Trump jacked up spending. They ONLY dust off the pieties about fiscal responsibilities when a Democrat is in the presidency.

So, yeah, it’s totally Right-wing bullshit. That the Right is concerned about fiscal responsibility in any way whatsoever is total reeking bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

I credit the reduced deficit to an economic bubble, and an administration and Congress at each other's throats, so that there was a delay in deciding how to spend the loot.

And there wasn't a Clinton surplus. It was a "primary" surplus, which is another term for a deficit: A surplus if you ignore the cost of debt payments.

[grb]

There was a surplus by all the standards used to judge deficits and surpluses before and after Clinton. Redefining a commonly used standard just because you want to deny one particular result isn’t a particularly honest way of doing things, yes?

[Brett Bellmore]

There was a surplus by the standards the government uses itself, and prosecutes the private sector for using.

Nobody outside government pretends that a 'primary' surplus means squat.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why can the Democrat CIA recruit other Democrats to interfere in a US election lawfully?

[hobie]

The funny part is that, as awful as your little comment is, you still had to edit it. How bad was it before then?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The only thing awful about it was stating this fact hurt your feelings. Which people like you believe is unconstitutional.

[MoreCurious]

Mystery solved, everyone! The pseudonym “Frank Drackman” belongs to George Santos! For a long time Little Frankie has been trying to convince us that he is a highly educated doctor and pilot. Today he volunteered that he is a piss-drinker, but only when required by his SERE training. The claims he makes on this blog perfectly complement the wild claims Santos has made about his education, work history, financial status, etc. In fact, the rumor is that he’ll be suiting up for the Celtics in tonight’s game against the Sixers. Don’t hurt yourself George/Frankie, we need you to show up here tomorrow and regale us with more of your foul-mouthed bigotry.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe Drackman is the id of one of the Conspirators?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's you, Mr. Blackman.

[Frank Drackman]

Says the Anal Glands of the "Conspiracy"

[Frank Drackman]

Did I tell you about how I beat up "Corn Pop" with a Bicycle Chain? Marched with John Lewis at Selma? Bailed out Mandela in Cambodia (Man!) was recruited with Roger Staubach to play QB at Navy?
and never claimed to be a pilot, but a Flight Surgeon, Doc to Pilots, who if they're lucky, occasionally get some Stick time, hence the 0.4 hrs (I'd tell you how many minutes that is but then I'd have to kill you)
Sorry if my Semi-Charmed life seems unbelievable to you, a "man" (I'm meaning you) has to know his limitations....

Frank "also a "Shellback" Google that Shit"

[MoreCurious]

Poor Frankie/Georgie. It's nice you seem to have such a rich fantasy life. But maybe you should stop fooling yourself because you certainly aren't fooling anyone here. The rest of us realize that there is no medical school that would give a degree to an inarticulate, illiterate, vulgar, racist, homophobic, bigoted misogynist like you. And even if you managed to cheat your way through school, as soon as your employer, your colleagues, and your patients realized the despicable human being that you are, you'd be out on the street begging for handouts. So maybe it's time to stop ruining this blog and go back to playing video games in your mother's basement. No one thinks you're clever or funny. Pathetic is more like it.

[hobie]

The cesspools that entertain a person like Drackman shouldn't allow him/her to find a high-minded cesspool of bigotry like this blog. I wanna know how he found us

[Frank Drackman]

It's called "AlGores Internets" it's been around awhile.

[MoreCurious]

However he found us, he could do us all a favor by going away and finding another blog to ruin. He's a gutless bully who has never said anything worth reading, and whose only tactic is to be as offensive and cruel as possible. He's never posted anything that he couldn't have learned on Wikipedia and Google, and I will never be convinced that he is anything more than a deeply disturbed middle-schooler. Go away Frankie. You're hated here.

