Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Drbusybody]

I’d like to raise the issue of fighting words. The Supreme Court ruled in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1941) that fighting words are not protected under the First Amendment. Most of the jurisprudence under the fighting words doctrine has concerned how the law can punish people who use fighting words; that is, what is the extent of the limitation on the First Amendment that the fighting words doctrine entails.

I would like to bring up a different take on fighting words. Does the use of fighting words justify physical violence by the target of those words? The Supreme Court in Chaplinsky defines fighting words as “epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation…” the fighting words Walter Chaplinsky allegedly used were to call a policeman a “racketeer” and a “fascist.” Does this then suggest that if someone calls one an epithet stronger than those, that one is entitled to slug the guy?

Only Georgia actually has a law that establishes fighting words as a defense to an assault charge. I suppose the larger question is, would the police arrest or cite someone who is willing to state that his reason for engaging in assault was that fighting words were used? In essence, would the police take action against someone when the person he hit “asked for it”?

[Frank Drackman]

Georgia, again with the Georgia, did you know we're the biggest state east of the Mississippi? that on her way to Heaven Tina Turner had to change planes at Hartsfield-Zimbabwe-Jackson Airport?(literally has an area made up to look like a jungle, complete with sound) You like Chick Fil-A? MLK Jr? Ty Cobb? Julia Roberts? Kanje? Hulk Hogan? Jeff Foxworthy (OK, you can have him) Spike Lee (Ditto), Ray Charles, Little Richard, Otis Redding, Andre 3000, "Number 42", no, not Bill Clinton, and if you don't know, you're a Race-ist, Jimmuh Cartuh (take JC, please), oh, and Jim Brown (try your "fighting words" with him, yes, I know he just died)

Frank

[apedad]

Florida and Wisconsin are bigger than Georgia.

[Frank Drackman]

If you count water area, Jeez, what a dumbass.

[apedad]

Goalpost → New goalpost

[Longtobefree]

FL:
Area
• Total 65,758[5] sq mi (170,312 km2)
• Land 53,625 sq mi (138,887 km2)
• Water 12,133 sq mi (31,424 km2) 18.5%
GA:
Area
• Total 59,425 sq mi (153,909 km2)
• Land 57,906 sq mi (149,976 km2)
• Water 1,519 sq mi (3,933 km2) 2.6%
WI:
Area
• Total 65,498.37 sq mi (169,640.0 km2)
• Land 54,153.1 sq mi (140,256 km2)

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, I'm supposed to be the one with Ass-burgers.
Of course Florida's "Water Area" will be going up in the next few months with the usual round of Hurricanes, funny how they happen every summer, almost like there's a seasonal variation or something.

[Mr. Bumble]

You don't have any "waters of the United States" in GA?

[OtisAH]

Did the instigator make an assault complaint in the state of Not Georgia? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

[Ed Grinberg]

Do you get a "get out of jail free" card if someone says mean / offensive things to you? Of course not. What a ridiculous idea.
The "fighting words" doctrine is about what the government can do to punish the speaker. It does nothing to immunize any criminal acts perpetrated by other persons against the speaker.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

But, Ed, "I am going to kill your wife" justifies me killing that person.
I don't have to ask 'Really?"

[John F. Carr]

The relevant doctrine is "defense of another", not "fighting words". Use of deadly force in defense requires a credible threat to defend against.

[not guilty]

Not only a credible threat, but a threat of imminent harm.

[EscherEnigma]

Depends.

Are you a judge, policeman, or politician? Then no, you don't have to ask "really?"

If you're anyone else though, then you're obligated to do a "true threat" analysis. And only if the analysis comes up with "yep, that's a true threat" can you take action.

[Krayt]

I always thought laws against fighting words came in in a backward (and sketchy) way.

Dude gets in another dude's face, very creatively overstimulates him with insults, gets popped in the nose.

"You should have heard what he called me!"

"Well," says the politician. "We can use that to censor certain things. I mean, if it's so bad a reasonable person cannot fail to nose-a-poppin..."

Sketchy because it seems like a sufficient defense to punching someone, but the next part d.n.f., make words illegal.

[EscherEnigma]

In essence, would the police take action against someone when the person he hit “asked for it”?

Historically? If the officer thinks as such, yes.

The history of police indifference to crimes against minorities is well-documented. Cops refusing to arrest, investigate, and in some cases even report assaults on disfavored groups is similarly well-documented. Modern police, of course, disavow this historical trend and insist that no modern department would do such a thing.

It would be dangerous to publicly disagree with them.

But despite the obvious and irrefutable fact that no modern police officer would ever look the other way, it remains a right they possess, and one that their superiors have --historically-- not punished them for exercising.

[Kazinski]

Probably your answer is here:
"Washington and Texas are the only two states in the United States where mutual combat is legal. In Washington, the mutual combat must take place in a public place, and both parties must agree to the fight. Additionally, the altercation must not result in serious bodily injury, or participants can face charges."

So in Washington and Texas where the "fighting words" are understood to be an invitation to combat, then actually accepting the invitation and kicking their ass would be legal.

The other 48 states it's not going to fly, because there the controlling legal doctrine is "sticks and stones...but names will never hurt me", so there is likely no self defense rationale, unless you have an articulable reason to suppose you were in actual danger. And then in duty to retreat states, your only out will be if the dude was wearing a MAGA hat.

[Kleppe]

"In essence, would the police take action against someone when the person he hit “asked for it”?"

There are plenty of jurisdictions where they would not, laws to that effect notwithstanding.

[Martinned]

Good news. Not only has the ECtHR required a form of same-sex marriage last week, in Buhuceanu and others v. Romania, but the Namibian Supreme Court has done the same.

https://verfassungsblog.de/a-win-for-lgbt-rights-in-namibia/

It's not all depressing...

[Dr. Ed 2]

This, too, shall pass...

I see that Bud & Target aren't doing so well....

We had "Billy Beer: -- Billy Carter -- and I'm waiting for a "beer not for fags" -- "real beer for real men."

Regulators would freak, but what could they do?

[Illocust]

My understanding is they could refuse to extend lines of credit to any company with such a marketing campaign.

[Sarcastr0]

Regulators aren't extending credit to anyone?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, not directly, anyway. Indirectly, by making insinuations about 'reputational risk'? Sure, they do.

[Sarcastr0]

You think reputational risk has government involvement somehow?

The unsourced 'there is under the table government pressure' sure is convenient when you don't like what the market is doing.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think when it gets invoked by government regulators it damned well has government involvement.

I guess you're pretending that Operation Choke Point never happened, too.

[Sarcastr0]

When do government regulators invoke corporate reputation?

You can't just say you'll bet it totally happens. Evidence or STFU.

[David Nieporent]

He's referring to the NY state banking/insurance regulators' attack on the NRA and other gun advocacy groups. They did expressly cite repetitional risk.

[Sarcastr0]

Does reputational risk come before any regulation, state or otherwise? Risk generally, maybe. Seems a bad push.

But Brett seems to be leaning on an admittedly unwise 2013 policy to prove that the federal government regularly does a thing it does not. As per usual.

[Gandydancer]

Sad attempt to move the goalposts, Gaslightr0.

You claim was, "Regulators aren’t..." and Brett's reply was, "Sure, they do." Your new claim that the FEDs (why the limitation?) don't "regularly" (whatever that means} do it is quite the climbdown, especially considering that what we're talking about here is Woke retaliation for a “beer not for fags” advertising campaign. Yes, they would totally do that. Hell, governents did their best to retaliate against Chick-fil-a and the experience whith governments' reaction to Bruen makes it absolutely clear that they will not be restrained by mere law.

[Sarcastr0]

Some posts, I am amazed the writer doesn't have an 'are we the baddies?' moment.

[Gandydancer]

Practically every one of your gaslighting posts should call for that question, but your shamelessness/lack of self-awareness is, in combination, obviously infinite.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What too shall pass? Freedom?

I sure hope it doesn’t.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I’m waiting for a “beer not for fags” —

Why does a blog operated by Federalist Society members attract such a striking concentration of bigots and bigotry?

Spoiler: The preferences of a bunch of white, male, disaffected conservative culture war casualties are relevant.

Carry on, clingers. Your betters will continue to let you know just how far and how long you will be permitted to do so, of course.

[Theendoftheleft]

Why, AIDS, does it attract YOU, aside from the fact that you’re a bigot (one that doesn’t even fully understand what the word means)? Why have you dedicated so many years, so much of your time and life, to this blog? Why are you such a pathetic loser?

You’re an uneducated, illogical, evolutionary dud who adheres to an evolutionarily inferior meme, and the super-majority of the world consciously rejects your values as garbage. Why can’t you face reality?

Carry on, clinger. Your life is not worth more than your pathological commitment to trolling this blog. That is, till your American betters Anders Breivik you and everyone you love and care about. (An act of mercy it’ll be, in your case, their putting you down.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's a marketplace of ideas.

A casual reader could develop the impression, for example -- from the manner in which this blog misappropriates the franchises of several strong law schools, for example, or from the self-description that this blog is "often libertarian," without no mention of movement conservatism or the clingerverse -- that this is not a bigot-hugging, deplorable blog operated by white, male, disaffected right-wingers operating at the discredited, disrespected fringe of modern legal academia.

I figure those pilgrims deserve a more informed perspective.

I also perceive great value in calling a bigot a bigot, rather than enabling our vestigial bigots try to to hide behind euphemisms such as "conservative values," "traditional values," "libertarian," "family values," "religious values," and "Federalist Society."

[Theendoftheleft]

OK, but you’re yourself a bigot who hides behind the label of ‘liberal-libertarian’ when your real, imperialist, project is one of engaging in: global cultural genocide, the destruction of Islam (and other faiths), and the socio-economic evisceration and humiliation of America’s working class and poor (against whom you’ve explicitly stated your bigotry here repeatedly).

You’re thus a disingenuous commenter, AIDS. Accordingly, why would anyone treat your alternative perspective as being sincere or credible? Rather self-sabotaging, n’est pas? More importantly, perhaps, superficial trolling isn’t a credible way to provide others with an informed alternative perspective. Hence, your stated rationalization as to why you’ve posted here for so long isn’t itself believable. (Perhaps you should think about talking to a psychiatrist about this.)

Furthermore, as we’ve discussed before, academia — about which you have on multiple occasions demonstrated on this blog you know basically nothing — is not reflected by the beliefs and practices of American law schools. American law schools are mostly jokes, the simulacra of real academic institutions. Your elite ones are also extremely corrupt, and their hiring practices (like that in most US law schools) are not replicated in other countries (or even in other depts/faculties in US unis). Their hiring practices are entirely suspect, hyper-political (and not just in the trivial ‘faculty politics’ sense), and non-meritorious. So when you try to shit on these VC folks for not being members of the elite institutions, anyone who knows anything about how the US law schools really work (and who knows anything about Foucault) CANNOT believe you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans and target audience, Volokh Conspirators -- and the reason your employers regret hiring you and likely have pledged not to employ any additional "often libertarian" clingers.

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, you are a wonderful example of why we in the rest of the West, and indeed much of the world, across the political spectrum, think Americans are turning their country into a banana republic and lack the ability to sustain the country, let alone your empire.

You’re also a blithering idiot who can’t respond on the merits. Even if you chose reason, AIDS, rather than merely invoked it, you lack both the brains and education to utilise it properly.

Good luck with your corpse of John Wayne Gacy ’24 POTUS campaign. It’ll probably be a better president than your current one. It certainly better and more honestly reflects your values.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

A moral person of intelligence has your number immediately

You seem to be very bigoted...notice how in this post you say 'white' --- you could not possible know that. But you could want it to be true.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Rev likes to imply when he feels his reasoning capacity not up to the task. For anyone can see that the better, more moral, more decent something is the more it attracts perverts and the demented.

And isn't it a telling example that we do not see Rev on those sites that fit what he does approve.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why is this good news?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Martinned,

That is indeed good news. Subsahara Africa is a big place, and I suppose I shouldn’t generalize, but it has been the most virulently homophobic place on the planet.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Also where AIDS came from. Just sayin....

[Religion and Politics, my life]

But stukdents from 13 universities in Uganda protested Biden's fool statement about homosexuals. Thus producing a storm of anti-gay hate that would not have existed except for his first hateful condemnation. This is not your business nor his. I don't see you protesting Uyghur and Falun Gong torture and organ harvesting

[David Nieporent]

CNN is reporting that there's an audio recording of post-presidency Trump bragging to his various lackeys about possessing classified documents regarding military contingency plans for attacking Iran.

We haven't been able to hear that recording yet, but based on the way it has been reported — and the fact that Trump issued one of those I'm-being-persecuted non-denials — it's utterly damning for Trump in the documents case. To be sure, as a legal matter all of the excuses that MAGA have tried to interject over the past ten months are flawed; Trump never declassified the documents he stole, and even if he had that wouldn't be a defense. But as a p.r. matter, they provided a fig leaf for his actions.

This recording seems to have him admitting that after he left office he knowingly retained possession of still-classified documents and that he knew they were still classified. And not even the biggest Trump fluffer thinks that he could declassify things after he left office.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics/trump-tape-classified-document-iran-milley/index.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

*I* could write a plan for attacking Iran, and so could you -- and while we may piss off certain authorities were we to publicize it, it wouldn't be classified.

Then Governor Bill Weld wrote a book about sneaking onto the lake that provides drinking water to Boston for some illegal fishing.

If he did it right, Trump could have authored a nonclassified plan -- although I'm reminded of JFK's presenting the U2 photos to the UN during the Cuban Missile Crisis -- and those were classified.

[David Nieporent]

Can someone sane translate from Dr. Ed into English?

[Dan Schiavetta]

He is doing what Trump supporters always do -- excuse previously inexcusable behavior.

Politicians should have moral lives. Trump hasn't lived a moral life. Suddenly morality doesn't matter.

Russia is an enemy. Trump likes Russia. Suddenly why is Russia so bad?

Politicians should be transparent. Trump refuses to disclose his tax returns. Suddenly tax returns aren't important.

Now -- politicians should not steal secrets. Trump steals a secret. Suddenly it's not important.

Nixon resigned because Republicans were shamed by the fact that he was caught on tape obstructing justice. Today's Republicans wouldn't bat an eye before saying, well, 1) it's not really obstruction, 2) it wasn't consequential, 3) all politicians do it.