[hobie]

I've flagged the motherfucker whenever he went exceedingly vulgar, but there doesn't seem to be any curation at all on this blog, contrary to the Rev's assertions

[MoreCurious]

It's strange because there are a lot of people on this blog with whom I disagree. But most of them act like grownups and seem to be willing to engage in mostly rational debate. Little Frankie, on the other hand, is like the adolescent who has learned his first naughty words and is giggling while testing them out on his parents to get a reaction. I suppose he thinks he's amusing, but he's a toxic and ugly human being who needs to realize that he's out of his depth in this arena of mostly adults. Go away, Frank. If you managed to find us, surely you should be able to find a blog that encourages low-life morons like you.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’ve blocked him. You should too.

[MoreCurious]

I know you’re right, but part of me is curious to see just how much Professor Volokh and his esteemed colleagues will tolerate. It's kind of like being on the deck of the Titanic.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t think there is a limit. I’ve never seen anywhere else online the depths of misogyny, racism and homophobia that are displayed on this site by certain commenters (often accompanied by the giggling juvenility of maladjusted 12-year-old boys). I’ve noticed that they come and go, as juveniles do who have a short attention span. I think Frank will be gone soon.

Maybe if there was a specific threat to do violence to someone, either a commenter or a blogger, we would see something. We know that the VC’ers do look at comments (or have someone look at them for them) and being lawyers they must be careful on some level.

[Frank Drackman]

Block away, this isn't Roosha? Is this Roosha? Nah, this isn't Roosha.

[Frank Drackman]

(Man!) Medical Schools are for the most part run by inarticulate, illiterate, vulgar, racist, homophobic, bigoted misogynists, if anything it's gotten worse with the increased Twattage/Schlong Ratio in the last 30 years. (Man!)
OK, so aside from everything about me, what else don't you like?

Frank "Funny and Clever, Sym-pathetic"

[Frank Drackman]

Love self-responding,
ask any (real) XX M.D. (wouldn't know about D.O. Schools (don't get me started) about what I said about Med School Faculty, more inarticulate, illiterate, vulgar, racist, homophobic, bigoted misogynists than you could shake a reflex hammer at.
and the Male faculty are even worse!!!! (rim shot)

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

After a lapse of years, I just watched again the movie, The Right Stuff. It reminded me why I thought the movie was terrific, and also why it was less than a smash in the theaters. It cut too close to the bone.

What I had forgotten, though, was the bit performance by Chuck Yeager—the real Chuck Yeager. Yeager's performance is the best thing in the movie. It works partly because Yeager acts his low-status part superbly. But it also subtly reinforces one of the deepest underlying themes in Tom Wolf's book (and the movie): that in the real world the notion of, "the right stuff," was created deliberately, as a performative virtue, useful to master chaotic and extraordinarily dangerous reality.

The movie reinforces Yeager's real-life contribution to that creation, by giving him a chance to perform virtuosically against the grain. It shows him laughing along satirically at the notion of being celebrated himself, while turning the tables on big shots with more status. It's brilliant.

[Frank Drackman]

Great Movie,
there's LBJ misunderstanding the German Rocket Scientist
"A Spaceman???!!!!!"
"A Spec-i-men!!!"
love the part where the "Suits" from LIFE magazine don't like "Gus" Grissom's name, so they ask his middle name,
"Ivan"!!
""OK, you can be Gus"

Did sort of make John Glenn look like a goody 2 shoes,

Frank

[grb]

Stephen Lathrop : "It reminded me why I thought the movie was terrific"

It is, but I witnessed another reason why it was unpopular (though I have no idea to the degree): I used to do a yearly guys weekend at the beach with old high school buddies. Every year we went to the mall and saw a movie & the selection thereof was always a major negotiation.

I wanted to see The Right Stuff, but was roundly outvoted. My friends, you see, were all zombie dittohead walking-undead right-wingers, and someone (probably Rush) had convinced them the film was a secret plot to make Glenn president.

That proved absurd when I saw the movie, since Glenn is portrayed as something of a sanctimonious pudd'nhead. Now if Yeager had been running (with Sam Shephard as his avatar), it would have been another story.

[David Nieporent]

Not Rush, obviously; the Right Stuff was before Rush existed as Rush.

[grb]

Right you are.

[grb]

A space movie I’ll watch (and even enjoy) but still irritates the hell out of me is Apollo 13. First, because Ron Howard films always have such completely mechanistic plots, as if everything was spit out a computer after the sixty-second movie pitch was reduced to punch cards and entered. There’s never anything surprisingly funny, sad or touching in his movies. It’s all right on cue.

But the main thing is the treatment of Swigert. Howard’s movie pitch clearly had him as the barely capable replacement to Mattingly, who is thus able to heroically save the day precisely because he was left back on the ground. Poor Kevin Bacon was forced to act like a anxious beaten cur the entire movie, ever aware of his inadequacy. It was grossly ahistorical and unfair to a man unable to defend himself (even if he was a Republican…)

Of course The Right Stuff was unfair to Grissom, but all the characterizations were done in broad stroke in that movie, LBJ being a prime example. Plus it was a much, much, better film, which covers a lot of sins.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why in God's name would you expect surprises and plot twists in a DOCUMENTARY?

[Nige]

Beause you're not familiar with the details of the story before watching it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why in God’s name would you expect surprises and plot twists in a DOCUMENTARY?

Right winger can't distinguish fiction from documentation. Not surprising.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wait, you think Apollo 13 is fiction?

I suppose technically they're calling it a "docudrama", which is a documentary where they take a bit of liberty with the facts to make things more exciting. But the movie we're discussing is much more on the documentary side of things than the drama side.

And even "docudramas" don't mess with the plot. They just fill in the holes and round the edges.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, let me explain why the distinction matters. Anything done with a plot, a script, and a camera will always be false to the same thing done in real life. The real life experience will be critically affected by physical conditions—lighting, temperature, humidity, weather, the prior condition and activities of the participants, the capacity for surprise, disorientation, unlimited opportunities for happenstance, changeable physical details of surroundings, a physical point of view, etc.—all of which will go unmatched in any attempt at re-creation. Those myriad elements taken together comprise the subjective reality which would have to be presented to match expressive art to actual experience.

None of that can be reproduced and presented to a movie audience because almost all of it will go unrecorded and be forgotten. Absolutely no one can do a historically realistic movie recreation of the shootout at the O.K. Corral, or any other piece of lore. Had there been a security camera there, you would have a documentary recording of a small part of the comprehensive, moment-to-moment reality of what happened. No doubt a great many real-time video or film recordings of the Apollo 13 events do exist. The movie showed you almost none of them.

It matters a great deal whether audiences understand that almost every kind of screen presentation they see—including even wildlife documentaries—is a work of imaginative creation. Unfortunately, folks like you let other people’s imaginations cloud their minds about almost everything.

A terrifically skilled industry has grown up to exploit that. When you call it entertainment it seems harmless. When you forget it was entertainment and start to view the world around you through the lens of your entertainment experiences, it makes you stupid.

[David Nieporent]

Look, Lathrop pompously takes hundreds of words to state something trivial and mostly wrong that could've taken one sentence. Must be a day ending in "Y."

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : Why in God’s name would you expect surprises and plot twists in a DOCUMENTARY?

Such a strange comment – and wrong in two massive ways:

1. I referred to “surprisingly funny, sad or touching”. That concerns the dramatic art of a presentation, whether in movie, theatrical, or literary form. You can have two films covering the exact same set of facts with one film having surprising moments of comedy or sadness while the other doesn’t. That’s in the art of the director and screenwriter.

2. Documentary? Do you really believe that? Yes, Apollo 13 was based on real events, but it was not close to a documentary. For example, Jack Swigert wasn’t unqualified and actually wrote the book on CM emergency procedures. Ken Mattingly played an important part in the ground-based effort to save the astronauts, but nowhere near the degree shown. And so on.