[Frank Drackman]

not as bad as yesterdays DemoKKKrats allowing a KKK Grand Kleagle and a Murderer to serve in the Senate for a total of 98 years. And Barry Insane went to both of their funerals!

Frank

[Gandydancer]

"Politicians should have moral lives. Trump hasn’t lived a moral life. Suddenly morality doesn’t matter."

Now do Bill Clinton.

[Don Nico]

David,
As you required the translator to be sane, the answer is "no."

[Kazinski]

Are you talking about the legal ramifications or the political ramifications?

There could be political ramifications, but their won't be legal ramifications because Biden immunized Trump from prosecution over the classified documents by his own document handling.

It's too much of a double standard already with no special prosecutor for Biden, so I really don't think it's an issue.

[Randal]

You've got it backwards. Biden's document handling blunted the political ramifications of Trump's document handling since it complicated the situation beyond the reach of easy talking points.

But no one seriously thinks the situations are legally comparable.

[Martinned]

But no one seriously thinks the situations are legally comparable.

I suspect you'll find that at least half the commentariat here thinks exactly that.

[Randal]

Yes, but they aren't serious people.

[Vryedni]

The shamelessness required to pretend Biden's case is comparable to Trump's is mind-boggling.

[Frank Drackman]

Biden's case is like that Seinfeld Episode, "I'm an old man! I'm confused!!!"

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Biden's is worse but you should be clear when you 'insinuate'

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought the idea was that Trump had been politically immunized against the legal ramifications. That the double standard involved in prosecuting Trump and leaving Biden alone would be insupportable.

That strikes me as silly, I don't think they'd even blink at the double standard.

[Randal]

That strikes me as silly, I don’t think they’d even blink at the double standard.

Well, exactly. Because there is no double standard, legally speaking.

[Michael P]

Trump was president, and the whole classification system is established under the president's authority. Biden was not president. Absent a double standard, Biden would be more liable.

[Frank Drackman]

You have a good point, prepare to get Vince Fostered.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, no, there is, unless you deploy the lawyer's super power, distinguishing things that most people think are the same.

They both took home documents with classification markings. If anything, some of the differences work in Trump's favor: He at least had declassification authority at the time he took the documents.

I suppose you could claim that Biden did it accidentally, and had no idea he had classified documents. You can claim all sorts of silly things.

[Michael P]

Biden also moved the classified documents in his illicit possession at least once, and possibly several times. He left some of them stacked in a poorly controlled garage. Etc.

[Sarcastr0]

The facts are different in action, intent, and subsequent action. These tapes purport to make this even more clear.

Brett and Michael know this; hence why we get super vague stuff like 'They both took home documents with classification markings.'

It's not bad faith, because they are both so committed to defending there guy they have managed to convince themselves.

But 'I'm not lying, I'm just a pathetic toady on the Internet' may not be better.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I understand that you take Biden's claim to have brought them home inadvertently seriously. You also think the Clintons just happened to find the Rose law firm billing records right after the statute of limitations expired by coincidence, and hadn't known where they were before they just turned up. You're selectively credulous that way.

They went after Trump on something nobody had gone after a former President for ever before. Then they had an "oh, shit!" moment, and realized they'd better 'find' Biden's illegally retained classified documents before somebody else found them first. That's all.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Go fuck yourself Brett.

You’re deliberately dishonest, and nobody other than your fellow liars believe your gaslighting that the Trump issue is simply about illegal possession of classified documents.

You are a piece of shit.

[Mr. Bumble]

VC recommends you take anger management training.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are a piece of shit.

That's one perspective.

Another is that he is an antisocial, disaffected, autistic, delusional right-wing loser with a taste for conspiracy theories and a bigoted side he tries (ineptly) to conceal.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I have a better idea, Bumble:

How about you convince your fellow assholes to stop lying?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, we have proof on Trump. You're just making shit up on Biden to make them the same.

Plenty of double standards to find if you're living in a land of fiction.

[Commenter_XY]

I believe it is a matter of public record that POTUS Biden took home classified records from his time in the Senate (had no right to do that), and his time as VP (had no right to do that).

Hell, a bunch of them had classified docs. Charge one, charge them all.

To be fair, POTUS Trump brought some of this on himself, with his perceived lack of cooperation.

[Sarcastr0]

Read Brett's comment.
It's full fiction on Biden's behavior, with some Clinton conspiracies to boot.

[not guilty]

I believe it is a matter of public record that POTUS Biden took home classified records from his time in the Senate (had no right to do that), and his time as VP (had no right to do that).

Hell, a bunch of them had classified docs. Charge one, charge them all.

Assuming, without conceding, that taking documents is by itself a federal crime, Biden´s tenure in the Senate ended in 2009, and his term as vice-president ended in January 2017. What would be the point of charging an offense where prosecution is clearly time barred according to 18 U.S.C. § 3282?

[bernard11]

Xy,
"perceived" lack of cooperation?

Perceived??? It wasn't "perceived." It was real. The guy didn't respond to a number of requests, didn't respond to a subpoena, had his lawyer lie about a "thorough search," seemingly sowed the documents to various people, etc.

Don't go all Brett with excuses for Trump.

[Nige]

‘They went after Trump on something nobody had gone after a former President for ever before.’

They ‘went after’ him for something no former president has ever done before, and then only after giving him every opportunity to undo it.

‘Then they had an “oh, shit!” moment, and realized they’d better ‘find’ Biden’s illegally retained classified documents before somebody else found them first.’

This is the bit you completely made up.

[bernard11]

They went after Trump on something nobody had gone after a former President for ever before.

Yeah. How many former Presidents willfully refused to turn over documents they weren't entitled to, including classified documents, even after numerous polite requests and a subpoena.

Because if the answer is zero your "point" is worthless.

[Randal]

Again, you're confusing political implications for legal ones.

Can you prove that Biden knew he had classified documents? No.

Can you prove that Trump knew he had classified documents? Yes.

It's that simple, from a legal perspective.

As I said up front, it's more complicated from a political perspective. I still think Biden wins, but it's less clear cut than the legal case.

[bernard11]

There is no double standard anywhere but in Bellmore World.

[John F. Carr]

Charges against Trump, if there are any, will be brought by an independent prosecutor and not by somebody who consults with Biden on the political impact of agency policy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Charges against Trump, if there are any, will be brought by an independent prosecutor"

You'll believe anything.

[bernard11]

Yeah.

John Carr is just another radical leftist.

[David Nieporent]

It’s too much of a double standard already with no special prosecutor for Biden, so I really don’t think it’s an issue.

Not sure why anyone is dignifying this right wing derp with a response; there is a special prosecutor for Biden.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, but he’s not finding anything so it doesn’t count.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, your right, I'd forgotten that I should have checked.

But still doesn't detract from my main point, if they jump on Trump with both feet, and Biden gets a pass it's going to smell to the public. And by public I mean the independents that swing elections.

But of course Biden at 35% approval almost certainly won't be the nominee anyway so maybe they just punt any decisions until after the election, and hope it's has some value as a potential detriment.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are not qualified to speak on behalf of independents.

You, like Bellmore, are a lying sack of shit attempting to gaslight everyone that Trump didn’t willfully refuse to return the documents and try to obstruct their retrieval.

Fuck you.

[bernard11]

But still doesn’t detract from my main point, if they jump on Trump with both feet, and Biden gets a pass it’s going to smell to the public.

It's only going smell to anyone because all the right wing liars will make up bunch of bullshit, like what you and Brett are saying, and some gullible fools will believe it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

But still doesn’t detract from my main point, if they jump on Trump with both feet, and Biden gets a pass it’s going to smell to the public.

Yeah, the fans of Gateway Pundit, Instapundit, Stormfront, RedState, Volokh Conspiracy, Instapundit, QAnon, Daily Caller, Breitbart, Newsweek, Newsmax, and One America will be quite upset.

[Randal]

Wait ok, you think being factually wrong doesn't detract from your main point?

Congratulations, you're correct for the first time! Your main point was already so silly that there was nothing substantive for factual inaccuracies to detract from.

IIRC, your "main point" was the idea that the lack of a special prosecutor for Biden was somehow legally relevant for Trump. That's just... dumb. It remains dumb even knowing that there is a special prosecutor for Biden.

Try again!

The one thing I agree with you about is that your partisan BS doesn't even rise to the level of "conspiracy theory." At least conspiracy theories have some degree of internal consistency.

[SimonP]

Most people have forgotten about Biden's documents. The argument that his missteps blunted the political impact of Trump's developing criminal case is losing weight by the day, as the drumbeat of new information on Trump's intentional and knowing mishandling of classified documents continues.

[OtisAH]

“…their won’t be legal ramifications because Biden immunized Trump from prosecution over the classified documents by his own document handling.”

I got a great feeling about today so I’m not gonna make any early calls. But folks are going to have to work really hard to post anything more hilarious than that. Good luck, everyone!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There could be political ramifications, but their won’t be legal ramifications because Biden immunized Trump from prosecution over the classified documents by his own document handling.

Does Kazinski claim to be a lawyer? Not even a South Texas College of Law dropout would believe this.

[not guilty]

There could be political ramifications, but their won’t be legal ramifications because Biden immunized Trump from prosecution over the classified documents by his own document handling.

It’s too much of a double standard already with no special prosecutor for Biden, so I really don’t think it’s an issue.

Actually, there is a special counsel investigating Joe Biden´s handling of documents. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/12/special-counsel-biden-classified-documents-00077734

And how would Biden´s conduct immunize Donald Trump from prosecution?

[EscherEnigma]

For that argument to work, you have to ignore a very simple fact: when Biden and Pence discovered documents, they immediately went to the fed and cooperated in clearing things out.

When Trump discovered documents, he slow-walked returning them for a year, then lied about having returned everything he had, and then fought in court to retain control over the ones he had already claimed to have returned.

This is very much a case where the original "crime" is not the problem, but the response is.

Or to put it another way... Trump has a document problem not because he took things from the oval office. He has a problem because, after this was brought to his attention, he doubled down.

[David Nieporent]

When Trump discovered documents, he slow-walked returning them for a year, then lied about having returned everything he had, and then fought in court to retain control over the ones he had already claimed to have returned.

Don't forget "Maybe I declassified these documents." "Okay, which ones?" "I'm not going to tell you."

[Armchair Lawyer]

CNN is reporting...unverified rumors. Like the supposed Russian Pee tapes.

How many times does this have to happen before you say "Wait a second?...".

[Sarcastr0]

If a story seems sketchy, you could wait for the facts to come in.
Or you could preemptively declare it's all lies and look be made a fool if it turns out to be true.

Of course, being a fool has long been shown to not be an disincentive for you.

[Super Scary]

"If a story seems sketchy, you could wait for the facts to come in."

Or you could take it as as excuse to perform some sort of victory lap while screaming "We got him this time!" for the 10,000th time. Either way works.

[Sarcastr0]

Decent point.

You will notice this is not something I am doing. Not because I don't find CNN credible, but because there are quite clearly details yet to be filled in.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Once again, you've deliberately misinterpreted what I said.

If you didn't have your strawmen, you'd have nothing at all.

[Sarcastr0]

You went after CNN as to the facts. You said this was a pattern with the,

You think you are serious, but you are not serious. I’m beginning to think you are really not very bright.

[David Nieporent]

No, CNN is not reporting unverified rumors. (That is in fact what the pee tapes were, but as far as I know, CNN never reported that there were pee tapes.) You're using big boy lawyer words that you don't understand because you only went to armchair law school.

[Armchair Lawyer]

“but as far as I know, CNN never reported that there were pee tapes.”

Really…”as far as you know”….the dozens to hundreds of times CNN reported on the pee tapes you seem to have missed…but “as far as you know” CNN never reported them.

So, in reality, you simply “don’t know” and are ignorant of the situation. Since “as far as you know” you seem to have missed the dozens to hundreds of times CNN reported on it. And since you, as you admit don’t know…perhaps you should leave judgements about the reliability of CNN to those who “do know” and are educated and knowledgeable about its reporting history. Since “as far as you know” you aren’t one of those people.

[David Nieporent]

And yet, you can't even cite one time that CNN reported that there were pee tapes.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Y’all are all arguing back and forth on your partisan garbage while ignoring the bigger problem. Apparently our controls over classified information are very poor.

Does that actually matter here?

[bernard11]

Not partisan garbage, bevis. Unless you think blatantly criminal conduct by an ex-President is no big deal.

If anyone but Trump had classified material, and refused to return it when subpoenaed, and flashed it around, Brett and others would be screaming about prison sentences.

What it illustrates is how absolutely full of crap MAGAts are, and how utterly corrupt Trump is. And no "both-sides" crap. Nothing Biden has done is remotely comparable.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, you caught me Bernard. I just can’t hide how much I love Trump’s behavior.

Seriously it doesn’t bother you that everyone but you and me has at least one box of classified material sitting around the house unbeknownst by the government?

[bernard11]

I didn't say you loved it. Not close.

I said Trump is a criminal, and it's far more serious than just having a box of classified stuff around.

How many people, having such a box, would refuse to turn it over after several requests? After a subpoena? How many would show it to random people?

The problem is not that you love Trump. It's that you are willing to compare his behavior to completely different situations, ignore what he actually did, and make bizarre excuses. You sound like Brett.

Take a closer look at the facts, bevis.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I didn’t compare the behavior at all.

The comparison I made is that both of them had confidential documents without the knowledge of whoever is supposed to be protecting confidential documents.

That comparison is value neutral and it’s true. There’s no defense or condemnation of either guy in that. The Trump/Biden document argument is a stupid political one that I have no interest in. Neither of them is going to suffer a consequence for it. The real issue to me is the total lack of control of secrets, or perhaps as Brian suggests is an indication of the tendency to over-classify.

That’s a much bigger event than a who was worse argument about two clowns that will never amount to anything.

[ducksalad]

How many people, having such a box, would refuse to turn it over after several requests? After a subpoena?

Ordinary people? Very few.

But high-level officials frequently contest, negotiate, or even ignore subpoenas, and I think you are well aware of that. And (let’s leave Trump aside and consider, for example, Eric Holder) that’s not unexpected, because unlike you or me, they’re targets for lawfare. Furthermore, they understand that a judge is going to think about it and try some other options before ordering marshals to go out and arrest a prominent politician.

It’s too late in the day to be “shocked, shocked” that a cabinet level or higher official didn’t instantly comply with a subpoena. It’s something that they do.