I shouldn’t have to explain this. The Right Stuff was also based on real events but wildly (and entertainingly) exaggerated in spots. Shakespeare’s Richard III was based on real events but Josephine Tey has serious issues with it. Oliver Stones’ JFK was (sorta) based on real events and a travesty. Given you have to be damn careful accepting any real “documentary” as a documentary, calling Apollo 13 one is an unforced error.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

grb, I'm curious if you've read Lovell's book, which supposedly was the basis for Apollo 13. Perhaps the depiction of Swigert (which I would suggest wasn't as bad as you portray) came from Lovell's account. I haven't read the book, and have no idea how faithfully the movie follows it.

I thought Apollo 13 did an impressive job of creating tension about the fate of the mission, given that most people watching already knew what happened. In other words, Howard was successful in recreating the tension of watching it happen live. Not an easy feat.

[grb]

Three things :

1. Yep, I read the book (and it’s pretty good). Nothing in it supports Howard’s treatment of Swigert. In fact, Lovell is on record about one of the movie’s tricks : Remember everyone in Houston fraught with anxiety whether Swigert could dock the CM with the nested LM? Per Lovell, that was ludicrous. Of course Swigert was easily capable, as was himself and Haise. I seen one quote from Haise saying the movie was unfair to Swigert.

2. The portrayal of Swigert is the sum of lot of little things and definitely by design of the screenwriter & director. Some of it is seen in the hangdog looks of Bacon or the glances at him by other actors. Example: There’s one scene where Mattingly is relaying procedures to Swigert and the latter needs something repeated because he (and the other two astronauts) had gone days with little or no sleep. Gary Sinise (Mattingly) visibly smirks. You see stuff like that from beginning to end of the film.

3. It was no doubt a hard film to pull-off and even I admit the skill doing so. Part of it was the very thing I gripe about: Its clear dramatic structure: Mattingly is pulled from the mission but that allows him to save the day from the ground. Apparently Howard thought he needed a strong contrast between Bacon & Sinise to make that work – which is something I find irritating.

On the other hand, my Kevin Bacon score is three. The first degree of separation is to the office manager of a firm I once worked for. She went to high school with Ed Harris, and we’re back to Apollo 13.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yeah, I kinda suspected the docking scene was some false drama. "Come on rookie, park that thing!"

My biggest issue with the film has always been Kathleen Quinlan, who I'm sure is a lovely woman but is just a godawful actress.

[Sarcastr0]

So much salt and bloodlust today.

Not handling Trump and Santos's legal trouble well, eh?

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when that dried up Cunt collects her $5,000,000.
Santos? well that's me obviously, don't I seem to be taking it well??

[Ben_]

Did you hear that longtime LGBT ally Dee Snider of Twisted Sister is now one of the hated transphobes?

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/so-i-hear-im-transphobic-dee-snider-responds-after-being-dropped-by-sf-pride/amp/

He didn’t want to wholeheartedly endorse mutilating kids.

It proves that anyone with an independent thought eventually gets declared an evil villain bigot by leftists. Even if you agree with them on almost everything, they still hate you and you might as well be Hitler.

Same story for JK Rowling. She’s a liberal LGB ally. She doesn’t want dudes with cocks following little girls into the ladies room. So she gets death threats and her books are burned.

[EscherEnigma]

On an entirely unrelated note... how 'bout that Ammon Bundy? The Bundys used to be a bit of a cause celebre here on Reason, but no mention of the recent nonsense anywhere on the site.

I guess "armed standoff" sells better then "hiding from process servers".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ammon Bundy seems to be auditioning for the backwater version of George Santos, clumsily masking assets. Maybe those two could bunk together in prison?

[Frank Drackman]

Reverend Jerry Sandusky Ladies and Gentleman, fantasizing about a Prison-Manage-a-twat,

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When I point toward this blog's rampant bigotry, the Volokh Conspiracy's biggest fan claims I am Jerry Sandusky.