It's also too late in the day to be shocked that high officials don't play by the same rules on classified material that some grunt employee at DoD has to obey. HRC, Trump, Biden, Pence. One would guess there are many others that quietly got rid of their documents without the press taking note.

[David Nieporent]

Um, great, except Trump wasn’t a high-ranking official when he defied the subpoena. He was a private citizen, no higher ranking than ducksalad himself.

(Maybe less; for all I know ducksalad is actually Kevin McCarthy.)

[ducksalad]

Let's try this line of reasoning:

1. It's only bad behavior if was intentional and knowing.
2. High officials are allowed some wiggle room on complying with subpoenas.
3. Trump sincerely believed himself to be a high official.
4. Therefore what he did isn't that bad.

You're probably spluttering coffee at this point. But actually I think that's how Trump sees it. If he really thought he was engaging in some criminal offense there would have been more secrecy and less public defiance.

PS We have standards around here. You can call someone a turd or threaten them with tar and feathers or even death. But calling them a member of Congress crosses the line.

[Life of Brian]

Apparently our controls over classified information are very poor.

Does that actually matter here?

I think it matters, yes, but more as a symptom for what I think is the real core disease: obscene degrees of overdesignation. When there's no real cost to the writer to do so, preemptively designating is the rational play -- much harder to get second-guessed for designating something that wasn't actually classified than leaving something undesignated that later turned out to matter.

So I don't hate the players per se, but the rules of the game definitely need to be adjusted if there's ever going to be any hope of getting back to a system where classified information is actually under proper controls so we can actually know where it is/isn't.

(Side note: there are many levels of classified info, and I strongly suspect most of the above problem falls at the lower levels. Sandy Bergerisms notwithstanding, there's at least an effort to contain/control/track docs classified at the highest levels.)

[M L]

Well, it’s a good question. Obama put tons of documents in some old abandoned furniture warehouse in Chicago. Now this was done through NARA so it was all legit and Obama’s foundation gave money to NARA to do it. But probably Obama still had access to the documents.

But as far as security goes, is the old furniture warehouse any more secure than SS-guarded Mar-A-Lago? Idk, seems less secure. Then compare to Biden’s garage where it seems the crackhead and whores were hanging out.

But the sticky issue is when you say “our controls over classified information are very poor.” Whose controls? Who is “our”? For better or worse, the President, whether Obama or Trump or Biden, is THE person entrusted to carry out all executive functions. So are you saying that various Presidents have behaved poorly with respect to controlling classified information, or are you saying that their authority to do so should somehow be removed to some bureaucracy? Or just making a general comment that applies to lower level people with access too?

[grb]

M L : “Obama put tons of documents in some old abandoned furniture warehouse”

That’s a lie. You know it’s a lie. You even slip in “done through NARA” to show you don’t care it’s a lie. Quote:

“But these records were given to NARA in 2017, upon the end of Obama’s term, and they remain in NARA’s sole custody, in accordance with federal law. Some 30 million documents were moved to a NARA-operated facility in the Chicago area, as the agency explained in a statement Friday, but none were classified. The administration’s classified documents are stored in a separate NARA facility in the Washington, D.C., area.”

So who do you impress with low-grade bullshit like this? Obama followed the law; Trump didn’t. Biden found he had some classified documents and immediately returned them. Trump stole documents and refused multiple entreaties and a subpoena to return them. That’s the difference. Why not deal with it?

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-obama-million-documents-929954890662

[M L]

You seem to be having reading comprehension difficulties.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Grb's complaint seems accurate to me.

You lied.

Not only did you deliberately mischaracterize the facts, you also by implication included Obama in the accusation that 'various Presidents have behaved poorly with respect to controlling classified information.'

Since no classified documents went to the NARA facility in Chicago, that implication is another lie.

Aren't you an actual lawyer? Says a lot about your professional integrity that you'd come here and lie your ass off.

[M L]

Bevis mentioned security concerns over confidential info generally. Specifically not being discussed was the very thing you and grb want to turn the discussion back to -- partisan recriminations and accusations of criminal conduct. Neither of your comments are responsive or contain any clue that you even understand this.

Nonetheless, I clearly noted that the Obama documents were handled legally. Trump and Biden, I reserve judgment.

[Randal]

How retarded are you? Why did you even bring up Obama's warehouse in a conversation about the handling of classified documents if you already knew that Obama's warehouse didn't have any classified documents?

Very retarded, is the answer.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now this was done through NARA so it was all legit and Obama’s foundation gave money to NARA to do it.

Other than that though!

[Zarniwoop]

[Blah blah the same tired "furniture warehouse in Chicago" bool and sheet] Now this was done through NARA so it was all legit and Obama’s foundation gave money to NARA to do it. But probably Obama still had access to the documents.

(emphasis added.)

Wrong on the facts ... again. NARA itself has stated (pess release dated 12Aug2022):

"NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration."

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001

Please stop fact-free attempts too disingenuously conflate completely dissimilar scenarios, before someone thinks you're deliberately trying to lie about it.

[M L]

I see you don't know anything about this "story" but that's ok, there's really not much to it. However note that having access is not the same thing as having control or custody.

[grb]

When is a story a “story”?

Answer: When ML doesn’t have the facts behind him. Here’s the bottom line on this bit of obscuration : Trump refused to turn over classified documents, shifted the boxes of his haul around after receiving a subpoena, and swore in writing all documents were returned after a visit on June 3 to Mar-a-Lago by Jay Bratt, top counterintelligence official in the Justice Department’s national security division.

After this became public knowledge, the Trump Cult cast around for a what-about and found nothing remotely similar. One of their more pathetic efforts was claiming Obama also took documents (like Trump!) and secreted them in a breezy warehouse (just as unsecure!). This was quickly debunked.

ML wants to recycle that discredited shtick, despite knowing it’s absolutely worthless. So he uses the same rhetoric, but slips in a reference to NARA to launder the smell of bullshit off a nonexistent point. For laughs, I also like his conspiratorial, “but probably Obama still had access to the documents.”

Yep. I’m betting the National Archives and Records Administration gives ex-presidents access to their old documents. Hell, I bet they even give Trump access to his as well. I would say that in a conspiratorial whisper, but can’t kept a straight face.

[M L]

You may have missed it again, but we were not discussing Trump's criminal charges here or anything like that. Rather, bevis brought up the general point of information being kept secure. bernard does provide some context below that makes it sound like there was good security for Obama's documents, so that's good.

For laughs, I also like his conspiratorial, “but probably Obama still had access to the documents.”

Yep. I’m betting the National Archives and Records Administration gives ex-presidents access to their old documents. Hell, I bet they even give Trump access to his as well. I would say that in a conspiratorial whisper, but can’t kept a straight face.

My understanding is that former presidents do indeed have access to their old documents. According to The Atlantic:

Former presidents can obtain classified material from their own administration, and, as a matter of practice, only a request to the archivist of the United States is required. The current administration has no formal role in the matter, nor is there any prescribed process by which the intelligence community is consulted and given the opportunity to raise concerns. This access is afforded to former presidents who are now private citizens on the basis of seemingly unexamined assumptions about the role of, and even the respect and courtesies due to, past occupants of the Oval Office. And it is provided regardless of the reasons this material may be of interest or use to them.

This could be wrong, I don't know the law on this topic. But it would seem either The Atlantic is wrong, or grb doesn't have the facts behind him. Which is it? No conspiratorial whisper or straight face needed.

[grb]

ML quote : "Obama put tons of documents in some old abandoned furniture warehouse in Chicago. Now this was done through NARA so it was all legit and Obama’s foundation gave money to NARA to do it. But probably Obama still had access to the documents"

It seems you're the one who raised the "issue" of Obama having access to the documents stored in the Chicago National Archives and Records Administration facility. Why did you do so?

After all, I knew the NARA allows ex-presidents access to their records. Most people would automatically assume that's the case. Yet you seemed to think it raised an issue. What function is the word "But" performing in the quote above?

[M L]

Right, so again everything I said was perfectly factual, and Zarniwoop doesn't know what he's talking about. The reason I brought up access is because, again, bevis raised the general concern about security and control over information, and the fact that ex presidents have access is relevant context, it's not like ex presidents are among the category of people that security measures and controls are designed to prevent from accessing these documents.

[Randal]

Oh just take the loss, your backpedaling isn't convincing anyone of anything except how little integrity you have.

[bernard11]

"Old furniture warehouse."

As though the records were thrown into an abandoned building. Fuck you and your snide insinuations.

Reality:

The Hoffman Estates facility [a former furniture store-Bernard11] once stored classified records, “in an appropriately secured compartment within the facility,”

And I'd say it was vastly more secure than Mar-a-Lago, given trump's cavalier attitude towards security.

[David Nieporent]

Y’all are all arguing back and forth on your partisan garbage while ignoring the bigger problem. Apparently our controls over classified information are very poor.

That may indeed be true, but I don't think it works as an indictment of the system vis-à-vis Trump. A president, while president (and I cannot stress that caveat enough), can do almost whatever the hell he wants with classified information. (Almost anything; I mean, he can't accept a bribe to disclose it, or secretly send it to an enemy government in wartime.) So while it ought to be possible to monitor lower level people's access to those documents and insist those people keep track of and return them when they're done, it's much harder to do that with a president.

[M L]

CNN is reporting, huh? I've seen this movie before.

[Sarcastr0]

Only Jack Probisec twitter posts for your factual standards!

[Noscitur a sociis]

To be fair, the CNN article does say they haven't actually heard the tapes, just a description of them. I do think it's fair to conclude that that undermines the story somewhat. (Trump's conspicuous failure to deny it counsels the other way, of course.)

[Sarcastr0]

Absolutely - hence my noting above, "If a story seems sketchy, you could wait for the facts to come in."

[M L]

Yes but moreover, umpteen prior episodes of "reporting" undermine the story.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Like what, for instance?

You're abysmally bad at arguing, and I can explain why if you'd like:

You ignore facts in favor of suppositions and fantasies.

[Super Scary]

"To be fair, the CNN article does say they haven’t actually heard the tapes, just a description of them."

Wow, sounds even more legit.

[Jerry B.]

Doesn’t matter. All the DNC/media combine want is something else they can scream about Trump leading up to the 2024 election. A conviction is not necessary, and might not even be desirable.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bingo, just like Benghazi.

[not guilty]

The kerfluffle about whether the documents that Trump removed had been declassified is a red herring -- none of the federal statutes under consideration distinguishes between classified and unclassified documents. Trump acknowledging in his own voice that he knew that he was in possession of classified materials after leaving office can be powerful evidence to prove his culpable mental state. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/us/politics/trump-tape-document.html

[Armchair Lawyer]

One does have to wonder...what is the source of these supposed tapes.

Did Trump consent to being recorded? If not, was the recording then made illegally, in a two-party consent state?

Or was the FBI secretly recording the conversations of the Presidential candidate, then releasing "knowledge" about them?

These are important questions about these supposed tapes.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nobody cares about your disingenuous questions and reality-free opinions.

[not guilty]

CNN reports that the meeting was held at Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. It appears that New Jersey is a one party consent state. https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-2a/section-2a-156a-4

[not guilty]

The District of Columbia, where a prosecution of Trump would likely be tried, is also a one party consent jurisdiction. https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/district-of-columbia/

[David Nieporent]

If you bothered to read the stories about it, yes, Trump consented to being recorded. He wanted all his meetings with writers and journalists recorded. This was about people working on Mark Meadows' book; it had nothing to do with the FBI. Also, Trump wasn't a presidential candidate in 2021.

[Gandydancer]

"CNN has not listened to the recording, but multiple sources described it."

Hmmm... could it be that all those oath-violating "sources" were Democrat or worse? Like CNN is? Yeah, that's "utterly damning" "reporting" for you. But only of Trump, amirite?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well there is the Jason Vassell case at UMass Amherst -- where a black kidgot away with slicing & dicing two white kids -- both unarmed, because of a racial slur.Thu university died that day.

That said, I thought Chaplinski had been de-facto overrulled.

[Sarcastr0]

During the incident on Feb. 3, evidence provided to Judge Carhart explained that Bowes and Bosse had shouted racial epithets at Vassell, followed a resident into the lobby of Vassell’s dormitory, MacKimmie Hall, and the three began to fight. Vassell sustained a broken nose in the scuffle and injured Bowes and Bosse with a knife.

There is no war on white people. You're a full on white nationalist at this point. Alongside having a rich fantasy life you offer as true above and beyond any here.

You are bad and you should feel bad.

[Davedave]

It's ironic that the typing horse thinks one colour of human should reign supreme over other colours, whilst being a horse. Shouldn't he be more concerned about the other horses?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sarcarsto, go pull the file -- it being public was part of the settlement.

Video does not lie -- two white males crouching at one end of the lounge and Vassal lunging the length of the lobby, knife outstretched, and proceeding to slice & dice them. That's premeditated attempted murder, not a "fight."

Pull the file -- I have...

[Sarcastr0]

You disagree with the 'evidence provided to Judge Carhart' and are getting super white resentment about it.

You have a big problem seeing what you want to see, so I'm giving negative credence to you claiming the file bears you out.

[Zarniwoop]

If someone presents you with a selectively edited and short segment of Kyle Rittenhouse shooting people, and none of the events leading up to the shots, would you blindly agree that it’s premeditated 1st degree murder?

Because that’s about how your flailing around sounds.

Also, maybe provide a link to WhateverTF you think you’re talking about.

[Gandydancer]

It's hard to imagine even a selectively edited or short video of Rittenhouse shooting his attackers that would be as damning as a video of "Vassal lunging the length of the lobby, knife outstretched, and proceeding to slice & dice them". After akll, Rittenhouse chased no one so no video could show that happening.

[EscherEnigma]

... and how do you feel about 15-minute chokeholds?

[Gandydancer]

Merely sufficient, if that is how long it takes for the cops to show up to take the threatening crazy person off your hands. Putting up with his smell that long was surely an unpleasant sacrifice.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So, 15 years ago a criminal case ended without a lighter sentence than you had hoped for.

Is there some reason you're bringing it up now?

[Zarniwoop]

[JamesEarlJonesVoice]
The butthurt is strong with this one.
{/JamesEarlJonesVoice]

[Gandydancer]

“…15 years ago a criminal case ended without a lighter sentence than you had hoped for.”

It ended with probation and then expungement. Your sentence doesn’t appear to parse in a way consistent with that fact. Did you intend top write “with”?

Of course this instance of a Soros Sentence is by no means the most recent one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Law school enrollment plummeted in 2010 & 2011.

Did the numbers ever come back, or did the schools downsize?

[Martinned]

Amusing tidbit I just spotted as I fell down a Wikipedia rabbit hole:

In Italy you need to have a middle school/high school diploma before you may sit as a lay judge on an assizes courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corte_d%27Assise

Lay judges for both the Corte d'Assise and the Corte d'Assise d'Appello have to be older than thirty and younger than sixty-five. Lay judges for the Corte d'Assise must have completed their education to the level of junior high school (scuola media). The lay judges for the Corte d'Assise d'Appello must hold a diploma from a senior high school (scuola superiore).

Good idea for American jurors?

[John F. Carr]

Somebody from New York recently mentioned a former law providing that certain cases would be tried by jurors with brains rather than any old idiot. In criminal cases you risk increasing the class difference between defendant and jury. In complex civil cases intelligent juries could reduce the randomness of verdicts.

[Martinned]

In criminal cases you risk increasing the class difference between defendant and jury.

That depends on whether you're talking about rich people crime or poor people crime.

[Dan Schiavetta]

John:

You're thinking of special juries, restricted to people of education and good morals, upheld in Fay v. New York, 1947. New York abolished them in 1965.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Assuming wikipedia can be trusted, it looks like completing scuola media is roughly equivalent to graduating 8th grade. In this day, I think it would be extremely unusual to encounter a juror who hadn't done that. I also have very little doubt that such a rule would be held unconstitutional.

[Gandydancer]

Sounds unconstitutional for criminal cases where you are supposed to get a jury of your peers.

And YOU wouldn't like the racial impact.

And these certifications are supposed to be a proxy for what?

Would you like potential jurors to take the SAT with a cutoff?

[Martinned]

Anyone up for a violation of people's freedom of speech in order to combat those evil climate change protesters? (Or otherwise stick it to the libs...) https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2023/06/01/eliza-bechtold-recent-efforts-to-regulate-expression-by-conservatives-in-the-uk-and-the-us-highlight-a-shift-toward-illiberalism/

I know that we're all supposed to be big believers in the First Amendment, but I have the impression that a fair few frequent commenters waver when it comes to the war on woke.

[Martinned]

Speaking of the War on Woke, here's a nice historic picture of DDR schoolchildren burning "trashy literature" OTD in 1955: https://twitter.com/GermanAtPompey/status/1664164389283409920

[Gandydancer]

The Commies were "stick[ing] it to the libs", too?

[Martinned]

Yes. Have you never noticed that Communists who are actually in charge of things are typically just as conservatives as other totalitarians? Look at gay rights in China if you want a lesson.

[Gandydancer]

Libs in 1955 East Germany weren't the champions of tranny "rights" you are imagining they were.

[Martinned]

By the way, climate change protesters have it tough in the Netherlands as well: https://www.amnesty.nl/actueel/politie-schendt-rechten-van-demonstranten

[Don Nico]

Martin,
One has to have a throat disease to read that piece.

[Gandydancer]

You're asking us to believe the DUTCH government is "stick[ing] it to the libs"????

[Martinned]

We've had conservatives as prime minister since 2002.

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

[David Nieporent]

As Europeans are fond of pointing out, your conservatives are left of our Democratic Party.

[Martinned]

Indeed, at least on some metrics. https://www.ft.com/content/a2050877-124a-472d-925a-fc794737d814

[Gandydancer]

So the Dutch "conservative" PMs you mentioned were by your admission to the left of the (D)s. Again, you’re asking us to believe that their ilk are “stick[ing] it to the libs”????

[Martinned]

...and in Germany: https://verfassungsblog.de/category/debates/kleben-und-haften-ziviler-ungehorsam-in-der-klimakrise/

[apedad]

Sie sollen eine englische Übersetzung finden.

[Martinned]

It may surprise you, but discussions about German law often happen in German. But Google is your friend.

[bernard11]

Quelle surprise.

[Gandydancer]

Google is evil and not my friend.

[Martinned]

In that case you should probably spent some time learning foreign languages. I did, and look how it's paying off for me, allowing me to be part of this fascinating conversation!

[Gandydancer]

How that relates to my observations about the falsity of what you said about Google is non-obvious.

[Frank Drackman]

Ubersetzen this, Leck mich im Arsch, du Schwanzlutscher.

Frank

[apedad]

It's "am Arsch" not "im Arsch" you half-breed.

[Frank Drackman]

Of Course the non-native speaker Amurican tells the native German speaker how to speak his language,
Wolfgang Mozart says it my way,
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=leck+mich+im+arsch+or+am+arsch&view=detail&mid=E14EBB2A8121703C1861E14EBB2A8121703C1861&FORM=VIRE

Frank

[Michael P]

No, we just remember that things said by public school libraries and classrooms are government speech, and the government has broad discretion to choose its speech. Your side argued that loudly when government racists painted "Black Lives Matter" in streets and called "All Lives Matter" hate speech.

[Sarcastr0]

It may be legal (not sure yet) but it is absolutely not good to remove books that mention civil rights or gay people from school libraries.

That the right is defending this says a lot about the loss of their moral core.

Yes, I do believe they had one at one point, albeit one I would disagree with. Now, it's just owning the libs.

[Michael P]

If "books that [merely] mention civil rights or gay people" are getting banned, why does the left keep using examples like graphic novels with illustrated statutory rape, or using pictures where the author is holding a totally different book than the article talks about?

[Nige]

The left have no end of examples of books the right is trying to ban. The right loves to bring up that example in order to sensationalise and scandalise with what is basically a sex ed book, but the right hates sex ed, too.

[Martinned]

Not just books. It turns out that The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo is also inappropriate for minors: https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/1664269232006389763

[Gandydancer]

You did catch that it was Youtube that did that, right? That hardly seems likely to be an example of, your phrase, "stick[ing] it to the libs".

[Martinned]

I did notice that. I wonder who pressured them to have such a silly policy, because I very much doubt that they censor videos for their own amusement.

[Gandydancer]

Just because they’re part of the Lefty hive doesn’t mean that their minions are up to making non-risible distinctions.

Nobody had to "pressure" Google to fire James Damore.

[Gandydancer]

Gaslightr0 is lying when he claims that “books that [merely] mention civil rights or gay people are getting banned".

If you don't want the "sex ed" books (~"here's how a boy can fuck a boy", etc.) to be brought up stop pushing them down parents' throats.

[Sarcastr0]

graphic novels with illustrated statutory rape The right keeps it general, because these books already went through review for obscenity are are not obscene. So they lie by omission, or rather ignorance because they have no idea what these books actually say they just heard about it from rightwingkeepyoumad.com

Or maybe I'm thinking of the wrong book. Can't tell, y'all keep it vague.

[Michael P]

Wow, that's a huge goalpost move. You think the right threshold for what schools make available to students should be "is it obscene in a First Amendment sense"?

[Sarcastr0]

I think that it not being obscene belies your bullshit description of 'graphic novels with illustrated statutory rape.'

[Michael P]

By your argument, Samuel Delany's Hogg was published, so it must not be obscene, so it's therefore appropriate for school libraries?

[Sarcastr0]

'graphic novels with illustrated statutory rape' sounds like child porn. Which is obscene.

Do you think it is child porn, or were you providing a deceitful framing?

[Michael P]

So ... you're pissy because I didn't call it child porn? I said illustrated, not explicitly illustrated.

[Randal]

You think "illustrated statutory rape" doesn't sound explicit? I'm having a hard time even understanding what you're talking about with this non-obscene illustration of statutory rape, or why it should be banned.

[Gandydancer]

Coming from the “books that [merely] mention civil rights or gay people are getting banned” guy this claim of vagueness is pretty rich.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What does it say about the moral core of the left that they want to put books in school libraries like the one where several guys had a circle jerk and they all went off into the same jar?

The plank in your own eye……

[Nige]

Why can you book banners never be specific about the exact books you're talking about and the libraries they're in and the age group that has access to them rather than indulging in an opportunity to write something pornographic for yourself? There are books for older teens with explicit sexual conent, but since I'll wager most here were reading Stephen King or similar adult fare while still in their teens, it's really just more hypocritical prurience.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

But you make the mistake that both sides agree is a mistake : Books that menion 'civil rights' or gay perversion 99% of the time mention more than that and to claim the right to say what it is about is already --- surprise -- CENSORSHIP.

A book that criticized the immorality of homsexual relations would then be a 'gay' book in your view , but not the right kind of gay book
THis is like saying , if you object to abortion you are thereby religous, an aburd contention.
Just get in touch with the following
SECULAR PRO-LIFE
Our mission in three parts:

Advance secular arguments against abortion;
Create space for atheists, agnostics, and other secularists interested in anti-abortion work; and
Build interfaith coalitions of people interested in advancing secular arguments.

The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL)

WHO WE ARE
Plagal is a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, educational organization that promotes the pro-life ethic within the LGBT+ community while encouraging involvement within the pro-life community. Our particular emphasis is on the unborn and the needs of the mother. We promote collaboration within the pro-life movement.

[bernard11]

Books in a library are not government speech. They are the authors' speech.

And the government can't be said to be endorsing that speech because inevitably there will be different points of view expressed in different books.

[DaveM]

Freedom to speak? Yes.

But:

– Freedom to glue yourself to the floor in order to interrupt a meeting,
– throw paint and dye onto a priceless painting in a museum,
– dump ink into an historic fountain to spoil it for the millions of tourists who visit it each year,
– ruining flowers and plants by throwing powered dyes onto them so they can’t be used in a competition,
– blocking busy highways
– clambering on top of mass transit trains so people are late for work?

Your mistake is imagining that these folks deserve the same protections for these intentionally disruptive hijinks as they do for speaking.

They care nothing about speech. They care nothing for your rights.

They are in the same class as vandals, and we should treat them as such. By all means, let them speak — to a judge.

[Sarcastr0]

You think all that happened without legal consequence?

[Don Nico]

Tell us what they were. I can't waste time answering a rhetorical question

[Nige]

The ones that were crimes resulted in arrests. So did some of the ones that weren't crimes.

[Sarcastr0]

My dude, you brought this shit up. Burden is on you.

[Don Nico]

I brought it up? How did you figure that?

[Sarcastr0]

DaveM then.

[Gandydancer]

DaveM said NOTHING about punishment other than that it ought not stop short of a court appearance. It's YOUR claim that there WERE significant legal consequences. So, no, it's YOUR responsibility to back up that claim with evidence.

[Randal]

Are you blind? Oh I forgot: you can't read.

They are in the same class as vandals, and we should treat them as such. By all means, let them speak — to a judge.

And as Sarcastr0 pointed out, they did. Problem solved! Grievance mitigated! You should go celebrate, but yet, you continue to bitch. What are you even bitching about again?

[Gandydancer]

That's why I wrote "DaveM said NOTHING about punishment other than that it ought not stop short of a court appearance."

Also, again: "It’s [Gaslightr0's] claim that there WERE significant legal consequences. So, no, it’s [Gaslightr0's] responsibility to back up that claim with evidence."

He hasn't and neither have you.

[Nige]

Everybody who did those things faced legal consequences, and only the last two are in any way serious, (though I remember people complaining when the anti-war protesters blocked roads before Iraq II. Should have blocked more roads.) This UK law is about peaceful assembly.

[Gandydancer]

Nige: " only are in any way serious"

"throw paint and dye onto a priceless painting in a museum" wasn't one of "the last two".

[Ed Grinberg]

Exactly.

I'm reminded of this case:
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/20/would-be-peaceful-demonstrators-lack-standing-to-challenge-floridas-anti-riot-act/

Florida: "You can hold a peaceful protest, but you can't run riot."
"nonprofit organizations and...individual[s] who plan[...] to hold 'peaceful demonstrations honoring George Floyd and other victims of racism and police brutality'": "You're suppressing our freedom of speech/assembly!"
court: "Bullshit."

[Davedave]

The situation in the UK is all quite odd. Bear in mind the vast majority of those protestors are calling for something the science says is effectively genocide, so arguably their protests already fall under hate-speech law, and indisputably their protests are of the same nature as speech forbidden under hate-speech law.

Extinction Rebellion and JSO aren't campaigning against some imaginary extinction threat to humanity; they are campaigning for the extinction (or near-extinction) of some (skin colour based) groups of humanity. (OK, most of them are just useful idiots, but still. There's a reason they're all the whitest of the white.)

[Nige]

‘calling for something the science says is effectively genocide,’

None of the science says this.

'There’s a reason they’re all the whitest of the white.'

Plenty of activists in African countries trying to save forests, combat desertification, deal with plastics and end fossil fuel dependancy. Well done pretending they don't exist. See also India and Pakistan; in fact, see everywhere.

[Davedave]

Yes, it clearly does. It's not even a question. They're science-denying white-supremacist loons who'd be absolutely at home on this blog.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/climate-resilient-pathways-adaptation-mitigation-and-sustainable-development/

[Nige]

Wow, you’ve linked to proof that climate change is real and there are activists all over the world trying to persuade their governments to deal with it and there are no end of solutions and strategies available.

[Davedave]

No, I've linked to the chapter about the vital balance between mitigation and adaptation, which also talks about the differential impact of climate change on poor people vs rich people. The one which says that getting the balance wrong will be catastrophic and wildly imbalanced in its effects.

You know, the balance that JSO and Extinction Rebellion don't accept the importance of. Anyone who says we should forget adaptation and go all-in on mitigation is talking genocidal anti-science nonsense.

[Nige]

Oh, so you're just making shit up about what they believe and think, right. Adaptation is what you have to do because there hasn't been enough mitigation. Adaptation alone is what lots of people would prefer happen, ie, let the burden fall on the people directly affected, not on the people who caused it or have the power to do anything about it. Environmental groups have been talking about adaptation, resilience and mitigation all together since at least the late 90s. ER is explicitly focused on getting governments to act, which includes mitigation and adaptaion.

[Davedave]

So, you don't accept the scientific consensus on climate change? Got it.

And you're also lying about XR. They vehemently oppose all adaptation, and focus solely on mitigation. I'm not surprised you didn't bother telling that lie about JSO, since, given their name, that's a bit stupid even for a climate science denier like you.

[Nige]

You DO like making shit up about what other people think and say, don’t you? JSO have a particular focus, just like ER do, so what? If you don't like either's focus there are plenty of other environmental groups to choose from. But if you're incapable of being honest about what they represent, and seem to enjoy being deliberately obtuse, I expect you're just the sort to waste everyone's time by picking stupid fights. Maybe sit it all out.