It appears conservatives can't operate good legal blogs any more than they can operate strong law schools. The Volokh Conspiracy is the Ouachita Baptist of legal blogs.

[Frank Drackman]

"The Reverend" doesn't like having his balls busted, only he can bust balls,
and apparently still "Bitter" that he got rejected by Oachita Baptist, let it go Jerry! I got rejected by Emory Med School, OK, maybe I dump my piss bottle (got the BPH) on the grounds whenever I'm in that area of the ATL, no hard feelings! (OK, maybe a few)

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Democrats Inflation Reduction Act is now expected to cost $1T, nearly triple the original amount.

Why does everything the Federal government does turn to shit like this? Are they some sort of Shit Midas?

Why do the bootlickers think this same sort of thing won't happen to our healthcare?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is the Democrat FBI ignoring a Congressional subpoena? Do they not care about our Sacred Democracy?

[David Nieporent]

Why do you use "Democrat" when the adjective form of the word is "Democratic"?

Why do you say that there's a Democrat [sic] FBI when no such thing exists?

[Michael P]

The CCP policy of elite capture paid off: https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/05/11/leaked-emails-show-biden-state-department-sought-to-protect-china-during-spy-balloon-fiasco-n744339

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's just unbelievable. The Democrats are the enemies of America.

[David Nieporent]

It's quite believable… that Michael P would lie that way and that you would believe him.

[hobie]

Heh. Redstate.

[Michael P]

Would you prefer Reuters? https://www.reuters.com/world/us/why-us-delayed-china-sanctions-after-shooting-down-spy-balloon-2023-05-11/

But the sources said the current policy hews too closely to an earlier strategy of engagement that enabled China to extract concessions in exchange for high-level dialogues that often yielded few tangible results.

You are not a serious person.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Two tranny kids killed themselves (theirselves? xirselves?) while participating in a NIH Democrat tranny study.

To that I say: el oh el

lmao suck it retards, you get what you deserve

[Sarcastr0]

Truly your performative psychopathy has owned the libs.

[hobie]

I'm crying Lib Tears, BCD...I hope you're happy

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I was speaking more to their retarded parents, not you retards.

My bad.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In this case, their own ideology owned themselves.

That's what I've been saying has been needed for a long time now. Consequences for your vile, disgusting Democrat beliefs.

So I'm being perfectly consistent. Kinda like how you're perfectly consistent in bootlicking and worshipping upstream your Federal hierarchy.

[apedad]

You're just angry you didn't get the chance to murder them yourself.

[Gandydancer]

"LOL!" is not the sound of anger.

[Nige]

It's not a sound. But you're right, he's not any angrier than he usually is, he's laughing at people who committed suicide.

[Nige]

The racist anti-semite has scraped a new low.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Two tranny kids killed themselves (theirselves? xirselves?) while participating in a NIH Democrat tranny study.

To that I say: el oh el

lmao suck it retards, you get what you deserve

When strong, legitimate schools -- not the Regents and Ouachita Baptists, or the Libertys and the Wheatons, or the South Texas College of Law Houstons and the Ave Marias, but high-quality, science- and reason-based, liberal-libertarian mainstream institutions -- consider this blog, the audience it attracts, and the rampant bigotry cultivated and flattered by the operators, should those schools conclude that hiring more movement conservatives for faculty positions would be an acceptable judgment?

Or should they conclude that neither their students nor their institutional reputations deserve the predictable consequences of bringing strident movement conservatives to campus?

[M L]

DHS announced ad campaigns that will be aired to foreign nationals in Mexico, Central America, and parts of South America that advise would-be migrants to use the administration’s Catch and Release network to get into the U.S.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/05/11/biden-officials-advertise-to-foreign-nationals-how-best-to-get-into-u-s-while-claiming-borders-are-not-open/

[Sarcastr0]

Here is the press release:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/05/10/dhs-launches-digital-ad-campaign-counter-smuggler-lies

It says the opposite of what you claim.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's still a fact, publicly reported, and thus known to illegal immigrants, that the federal government is actually practicing "catch and release", with nothing more than a pinky promise that you'll show up for your hearing after being deliberately transported further into the country.