[Davedave]

I haven't made anything up. They overtly and categorically reject the scientific consensus on climate change, as you do. They are campaigning for genocide, which is what I said, and that was relevant in the context of the actual discussion we were having before you decided to sidetrack it with fact-denial.

[Nige]

You are making pretty much everything up.

Can you show exactly where they deny climate change?

Can you show exactly where I deny climate change?

Can you show exactly where they advocate genocide?

[Davedave]

What is this ridiculous distraction technique? I didn't say you denied climate change. I said you denied climate science. Which you do. And they do.

[Nige]

Oh I beg your pardon, I'm sure. Where did we all do that, seperately and together, then?

[Davedave]

You did it in this thread, you dishonest scumbag. You unashamedly rejected the climate science because you don't like what it says. What the hell else do you think you're doing when you disagree with the IPCC?

JSO, well, it's in the name. XR, not in the name, but the thing they're overtly campaigning for, so it's utterly irrefutable.

I don't begin to understand the point of your sealioning. Does anyone anywhere (apart from you, here) claim that isn't what XR want? If that isn't what they want, why is it in their manifesto? Their fundamental demands are denial of the scientific consensus on climate change in favour of actions that same scientific consensus says will kill billions of the poorest people on the planet.

https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/demands/

[Nige]

What did I reject?

What’s wrong with their campaigns? One wants to stop fossil fuel production, since it’s driving climate change, one campaigns for politicians to deal with climate change. You’re making stuff up about what they believe.

Telling The Truth, Acting Now and Deciding Together are a denial of a scientific consensus and will kill millions? What are you ON about?

[Davedave]

You rejected, and continue to reject, the scientific consensus that striking the right balance between adaptation and mitigation is vital to avoid billions of unnecessary deaths.

JSO and XR also reject that consensus when they demand mitigation at all costs. It is the scientific consensus that their demands are equivalent to a demand to ethnically cleanse the planet to a significant degree. You surely can't deny that the people they advocate allowing to die are all dark-skinned, or that simple arithmetic is that the net effect will be a huge change in the genetic makeup of the planet, overwhelmingly favouring light skinned people.

It really is very simple. They demand things that will benefit rich white people, at the cost of billions of poor African and Asian lives. They would be completely at home on this blog.

[Nige]

'You rejected, and continue to reject, the scientific consensus that striking the right balance between adaptation and mitigation is vital to avoid billions of unnecessary deaths.'

Didn't happen. My comments are right up there and I defy you to identify the words and sentences where that supposedly happened. If anyone's rejecting it, it's you, since you reject and deride and demonise all efforts at promoting mitigation. Neither JSO or ER reject adaptation at all, but you reject mitigation, which makes you guilty of what you're accusing them.

'They demand things that will benefit rich white people, at the cost of billions of poor African and Asian lives'

This is a rather large and obvious lie. How does reducing fossil fuel dependency and beef farming and promoting clean energy and sustainable agricultural techniques do either of those things? Especially since many African and Asians are campaigning for exactly the same things?

[Davedave]

And here we go again. See the original link, to the science you reject. It explains exactly why this is so.

Your lies about what XR and (especially) JSO demand seem utterly pointless. Just Stop Oil demand the cessation of fossil fuel extraction immediately. It's in their name. I don't know why you think denying that is going to convince anyone. Surely even you can see how ridiculous it is to claim that Just Stop Oil want to continue with oil?

We are not talking about groups that accept the science and therefore call for a phased change from the current situation. We are talking about people who demand absolute, immediate change. That change is, as the scientific consensus says, more harmful than helpful unless your aims are white-supremacist genocide.

[Nige]

'See the original link, to the science you reject.'

You're lying, I didn't reject anything.

'Surely even you can see how ridiculous it is to claim that Just Stop Oil want to continue with oil?'

On the contrary, I affirmed their goals.

'We are talking about people who demand absolute, immediate change.'

Well, yes, because the phased change you seem to think you understand hasn't been happening except slowly and in bits and pieces and often compromised or rolled back.

'That change is, as the scientific consensus says, more harmful than helpful unless your aims are white-supremacist genocide.'

Can you show me where exactly the science says that, with reference to a detailed examination of the ideal amount and speed of change and how much, exactly of that has been and is being acheived? Because nowhere in the report you linked to does it say anything remotely like the weird daft extremist hardline view that campaiging to end fossil fuel production is white supremacist genocide.

[Krayt]

"We're so god damned right, we can throw people into jail for disagreement."

Yeah, no.

When I see three quarters of the politicians thrown into jail for adding burden to the economy, and therefore dogging progress, such that we may be decades behind where we otherwise would be, with attendant needless tens of millions of excess deaths annually due to lagging tech levels, then I'll listen.

[Davedave]

"needless tens of millions of excess deaths annually"

Approx 3.5 million total deaths in the US last year. Numbers are not your friends, are they?

[Krayt]

World wide. Concern over mass murder is not your thing because bloated corruption dogs the economy, is it, Dave?

[Bob from Ohio]

She made a big error in the intro "recent regulations censoring expression"

No such "censoring" regulations exist.

No doubt her UK facts are wrong as well.

[Kazinski]

No, I'm an absolute believer in free speech, but a good chunk of "the war on woke" is the government policing its own speech, which is permissable.

[Nige]

Government making government more discriminatory and biased and, frankly, stupid is a concern for everyone. But I'm not sure how, eg, laws banning drag shows fit that formulation, let alone laws banning healthcare for a particular group of people.

[Kazinski]

They don’t ban drag shows, they ban shows with partial nudity and real or simulated sex acts where children may be present.

I don’t think children should be allowed in strip clubs even if they are wearing pasties or lingerie, and such establishments should lose their license, and that’s the law.

Why should drag shows be different?

[Gandydancer]

"Eliza Bechtold... the former Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico"

Someone with all the prejudices and facility at lying one would expect of someone with such a credential. No, keeping pederast-friendly teachers from propagandizing elementary school students is not an exercise in suppressing free speech.

[Nige]

Smearing elementary school teachers with such casual ease is certainly part of it.

[Gandydancer]

Asserting that "elementary school teachers" and "pederast-friendly teachers" are the same category is YOUR smear.

[Kazinski]

It looks like Comer is moving forward with a contempt citation against Wray for not providing the House the FD-1302 alleging Biden performed an official act for a $5m bribe when he was VP. This is the first acknowledgement from Wray that the FBI actually has the document:

"Comer (R-Ky.) said after his early-afternoon call with Wray that the FBI chief confirmed the existence of an FD-1023 informant file from June 2020 accusing Biden of corruption and offered Comer and committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) “in camera review” of the document."
https://nypost.com/2023/05/31/fbi-director-wray-offers-to-let-congress-see-biden-bribery-allegation/

Obviously the House would not have, not should it have accepted just viewing a copy of such a document when the House was investigating Trump.

This is clearly a matter the House has jurisdiction to investigate.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure Wray is shivering in his boots: Contempt of Congress means very little when the party in the White House has your back.

Unless they're ready to pull out "inherent contempt", and start locking people up in the Capitol basement again.

[John F. Carr]

Congress could grow a pair. And then the FBI prevents the warrant from being executed, and Congress issues another warrant for obstruction, and soon D.C. is nothing but dueling agents of the executive and legislative branches shouting "you're under arrest!" "no I'm not!".

[Armchair Lawyer]

One concept would be for Congress to issue subpoenas to the director of the FBI and everyone directly under them.

Failure to turn over the document would cause contempt of Congress.

Then during the next administration, simply prosecute everyone who was in contempt. Throw them all in jail for a year. Also, it would help clear out the top ranks of the FBI who don't respond to legitimate Congressional Oversight.

[Voize]

No need to wait, the current administration could test out your theory by prosecuting Bill Barr for his 2019 contempt of the House.

[Gandydancer]

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/11/18647093/contempt-of-congress-barr-house-vote

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that that is, in some sense, a concept.

[Commenter_XY]

I have a purely theoretical question: Could a Congressional committee call a Cabinet officer, hear testimony, hold them in contempt, and jail them at the Capitol?

If Congress has the authority to hold someone in contempt, it would imply the power to imprison. Can they?

[Martinned]

The British parliament has/had (no one knows) that power, so you'd think that the US Congress would too, absent indication in the Constitution to the contrary.

[Brett Bellmore]

The US Congress absolutely has that power, as confirmed by the Supreme court. They haven't used it since the Teapot Dome scandal.

[Voize]

In 1924 a Senate committee issued two subpoenas to the brother of the Attorney General, who they were investigating in connection with the Teapot Dome scandal. When the brother ignored the subpoenas the Senate ordered his arrest and he was taken into custody by a deputy of the sargeant at arms. The Supreme Court upheld his detention as an inherent power of Congress.

[OtisAH]

Oh, of course the Contempt of Congress doves have become Contempt of Congress hawks! After all, the Turnip-appointed Christopher Wray has always been Biden’s Guy!

[Gandydancer]

Trump in fact made a lot of unforced errors in that vein.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This is actually a pretty big deal, the FBI refusing legitimate Congressional Oversight.

[Sarcastr0]

Legitimate means against Dems, who are the only ones who do anything bad to AL.

Good lord man, you're pathetic.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You're ranting. Your comments made no sense.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not alone in noting your open lack of consistent principles.

Unfortunately for you, people have memories, AL.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

A position you miraculously adopted just recently, I see.

Nothing at all hypocritical? You really mean it?

[Armchair Lawyer]

When have I denied that Congressional Oversight over the FBI is required and necessary?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, you've historically been completely ok with the Executive agencies ignoring Congressional oversight demands.

Unless it was a Republican requesting the information, you've never defended the need to honor a subpoena, even when the related laws in question made it clear that compliance was in fact, compulsory.

Now someone wants gossip about a Democrat, and suddenly you're 100% on-board with compliance.

Fucking hypocrite.

[M L]

I could be a good legislative assistant in the drafting area.

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation is hereby abolished. The End."

This could even be a highly adaptable form that could be re-used again and again!

[bernard11]

From the FBI letter:

This form [FD-1023] is used by FBI agents
to record unverified reporting from a confidential human source.

So the fact that it exists means only that someone made an accusation. Let's just bear that in mind, which the usual RWer's aren't going to do. It could be serious, of course, but I don't think Comer cares. If he did he would accept Wray's offer to view it privately, and then pursue things further only if there was some substance.

What I suspect he wants is to give it to his nutball committee members so they can distort the whole thing, whether it's substantive or not.

[Vryedni]

PAGING SARCASTRO....

Since I respect your opinion and also those of @DavidAFrench and @conor64, I'm curious what you think of @conor64's piece in The Atlantic on DEI which @DavidAFrench recommends here.

[Michael P]

Preemptive and shorter S_0: Some DEI practitioners might be doing it wrong, but it's different when WE do it. WE are not screwing it up.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey – I’m flattered to be called on.

I’m paywalled at the Atlantic (my old tricks don’t seem to work, if anyone has any suggestions) but here are some reactions to what seems to be the general thrust:

– diversity training needs to be scrutinized for evidence of efficacy; too many corporations and Agencies gesture at solving issues by implementing a training program and calling it good. – ‘when it gets radical, it can get divisive, destructive, and even illegal’ is a meaningless phrase, since almost every policy push has huge downsides when it gets radical. – diversity hiring and grantmaking, etc cannot be willy-nilly. The lodestone in my little corner of agency decision-making is the idea of ameliorating inequities in capacity building resources in both people and institutions, both past and present. If the technical potential is not there, it’s not a useful place to spend money. -And the key is utility; DEI is not about punishment or reparation, at least not as practiced in my agency. It is about activating talent pools we don’t activate. So blacks, but also women, and first time college goers, geographic location (Google EPSCoR) etc. – This is actually a bit of a new paradigm – I do know of some places where funding is provided, if not willy-nilly, without that view towards ecosystem development. The places where I see that the program is run by an old and burnt-out bureaucrat working to get the money out the door, not someone who believes in DEI in any kind of strategic fashion.

But I want to expand the scope here, because that’s the real nut: our meritocracy is not very good. It leaves huge swaths of the population on the table. Generally not intentionally. We need to address the structural ways our system is flawed, and in the meantime address some of the demographics we know are not being interfaced with as well as others. In the end, that’s the issue I see on the right – they don’t think there is an issue here. Or don’t want there to be one. But that’s not what the argument people are having is; that argument is all anecdote and ad hominem and crying about white people being punished. Eyewash all. But it plays a lot better than ‘rural states, poor, immigrants, minorities and women are all at the level they deserve to be.’

Finally, I'm not actually a DEI practitioner; I just facilitate offices that do it.

[OtisAH]

“Finally, I’m not actually a DEI practitioner; I just facilitate offices that do it.”

Fruit of the poisonous tree, my man. Fruit of the poisonous tree…

[Michael P]

No, he’s saying he is the gardener of the poisonous tree.

P.S. I called it: "DEI is not about punishment or reparation, at least not as practiced in my agency. It is about activating talent pools we don’t activate."

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, you've read my previous comments and know my experience with folks who do DEI is not one of bad people or bad execution.

A regular sherlock, you are.

[Bob from Ohio]

Anyone who does DEI is per se "bad people".

[Bwaaah]

No. I think he's the governmental department that regulates the licensing (and practices) of gardeners. That's why he knows it all.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Finally, I’m not actually a DEI practitioner; I just facilitate offices that do it."
So you're a fluffer.

[apedad]

Trump vows to end birthright citizenship for children of immigrants in US illegally

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-vows-end-birthright-citizenship-children-immigrants-us-illegally-2023-05-30/

"Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in an increasingly crowded field of candidates, said in a campaign video posted to Twitter that he would issue an executive order instructing federal agencies to stop what is known as birthright citizenship."

What an absolute clown.

On this LAW blog, can anyone seriously defend this (and I mean his process not the goal)?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I suppose it hinges on the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; It wouldn't be crazy to say that illegal aliens are outside that language, because if they acknowledged the jurisdiction of the US, they'd be somewhere else.

Really, this calls for a constitutional amendment, in my opinion.

But, a lot of current law was the result of somebody throwing some unlikely shit at the wall, and finding to their shock that it stuck. Is Trump the only guy who can't try that?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Brett, it’s one of the most explicit sentences in the constitution. If you’re born here, you’re a citizen. Unless your parents are diplomats or whatever.

I’d say to you the same thing I say to the people that want to trash the 2A - it says what it says, if you don’t like it then get it amended.

[Mr. Bumble]

If people agreed that "It said what it meant and meant what it said (HT Horton the Elephant) there would be much less need of the courts.

[Gasman]

Executive order granting diplomatic status to illegals would seem to make everything right with the constitution then.
And we can still throw diplomats out of the country if we want.

[Brett Bellmore]

Notice I said that it really needs a constitutional amendment?

All I was saying is that the contrary interpretation, that 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' excludes people here illegally, isn't any stupider than a lot of things that are current jurisprudence.

Are only people on the left allowed to advance bullshit constitutional arguments?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I imagine the complaint is that they’d like you to advance just one that isn’t.

An unlikely request, given your stupidity and dishonesty.

[bernard11]

Crawfishing away again.

Wasn't it you who claimed that "Indians not taxed" covers illegal immigrants, even if they are not Indians and are taxed?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Indians not taxed", conspicuously, resides in Section 2 of the 14th amendment, having to do with apportionment, not Section 1, having to do with birthright citizenship. And that's the context in which I referred to it.

The reason "Indians not taxed" didn't count for apportionment is that they weren't US citizens. They were really the only group of non-citizens large enough to be worth worrying about in apportionment calculations at the time.

Birthright citizenship didn't apply to Indians born on reservations, because the reservations weren't US territory. United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But it DID apply to Indians born off the reservation, (Who WERE taxed!) so the precedent here is quite hostile to what Trump proposes. Why did you suppose I said an amendment was needed, anyway?

So I pointed this out to establish that it actually was quite reasonable to claim that only citizens should be counted for purposes of apportionment, not all warm bodies. NOT that it mattered for birthright citizenship.

[bernard11]

OK, Brett. My memory failed me. Apologies.

Though even in the right context it's a silly point. The Amendment says "the whole number of persons," not "citizens," and the drafters had no problem specifying "citizens," when they meant "citizens," as they did just a few lines above that passage.

So your speculations as to their reasoning, which amounts to claiming they were careless, are unconvincing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I think sometimes they were careless. They were human, after all.

[bernard11]

Yes, I think sometimes they were careless. They were human, after all.

Your arguments just get stupider and stupider. "The text doesn't say what I, Brett Bellmore, think was intended, but that's only because the drafters were careless." Really? Novel method of interpretation. What would you say if I applied it to the 2nd Amendment?

They were really the only group of non-citizens large enough to be worth worrying about in apportionment calculations at the time.

Aren't you of Irish descent? You want to check out the volume of Irish immigration to the US before the 14th Amendment?

[M L]

bevis –

You are sorely mistaken. “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had a particular meaning, far beyond just being present within the borders without diplomatic immunity. It excluded sojourners. It was a “full and complete” jurisdiction that meant for example not being subject to a foreign sovereign. Even the “quasi-foreign” Native American tribes counted as a foreign sovereign, so Native Americans who maintained tribal relations were not considered subject to full and complete jurisdiction (crucially, not just while present in their territories but anywhere).

[Gandydancer]

Wrong. See John Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). He was adjudged NOT a citizen at birth DESPITE being born subject to the jurisdiction of the US in the ordinary meaning of that term.

[ducksalad]

It’s been done many times but let’s itemize all the things wrong with this argument:

1. Citizenship is a property of individuals, not families. The baby born on US soil did not cross the border illegally. The parents and their crimes have nothing to do with it.

2. Even if they did have something to do with it, their criminal act has nothing to do with whether they “acknowledge” jurisdiction. Would we say that someone who, say, builds a garage without a permit is deportable because they don’t acknowledge jurisdiction? How is one law (crossing a border w/o permit) different from doing anything else without a permit?

3. But even if they don’t acknowledge, it still doesn’t matter, because jurisdiction is not determined by whether you acknowledge it. As any number of self-proclaimed “sovereign citizens” have found in their dealings with the IRS and traffic cops.

4. But if you persist and say jurisdiction does depend on acknowledgement through obedience to the law, it would prove far too much. Anyone could get out of a criminal case by saying the court has no jurisdiction over people who break the law. Conversely, anyone who did get convicted of speeding could be deported, even a 15th generation Mayflower descendant. And self-proclaimed “sovereign citizens” could be deported even without any crime.

5. But let’s say you want this so bad that you accept all the consequences of (4). Then we’re back to the fact that the baby hasn’t done any of the things that trigger (4): he hasn’t committed any crime, he hasn’t told off a judge, and he hasn’t claimed sovereignty.

It’s not just wrong five times. It’s like wrong to the fifth power.

[M L]

None of that is relevant.

If you are interested you can read here starting on pg 41 of the PDF, where Howard states that the amendment is "simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already."

And what was that law of the land? It was this: "That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens."

From there it goes on for many pages.

https://stafnelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment.pdf

[bernard11]

Your "not subject to a foreign power" business is patent nonsense.

First, why is newborn infant subject to a foreign power?

Second, people can be subject to a foreign power even if they don't want to be.

Third, whatever Howard said, that language is not in the amendment to begin with.

Go back to glorifying Robert E. Lee.

[M L]

I mean it’s right there in the Congressional record, so I don’t know why you say it’s patent nonsense.

Your tone suggests you aren’t interested in a genuine discussion. Nevertheless . . .

1 – For example let’s say bernard11 takes a gig working in Europe and during that time his son is born in Europe, the child of two US citizens and himself a US citizen at birth. The boy is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and for example can be drafted into the military when he is 18. To be clear, how this all plays into the birthright citizenship issue is complex and multifaceted. However, note that one of the American revolutionary principles was the right and ability of a person to renounce his subjectship (citizenship did not exist in England) to a foreign power, to expatriate. This principle was a rejection of English law – natural born subjects were considered to owe “perpetual allegiance” and they could not renounce it.

2 – Maybe — but, just because a foreign power asserts that a person is subject to it, does not mean that they are subject in the eyes of the law of the US or the States. As mentioned above, one of the revolutionary principles was a rejection of the notion of subjectship, in favor of a different concept of citizenship, which was based on mutual consent. However, going forward such matters would be largely determined by treaty vis a vis foreign powers.

3 – As the Congressional record makes extremely clear, there was wide agreement that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” included the meaning, “not subject to a foreign power.” In fact, most of the entire debate centered on Indians due to their special “quasi-foreign” status, and the issue was whether the intended meaning would be conveyed in the proposed words or whether “Indians not taxed” should be added. In the end they concluded it was unnecessary (and potentially complicating for various reasons) to add those words, because all those subject to a foreign power were already excluded, even quasi-foreign.

[ducksalad]

I can’t see delegating any part of our decision on whether someone is a citizen to some foreign country’s decision to claim jurisdiction over them. Of course we can insist that an adult repudiate the claim as a condition of citizenship, but not that the other country accept the repudiation. In any case a newborn baby is not going to be taking oaths and issuing formal repudiations.

Even in the case of children of ambassadors, it wasn’t really about protecting ourselves from those children taking over the United States or contaminating the electorate. Much the opposite: it was about granting those children the same diplomatic exemption from being drafted or being forced to serve on a jury that their parents enjoyed. We were renouncing any claim on them.

But getting back to the original question: how is whether someone is “subject to a foreign power” related even remotely to whether or not they violated a US law about crossing the border illegally? Does getting a US entry permit somehow diminish Venezuela or Haiti’s power over them?

It doesn’t, and therefore Trump would be essentially claiming the right to deny citizenship to children of legal immigrants if he felt like it. He's really proposing to change birthright citizenship to be something only granted to children of citizens. The rest is discretionary. Is that the policy you support?

[M L]

If we accept precedent such as Elk v. Wilkins and also Wong Kim Ark, then it seems a possible constitutional rule would be that anyone who has become a _lawful permanent resident_, or in other words “domiciled” in the US, is “subject to the jurisdiction of the US.”

Yes, it matters whether someone comes here legally. Again, the concept of citizenship adopted by the US is based on mutual consent. This is in contrast to the “perpetual allegiance” subjectship of the old world which was a carryover of feudalism.

Consider for example the Expatriation Act of 1868, which declared expatriation to be “a natural and inherent right of all people” and declared “that any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.” It is described thus: “The intent of the act was to counter claims by other countries that U.S. citizens owed them allegiance, and was an explicit rejection of the feudal common law principle of perpetual allegiance.” This makes sense since the Declaration of Independence was based on a natural right to sever political ties.

So if a person wants to renounce their subjectship to a foreign sovereign, the US would recognize this as a natural right. But that does not mean they have a natural right to move to and establish themselves in a particular locale or to attain the rights of citizenship in any country they choose.

Just as the individual can withdraw their consent by expatriating, so too can a polity consent to the admission of new individuals to residency or citizenship. That’s mutual consent, or consent of the governed in two formulations. So the US has the right to select and to exclude. As Charles Krauthammer once said, “When you build a wall to keep people in, that’s a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that’s an expression of sovereignty.”

With that said, it’s important to note that citizenship, once granted, cannot be taken away involuntarily, except maybe in a few very limited circumstances. When it comes down to the details of the situation in the US, there are many factors that would affect both the legal and the policy analysis. In general you can’t take away what was already granted or disregard possible reliance interests. In other words there wouldn’t be any big surprises or retroactivity and people all around should be treated generally fairly in my opinion.

Overall, citizenship is a little bit like a share in a corporation, where each individual in theory only has one vote or one share, and the corporation is supposed to act in the best interests of the shareholders.

[Gandydancer]

Elk is in clear contradiction to Wong Kim Ark. John Elk did not get birthright citizenship even though born of the territory of the United States. Similarly Wong Kim Ark’s Chinese subjectship could not be alienated from the Emperor of China according to the US’s treaty with that country, exactly as John Elk’s citizenship in his tribe could not be alienated. NEITHER were entitled to US citizenship. But SCOTUS screwed it up.

[David Nieporent]

Wrong on both counts. Elk was not born on the territory of the United States. He was born on an Indian reservation. Indians were sui generis under the Constitution; it is a mistake to try to analogize them to anyone else.

And the treaty you refer to — the Burlingame treaty — did not say anything like what you claim it says, not to mention that it begs the question to say that his "Chinese subjectship could not be alienated." If WKA were born a U.S. citizen — and he was — then nothing was alienated.

[M L]

Gandydancer - You may be right, but I suspect there's room to square Wong with a "domicile" or lawful permanent resident rule.

[M L]

"Elk was not born on the territory of the United States. He was born on an Indian reservation."

This doesn't matter. If Elk was born in downtown Manhattan, it's the same result. If his parents had previously severed their tribal relations then it would be different.

"Indians were sui generis under the Constitution; it is a mistake to try to analogize them to anyone else."

Tell that to Senator Trumbull, who specifically analogized Indians on reservations to Mexicans in Mexico for purposes of the citizenship clause in the Congressional debate.

[Gandydancer]

Nopoint: "... the treaty you refer to — the Burlingame treaty — did not say anything like what you claim it says, not to mention that it begs the question to say that his “Chinese subjectship could not be alienated.” If WKA were born a U.S. citizen — and he was — then nothing was alienated."

Really?

"...nothing herein contained
shall be held to confer naturalization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States."

Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese citizens. In fact the returned to China as such. Similarly, John Elk's parents remained members of their tribes. An d John Elk was absolutely born on the territory of the United States. His Indian reservation was entirely and completely on the territory of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof and whenever the US chose to exercise that jurisdiction it did so.

As I already mentioned American Indians became citizens of the US at birth through Congress's exercise of its naturalization power by statute, exactly what the Burlingame treaty forbids, and NOT as a result of the 14th Amendment. Your claim that the Indians were not given citizenshiop by the 14A because they were "sui generis" has exactly zero support in the Amendment's text.

[bernard11]

Tell me, ML, when Congress was apportioned in 1870, did non-citizens count? Was there debate over the issue?

Now, I'm not much for originalism myself, but my impression is you are.

[Gandydancer]

"Go back to glorifying Robert E. Lee."

Do you even know who Howard was, dumbass?

[ducksalad]

Thanks for the link, it is an interesting read.

A lot of the back and forth comments we see right here are rehashes of stuff in that 150+ year old document.

[Gandydancer]

Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the sponsor of the 14th Amendment (p.52): "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word "jurisdiction" as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States,
coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by
the executive or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to
every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe,
ALTHOUGH BORN WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A STATE, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction."

[Martinned]

Shocker, an American said something racist. Now explain to me why the question of native Americans is relevant to anything you were talking about before.

[M L]

There is nothing racist about it.

Howard was saying that an Indian belonging to a tribe is not subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the US -- exactly the same as any other foreign person subject to a foreign power. So for example they couldn't be drafted in the military.

[Randal]

It’s not the same as any other foreign person subject to a foreign power. Foreign people are absolutely subject to US jurisdiction while they’re here.

It is exactly comparable to foreign diplomats, who we waive jurisdiction over, and whose US-born chidren are not citizens.

So sure, if we grant immunity against US law to all illegal immigrants, then their kids won’t be citizens. Is that your proposal?

[M L]

"Foreign people are absolutely subject to US jurisdiction while they’re here."

Lol. Yes, and so were Indians. Did you think they had diplomatic immunity? Native Americans like any other foreigner except a diplomat, were _subject to US law_ while being in the US. But they were not "subject to US jurisdiction" in the meaning of the citizenship clause which, as explained and linked above, had a different meaning than merely "subject to law" and included not being subject to a foreign power.

"It is exactly comparable to foreign diplomats"

Lol, no. Native Americans didn't have any kind of immunity.

[Randal]

You seem to be an ignoramus. The whole point of reservations and treaties is that Native American tribes retain sovereignty, and that means that yes, tribe members are not under the jurisdiction of US law in important respects.

See e.g. Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta from just last year.

[M L]

“The whole point of reservations and treaties is that Native American tribes retain sovereignty, and that means that yes, tribe members are not under the jurisdiction of US law in important respects.”

Exactly, lol. They are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – ? In the full and complete sense. As ALL of the people debating the citizenship clause agreed. Because they are quasi-foreign sovereigns. But if they go to New York City and shoot someone . . . ? Subject to laws, but not full and complete jurisdiction. You’re a funny troll, keep up the good work.

[Randal]

Now you're confusing state jurisdiction for federal jurisdiction. US law has nothing to do with murder in New York. Diplomats get immunity from federal law, but not state law (unless preempted). That's why diplomats still have to pay New York parking tickets.