You think any flyer is going to prevail in the face of that? What are they supposed to believe, the flyer, or their lying eyes?

[Sarcastr0]

As usual you’re talking out of your ass on this.

But also you’re making up a new thesis that is different from ML’s claim.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even the MSM are reporting on that, by the way:

Biden admin to allow for the release of some migrants into the U.S. with no way to track them

"After more than 11,000 migrants were caught crossing the southern border on Tuesday, the Biden administration is now preparing a memo that will direct Customs and Border Protection to begin releasing migrants into the U.S. without court dates or the ability to track them, according to three sources familiar with the plans.

The Biden administration began releasing migrants without court dates to alleviate overcrowding in March 2021, but had previously enrolled those migrants in a program known as Alternatives to Detention, which required them to check in on a mobile app until they were eventually given a court date. The new policy would release them on “parole” with a notice to report to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office but without enrolling them in the program. "

They claim that this policy only applies to a small, carefully vetted fraction of the incoming illegals, but, seriously, after all the lies why would anybody believe that?

[Michael P]

At what point does dereliction violate the president's duties of faithful execution?

[Sarcastr0]

Also a different thing that what ML posted about.

You're broad-spectrum anger at immigration is making you bad at sticking to an argument thread.

[Brett Bellmore]

You note that the flyer tells incoming illegals to investigate legal options, but fail to show any interest in what the administration is telling them the legal options are.

And you seem not to grasp that the administration is saying one thing, and doing another.

Again, I point out to you that illegal immigration skyrocketed the month after Biden took office, and every subsequent month has been higher than the highest month while Trump was in office. And you're going to try to pretend this wasn't a result of a policy change? It just sort of coincidentally happened when the new guy was in charge.

For instance, Biden administration quietly erasing immigration court caseload: 'De facto amnesty'

You're going to pretend that this sort of action doesn't send a message to would be illegal immigrants?

[Sarcastr0]

You note that the flyer tells incoming illegals to investigate legal options, but fail to show any interest in what the administration is telling them the legal options are.

This is, once again, not what ML claims: "DHS announced ad campaigns that will be aired to foreign nationals in Mexico, Central America, and parts of South America that advise would-be migrants to use the administration’s Catch and Release network to get into the U.S."

you seem not to grasp that the administration is saying one thing, and doing another.
If that were happening, I would grasp it. But you, in this area more than any other, do a cork-board and string made up connections thing.

You believe thigs are intended, happening, and secretly communicated that are just utterly you speculating yourself into certainty.

[Brett Bellmore]

The administration's catch and release program IS one of the so called "legal" options.

Yeah, I damned well believe they're secretly communicated.

Though there's nothing particularly secret about the Biden administration signaling, "Come on in, the border is open!".

Again, you're committed pretending that illegal immigration spiked, and then never came back down again, just a month after Biden was in charge, purely by coincidence. And you don't care how stupid it makes you look, you're sticking with that story.

[M L]

No, the press release is linked and quoted in the next sentence of the article. It does not "say the opposite" or contradict the article.

[Sarcastr0]

What is the language where they 'advise would-be migrants to use the administration’s Catch and Release network to get into the U.S.'

[M L]

I posted this in another thread. Important video recapping Tucker firing from the perspective of (seemingly rarer these days) anti establishment leftists.

The Jimmy Dore Show - The REAL Reason Tucker Carlson Was Fired By Fox News!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jjw9m1cG5S8

[Gandydancer]

Usefully includes Carlson's denunciation of Sidney Powell, which puts the lie to the claim that he was fired for contributing to the Dominion fiasco, an allegation which is right up there in bald faced lying with the claim that Putin blew up his own pipeline.