Most Tribes retain exclusive criminal jurisdiction. If a member of one shot another member, neither the state nor the feds could prosecute.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Are you trying but failing to articulate some Fox News talking point?

[Gandydancer]

On federal Indian reservations, only federal and tribal laws generally apply, not State laws. THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION.

As to Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta you needn’t go beyond the title of the case to notice that the plaintiff is a State, not the Federal government. And Oklahoma won on the question of whether it could prosecute non-Indians for crimes on reservations. Tell me again what you thought that case proved.

[Randal]

Most reservations don't even allow federal criminal prosecution. Some do.

You said it yourself: Oklahoma can prosecute non-Indians. (And even that was a close call.) We're talking about Tribe members here.

The point is, when the feds waive jurisdiction over a class of people, like certain Tribe members and diplomats, then sure, that can include birthright citizenship.

But we haven't waived jurisdiction over foreigners generally nor illegal immigrants... and it would be pretty crazy to so. And until we do, they get birthright citizenship.

[M L]

"Most Tribes retain exclusive criminal jurisdiction."

Yes, for things that happen in their territories. For example, in the Congressional debate, Senator Trumbull compared Indians in their territories to Mexicans in Mexico. They are foreign and quasi-foreign. In both cases, they are foreign enough to not be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" even when on US soil. Because that phrase meant something more than simply having to obey US laws while present. If you read the Congressional debates I linked above, maybe you will learn something about this topic.

[Randal]

Now we’re getting somewhere! Naturally, like Indians on a reservation, “Mexicans in Mexico” don’t have (constitutional) US birthright citizenship. But Mexicans in the US do, along with off-reservation Indians.

(Reservation Indians get citizenship anyway via statute.)

I think he’s getting it boys and girls!

[M L]

Again, if you read the debates you might be able to get a clue. Hint: it didn't matter whether Indians were on the reservation when they were born. They could be born in New York, it doesn't matter. What mattered was whether they were a member of tribe, i.e. whether they maintained their tribal relations, and were therefore subject to quasi-foreign power. You're getting closer!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"It wouldn’t be crazy to say that illegal aliens are outside that language, because if they acknowledged the jurisdiction of the US, they’d be somewhere else."

People like you, who don't understand the meaning of common words, should not be volunteering their ignorance as meaningful input.

[Gandydancer]

People like you who don't know that the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14A was subject to explanatiion and debate in the Senate while the Amendment was being written should be more careful when accusing OTHERS of ignorance.

[Gandydancer]

"...it hinges on the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”"

This was addressed during the debate on adding this provision to the text of the 14th Amendment already on the floor. The author of the amendment to the Amendment explained that by "jurisdiction" was meant "complete jurisdiction" and hence it did not apply to Indian tribal members even if born on the territory of the US. Hence John Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). But the principle was then trashed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Whether a president can restore the original understanding of the Amendment by EO is... dubious.

[Martinned]

Even assuming that that's right, why is it relevant to anything? Are you under the impression that asylum seekers live on a reservation subject to their own laws somehow?

[VinniUSMC]

You mean the country that they came from and are citizens of?

[Gandydancer]

You go totally arse-backwards and work really hard in order to miss the point, Indians living on reservations are in fact subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of the United States (but not of the States, under the Treaty Power of the US Constitution). But being subject to the jurisdiction of the US did NOT give them citizenship under the 14th Amendment, See the case of John Elk mentioned above.

[Randal]

Indians living on a reservation are not generally subject to US jurisdiction. You're simply wrong.

Some are. Most aren't.

[DaveM]

I’m not even an attorney, but I’m pretty sure I could “seriously” defend this different interpretation of the law. Why? Because this is one of those examples where the specific circumstance is not explicitly covered in the text, and therefore the meaning must rely on an interpretation. In that case, the question is about whether one interpretation is better than another.

Which is always — always! — open to debate.

My personal objection is not to whether Trump’s interpretation is right or wrong, but to the process. I adamantly object to this being done by executive order. This is anathema to me. It is deeply embarrassing that the top contender for the office is not even pretending to seek the will of the people.

DeSantis, for example, will only go so far as saying he will seek to have this law or that overturned. That is the correct way to approach this, in my opinion. This “pen and a phone” cr*p has got to stop. But it can only be stopped at the ballot box. You can't use the law to counteract the law much. That's not the way this works. But you for darn sure can use the voters' will.

[Frank Drackman]

So if Obama Bin Laden had managed to escape his lair in Pock-E-Stan and make it to Amurica, he'd be a citizen the instant he steps on Amurican soil??
I'd call you a Clown, but I'd be insulting Bozo, Krusty, Pennywise (don't insult Pennywise)

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Most countries do not have birth rights citizenship.

[apedad]

So?

Most countries do not have the death penalty.

[Frank Drackman]

Most countries suck

[SRG]

Since when do people like you care about what other countries' laws are?

[OtisAH]

That’s easy.

“Europe provides healthcare for its citizens.”

So tf what?!

“Europe hangs the skins of shoplifters in the public square.”

This! This guy gets it…

[Ed Grinberg]

“Europe hangs the skins of shoplifters in the public square.”

I bet if they did, they wouldn't have any "food deserts"...

[ducksalad]

BCD, according to this map:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-birthright-citizenship

every country in North and South America has it, except for Colombia and Surinam. However, it's uncommon in the rest of the world. Especially Africa and the Middle East.

Maybe *you're* the one in the wrong place, or even the wrong hemisphere. Consider whether African and Middle Eastern political values align better with your own. Or maybe just Surinam. I think they'd let you in for a modest amount of cash.

[M L]

Yes, I can defend it.

I mean that the Constitution doesn't require so-called "birthright citizenship," in my view; it's a misinterpretation to think the Constitution requires allowing birth tourism, for example. Can't defend Trump's process or whatever he said beyond that.

[ducksalad]

Birthright citizenship isn't "allowing birth tourism", anymore than we are "allowing rape" by granting citizenship to the resulting child, or "allowing bank robbery" by granting citizenship to the robber's offspring.

You can deny people entry as tourists. If they sneak in, arrest and punish them. If they give birth, the child is 100% separate person who has committed no crime.

There seems to be total lack of belief in individual responsibility here. You seem to think children inherit guilt from parents. Others here are even worse, they seem to think children inherit guilt from their racial group.

[M L]

Why would you want to outlaw tourism to the US? That makes no sense. You would ban tourism just because a small slice of tourism is birth tourism?

No, all you need to do is remove the nonsensical practice, premised on a faulty constitutional interpretation, of automatically granting citizenship to an infant born while their mom was on vacation here.

The bill we need was already introduced by a Democrat, Harry Reid, in 1993:

. . .the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of [Section 1 of the 14th Amendment] and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3862/text?r=85&s=1

A fallacy in your thinking here is the idea that there is any sort of “guilt” or “punishment” involved. Not being a US citizen is not a “punishment” nor does it require a finding of “guilt.”

[Randal]

And everyone agreed that would be unconstitutional. You can't just say in a statute that some constitutional clause doesn't apply to some group of people. Wouldn't be much of a constitution if you could.

"The Congress has determined and hereby declares that Judaism isn't a religion within the meaning of the 1st Amendment and shall therefore be empowered to pass laws restricting the practice thereof."

Nope, sorry, try again.

[Gandydancer]

"... the child is 100% separate person who has committed no crime."

Identifying the citizenship of offspring to be derived from the citizenship of the parents isn't punishment, it's just a very reasonable rule.

[Martinned]

It is. It's just not the rule that applies in the US. Feel free to propose a constitutional amendment.

[M L]

All that's required is an Act of Congress. Maybe even just an executive order.

[Gandydancer]

No need for an Amendment. The interpretation was created in Wong Kim Ark by SCOTUS (contradicting John Elk), and, like Roe, it can be undone by SCOTUS.

[apedad]

Federal Judge Makes History in Holding That Border Searches of Cell Phones Require a Warrant

With United States v. Smith (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2023), a district court judge in New York made history by being the first court to rule that a warrant is required for a cell phone search at the border, “absent exigent circumstances” (although other district courts have wanted to do so).

U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) asserts broad authority to conduct warrantless, and often suspicionless, device searches at the border, which includes ports of entry at the land borders, international airports, and seaports.

For a century, the Supreme Court has recognized a border search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, allowing not only warrantless but also often suspicionless searches of luggage and other items crossing the border.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/federal-judge-makes-history-holding-border-searches-cell-phones-require-warrant

I think this is the correct decision.

It makes sense to conduct physical searches but not a cell phone.

[Don Nico]

"It makes sense to conduct physical searches but not a cell phone."

Apedad, I also would like to think that is the case. But if cell phones then also computers, USB storage devices, etc.

Why do you think that this judge's decision is correct in ignoring the SCOTUS ruling?

I'd like to believe that you are correct

[bernard11]

But if cell phones then also computers, USB storage devices, etc.

I agree.

Why do you think that this judge’s decision is correct in ignoring the SCOTUS ruling?

I don't know if it's correct as a matter of law, but I do think there is a vast and important difference between searching ordinary baggage and searching electronic devices.

My computer, for example, contains loads of personal information, financial records, medical data, virtually all of my personal correspondence, etc. This is hardly unusual. Searching it is comparable to searching someone's office, going through all their files and letters, etc. in pre-personal-computer days.

That's just not the same thing as looking for contraband in a suitcase.

[Don Nico]

I agree completely bernard

[Gandydancer]

To repeat, "Why do you think that this judge’s decision is correct in ignoring the SCOTUS ruling?"

[Brett Bellmore]

The obvious point is that the border searches, at least nominally, are to detect contraband. What sort of contraband are you going to find in the memory of my phone?

OK, I suppose child porn, but why would that be any more likely at the border than anywhere else?

[Davedave]

Note that Brett was not speaking hypothetically there. Will this blog's owners send his details to law enforcement following that confession?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you might hope to find child porn on my phone, but you'd be out of luck, my suboptimal phrasing not withstanding.

[ducksalad]

"At least nominally". Yup. The real reason is that a border exception was created and if you create an exception to the 4th Amendment law enforcement will make use of it.

Literally everyplace would be like the border if we didn't have a 4th Amendment.

[Gandydancer]

Why do you imagine that the likelihood of finding contraband is the issue?

The US government simply has a right to control the borders that does not apply elsewhere.

[apedad]

Limousine company owner guilty of manslaughter in deadly 2018 crash that killed 20 people sentenced to ‘indeterminate’ sentence of at least 5 years in prison

(Here's an odd twist.)

In September 2021, Schoharie County District Attorney Susan Mallery and Hussain reached a plea deal on 20 counts of criminally negligent homicide that would have resulted in no jail time. All the manslaughter charges against him were dropped in exchange for the plea. Hussain formally admitted his legal culpability and completed a year of interim probation under the deal and half of an agreed-upon 1,000 community service hours.

Mallery’s first choice had always rankled some victims’ family members. But eight months ago, well after the judge who oversaw the plea deal retired, his replacement, Lynch, tossed the agreement – calling it illegal. Lynch said he would refuse to abide by those terms during a sentencing hearing. Hussain’s defense attorney, Lee Kindlon, sued to enforce the original deal, to no avail.

When the deal was abandoned, Hussain withdrew his guilty plea to avoid the maximum penalty for criminally negligent homicide – which would have been just over one to five years in state prison.

Hussain and Kindlon opted for a trial.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/limousine-company-owner-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-deadly-2018-crash-that-killed-20-people-sentenced-to-indeterminate-sentence-of-at-least-5-years-in-prison/

IANAL so am wondering whether double jeopardy is a factor here.

He had a plea deal signed and approved, and a sentence imposed - but then a new judge revoked that.

[John F. Carr]

In the court of a trial there is a point where a sentence is imposed and becomes appealable. After that limitations periods start to run. In Massachusetts the courts have allowed the prosecution 60 days to challenge an illegally low sentence. After that an illegal sentence must stand.

The New York case might have been a form of diversion, where the case is suspended and is intended to be dismissed without a guilty verdict being entered. Usually those wouldn't be appealed and I don't know when the clock starts ticking.

[John F. Carr]

I found a copy of the appellate decision refusing to reinstate the deal, linked from https://wnyt.com/top-stories/judges-ruling-against-hussain-plea-deal-upheld-schoharie-limo-trial-will-proceed/. The decision was 2-1. It is unclear whether the appellate decision, which ruled on a request for a writ of mandamus, forecloses relief under the more generous standard of review on ordinary appeal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

He had a plea deal signed and approved, and a sentence imposed

The sentence hadn't been imposed, and when the judge explained that he was going to reject the negotiated terms (which were illegal), he moved to withdraw his plea. For reasons that I assume are obvious, that permits a trial on the original charges.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why are no FBI agents being held accountable for their 278000 illegal searches?

[Moderation4ever]

Probably because there is no one person to hold accountable. The number of searches suggest that this was common practice and it wasn't until a court ruling that the practice was stopped. Not an uncommon event with legal matter. The FISA process has long been suspect, but Congress has always reauthorized the program, in the name of defense. Unfortunately, the way the world works is that as long as only the small fries are affected nothing changes and it is only when the big fish start getting affected that we notice.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That doesn't seem like a tolerable system of governance.

The people in government can do whatever they want to the little guys.

[Moderation4ever]

In a democracy these kinds of issues work their way out. That what happened in the 1960 with the civil rights movement. In recent years with the LBGT movement or the "me too" movement. Think of the changes between Rodney King in 1991 and George Floyd in 2020.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Administrative State is insulated from and immune to the Will of People.

[Davedave]

You'd prefer the Triumph of the Will, I take it.

[Gandydancer]

I take it that daveliardave is a cretin.

[OtisAH]

Because personnel matters are dealt with in-house and not broadcast to the world, jackass.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're gonna pretend someone is going to held accountable? I won't.

No one got held account for that Perkins Coe FBI terminal.

[ducksalad]

Showing up late to work, ignoring your boss’s e-mails, misplacing an important file are examples of “personnel matters”. They are dealt with in-house and not broadcast to the world.

Violating core liberties under color of law and making false statements to federal judges are examples of “criminal matters”. They should be dealt with in courts and should be extremely public.

[Moderation4ever]

Tara Reade is moving to Russia. This is another brick in the wall showing Russia has in the past and will in the future try to influence foreign elections, America and other countries. Can anything be done to stop it? No, but we can be vigilant and stop thinking the problem is our government and start recognizing that Putin is a problem, for the US and for the world.

[Davedave]

People get very worked up about the Russian efforts to interfere with the political processes in other countries, which undoubtedly exist, but never think about whether those efforts have had any effect, or whether getting so worked up about inconsequential nonsense is in fact helping Putin achieve his (entirely domestic) goals.

As far as I can tell, the primary purpose of such interference is to get people worked up in order to demonstrate to Russians that Putin is making Russia great again, and it has regained 'influence' in world politics. It doesn't need to actually influence any outcomes, it just needs to get people upset.

It's perfectly obvious that Trump is quite capable of lying independently, without support from Moscow.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

She's moving to Russia because she fears for her life.

[Brett Bellmore]

Then why Russia? Why not Sweden, or some other neutral country? She figures she has to move to an actual enemy of the US to escape Biden's assassins?

Strikes me as circumstantial evidence that she's nuts.

[Davedave]

No, it's evidence that BCD is a liar. She obviously didn't flee to Russia because she is in fear of her life, but because she is a paid traitor.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who wouldn't be afraid of the people who killed a sitting President and got away with it, killed Seth Rich and got away with it, killed Jeffrey Epstein and got away with it, spied on a sitting President and got away with it, and spied nearly 300,000x illegally on American citizens and got away with it?

[Nige]

It's a wonder the entire population of the US doesn't flee to Russia.

[Gandydancer]

"Why not Sweden, or some other neutral country?"

Sweden applied to join NATO in May of 2022.
In what sense is it "neutral"?

[Gandydancer]

Tara Reade moving to Russia is a problem for the US and the world why?

[John F. Carr]

Getting off on a technicality.

A man pleaded guilty to a violation of a Massachusetts law criminalizing possession of a gun with an altered or obliterated serial number. The federal government tried to deport him on the grounds that a violation of the corresponding federal law would have made him deportable. The First Circuit ruled that the state and federal laws on the subject were not legally equivalent. The federal law exempts firearms made before 1899. State law does not. While serial numbers were not legally required a century ago, some old guns had them anyway. It is legally possible that the man had an antique gun that was originally manufactured with a serial number. We all know he didn't, but the Supreme Court has instructed lower courts that these situations are to be judged on the law and not on the facts of the case. I agree with the Supreme Court on this point. Cases about equivalence of state and federal offenses get too messy without a clear rule.

Portillo v. DHS

[Michael P]

That's the kind of difference in state versus federal law where both sovereigns could prosecute, subject to the statute of limitations, right?

[John F. Carr]

Both sovereigns could prosecute even if the crimes were identical. The case has dragged on so long that the federal statute of limitations has likely expired.

This case is about a man who came here as an infant and got a green card over a decade before his crimes. But permanent residency is revocable.

[Gandydancer]

"The case has dragged on so long that the federal statute of limitations has likely expired."

Removal proceedings on this basis were begun on April 4, 2017. Portillo pled guilty to the state charges on July 9, 2014. It doesn't seem to me very likely that any federal statute of limitations had already expired by the former date. Why wouldn't that be the date that matters?

[John F. Carr]

Deportation for a firearm offense depends on convictions, not on the actual conduct. He has not been convicted of a federal firearm offense.

[Gandydancer]

"(C) Certain firearm offenses
Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted under any law of purchasing, selling, offering for sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying, or of attempting or conspiring to purchase, sell, offer for sale, exchange, use, own, possess, or carry, any weapon, part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device (as defined in section 921(a) of title 18) in violation of any law is deportable."

"Any law" doesn't sound to me like it needs be a "federal firearms offense". He was convicted of violating a Massachusetts law against possessing a firearm, presumably defined as such in section 921(a) of title 18. Does the exemption for possessing pre-1899 firearms without serial numbers also say that one of that vintage is not "a firearm"?

[Gandydancer]

Note that Sessions v Dimaya involved only a California law, with no requirement for the claimed enhancement that there be a federal violation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sessions_v._Dimaya
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-1498

[ThePublius]

From an October, 2022 article in The Hill:

"A federal judge blocked a federal law on Wednesday that prohibits the possession of a firearm with an “altered, obliterated or removed” serial number in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling expanding gun rights earlier this year.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin ruled that no historical standard exists to demonstrate that firearms without a serial number are more dangerous or unusual than firearms with a serial number, so the law is unconstitutional. "

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3687788-judge-rules-federal-law-banning-guns-with-serial-numbers-removed-is-unconstitutional/

[Mr. Bumble]

No one told New Jersey:
"I talked to Mr. Nappen this afternoon and he tells me the law is quite clear that for a firearm to be legal in New Jersey, it has to have a serial number and the serial number must have been imprinted by a federally licensed firearm manufacturer."
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-new-jersey-has-enacted-the-largest-gun-ban-in-us-history/

[John F. Carr]

The judge is in West Virginia and the appeal is now in the Fourth Circuit. New Jersey is in the Third Circuit. Even if the decision is upheld on appeal New Jersey can get away with ignoring it.

[Mr. Bumble]

If it came from the SC New Jersey would still ignore it and start the ball rolling all over again with new legislation.

[Gandydancer]

For possession of a gun with an obliterated serial number to serve as the basis for exclusion why is it necessary "to demonstrate that firearms without a serial number are more dangerous or unusual than firearms with a serial number"? Is it the judge's contention that making it illegal to obliterate serial numbers is contrary to the requirements of Bruen? Unless you throw out all gun licensing altogether I don't see how the systems and schemes for that doesn't create a compelling interest in prohibiting serial number obliteration.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Cases about equivalence of state and federal offenses get too messy without a clear rule.

There may be arguments for the categorical approach. The suggestion that it avoids messiness is not one of them.

[David Nieporent]

Regulars around here might remember the name Jonathan Mitchell; he's the Texas lawyer who Blackman orgasmed over for drafting the Texas abortion bounty law (SB8) in such a way as to make it almost impossible to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to.

Turns out he's still doing his thing of being too clever by half. He's representing a Texas county and library who are defendants in a book banning lawsuit. Without getting into the merits of the suit, he pulled this shenanigan:

He tried to moot the case by secretly buying copies of the banned books and anonymously donating them to the library, where they were surreptitiously placed in a room not open to the public and were not listed in the library's card catalog, nor were they processed with bar codes or labels.

And then when plaintiffs sought discovery, he claimed that he didn't have to tell them he was the anonymous donor because of A/C privilege.

https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1664026070155243524?s=20

[Nige]

The expression they used about these books is 'pornographic filth.' Aside from the fart books, the Sendak and the sex-ed books indicate that ANY depicition of child nudity is regarded as pornography. It's *extremely* rare in children's books, but not completely unknown, especially in some of the 18th century illustrated classics like The Water Babies, and it certainly tends to make adults feel uncomfortable, though not usually the kids for whom the books are intended. It certainly seems like something best left to the librarian to decide whether to stock them and parents whether to borrow them. But sex-ed books designed to teach children about their bodies being classed as such is just the promotion of prurience and ignorance.

'The 17 Banned Books include My Butt Is So Noisy!, I Broke My Butt!, and I Need
a New Butt! by Dawn McMillan (the “Butt Books”); Larry the Farting
Leprechaun, Gary the Goose and His Gas on the Loose, Freddie the Farting
Snowman, and Harvey the Heart Had Too Many Farts by Jane Bexley (the “Fart
Books”); In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak; It’s Perfectly Normal:
Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health by Robie Harris; Caste:
The Origins of Our Discontent by Isabel Wilkerson; They Called Themselves the
K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group by Susan Campbell Bartoletti;
Spinning by Tillie Walden; Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen by Jazz
Jennings; Shine and Under the Moon: A Catwoman Tale by Lauren Myracle; Gabi,
a Girl in Pieces by Isabel Quintero; and Freakboy by Kristin Elizabeth Clark'

[Kazinski]

Seems a pretty stupid way to try a ideologically motivated case, by completely conceding.

He should just argue that the choice of books that a public library makes available is government speech, and they can modify their speech how they choose, by adding or subtracting books from the library.

Someone has to choose what books are in the library unless you are going to draw them and cull them by lot.

[Nige]

All that goes out the window when people are demanding books like In The Night Kitchen be removed because they’re ‘pornographic filth.’ People do take notice of that sort of thing no matter how much you wish they wouldn’t.

[Gandydancer]

"books like In The Night Kitchen" is such a good description of "My Butt Is So Noisy!"

[Nige]

Point stands.

[Gandydancer]

No. It doesn't. That the decision to de-accession the former might be in error is no basis for denying the library authorities the right to de-accession the latter. And the latter is not remotely a book "like In The Night Kitchen”, so it's MY POIMT -- that you were being intentionally misleading -about the subject of this controversy - that "stands".

[Commenter_XY]

DN, this is where the lawyer has to explain something to me. I don't get it. Mitchell buys books, and donates them anonymously; and then someone else (not Mitchell) secretly puts the books in a room not open to the public.

This one is a little too twisty and turny for this layman. How does Michell's action moot the case? (which did not happen, apparently) And is it illegal?

[David Nieporent]

It is not illegal. But it also didn't moot the case. His argument was, "Someone [wink, wink, nod nod] gave these books to the library so plaintiffs can now check them out so they no longer have any damages."

[Gandydancer]

Seems like a good argument as regards the named plaintiffs' DAMAGES, so long as they are made aware that they can get those nooks themselves. It certainly doesn't moot claims of violations of public policy, etc. That it's impermissible to remove books because you think they are filth is non-obvious, even if you are not always right.

[Gandydancer]

"1. Defendants Remove Children’s Books that Make Jokes
about Bodily Functions from the Public Library"

"1 The 17 Banned Books include My Butt Is So Noisy!, I Broke My Butt!, and I Need a New Butt! by Dawn McMillan (the “Butt Books”); Larry the Farting Leprechaun, Gary the Goose and His Gas on the Loose, Freddie the Farting Snowman, and Harvey the Heart Had Too Many Farts by Jane Bexley (the “Fart Books”); In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak; It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health by Robie Harris; Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent by Isabel Wilkerson; They Called Themselves the
K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group by Susan Campbell Bartoletti; Spinning by Tillie Walden; Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen by Jazz Jennings; Shine and Under the Moon: A Catwoman Tale by Lauren Myracle; Gabi," a Girl in Pieces by Isabel Quintero; and Freakboy by Kristin Elizabeth Clark."

Can't live without ANY of those in the public library, eh?

[Nige]

Better observation is that some small group of prurient reactionaries can't live with them in the public library.

[Nelson]

Again, Gandy, a libertarian doesn't say, "Why shouldn't the government ban this book?". They ask, "Why should the government ban this book?". And "because people don't need fart books" is not a valid reason.

Why do you come to a libertarian site if you don't even understand the basics of libertarianism?

[apedad]

Why Supreme Court recusals are attracting newfound attention

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan became the first to adopt a new ethics principle that indicates justices may explain why they are recusing themselves from a case.

But her conservative colleague on the bench, Justice Samuel Alito, opted not to share why he was stepping aside from a separate case, raising questions about whether the court can reach a consensus on its ethics standards, which has been under heavy scrutiny.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4029010-why-supreme-court-recusals-are-attracting-newfound-attention/

". . . justices may explain . . . ," so not mandatory.

[apedad]

Here's the updated Supreme Court's Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Durbin%2004.25.2023.pdf

[Religion and Politics, my life]

As soon as you said 'conservative' I knew the surrounding argument was a fiction

[apedad]

That's from the article, not me.

I post my input below the link.

[Gandydancer]

You are tediously full of shit. What “surrounding argument” was “a fiction”?

[Ben_]

The debt ceiling bill shows us how representative government is supposed to work. It passed the house with a majority of votes of both parties, after a negotiation so that the various perspectives could be heard.

Before the Obama presidency, that was the common. Now it only happens when there’s no underhanded trick or scam that can be used instead. None of the debt ceiling tricks would have worked or Biden would have tried them.

Imagine if more government questions could be subjected to a process where each side got input, a compromise deal worked out, and a majority or plurality of each side ended up agreeing to the resulting deal.

[Martinned]

In both parties, but particularly in the GOP, the political price that politicians pay for compromising with the other side has been steadily increasing since the 1990s. A long list of GOP speakers and minority leaders who have been brought down for insufficient adherence to orthodoxy. (Not to mention Presidential hopefuls.)

Needless to say, this is bad...

[Ben_]

"A long list of GOP speakers and minority leaders"

Zero names (or one name) is not "a long list". WTF are you even talking about?

[Martinned]

- John Boehner
- Paul Ryan
- Eric Cantor

[Ben_]

Paul Ryan lost the majority and retired, he wasn't "brought down for insufficient adherence to orthodoxy".

Eric Cantor just failed at politics and lost, like Hillary did. Count him if you want.

Two is not "a long list".

[David Nieporent]

Paul Ryan lost the majority and retired

It doesn't change your point vis-à-vis Martined's comment, but Ryan announced his retirement before the GOP lost the majority.

[Magister]

Failing at politics like Cantor, or retiring before his failure could manifest like Ryan, in part reflects their failure to lead House Republicans effectively. There are a lot more examples among the rank and file representatives (Liz Cheney, once third in the Republican House leadership, almost qualifies for the list; lots of Republicans in the House eliminated by primary for daring to offend the Trump worshipers).

The impossible job of a Republican Speaker of the House (which Ryan bailed on) is why the House now has Kevin McCarthy.

[Martinned]

It's certainly a heck of a longer list than Nancy Pelosi, who keeps doing deals with Republicans, keeps losing and winning the majority, and stays glued to that speaker's chair/minority leader's job.

[Gandydancer]

Bringing down "leaders" who "lead" in directions contrary to the convictions of those who elect them is not remotely a bad thing. The bad thing was letting the into "leadership" positions in the first place.

[Sarcastr0]

Money is largely inherited, or there is a head start.

The idea that the rich are better than us assumes a meritocracy that markets are just not equipped to be.
Given the lack of class mobility in the modern era, it's frankly creepy and aristocratic to think that we just have this overclass of a small people and families who are inherently better.

[Sarcastr0]

[Motley fool link blocked]

A recent study of ultra-rich Americans showed that almost three-quarters had help in building their fortunes. According to a Bank of America Private Bank study into the backgrounds of the ultra wealthy, the remaining 27% did not inherit any money at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, duh. Might as well be shocked that nobody climbs to the top of a mountain in a day. Which doesn't imply that getting to the top of a mountain doesn't require climbing.

If you think the idea that the wealthy are generally smarter than the poor is horrible, I bet the fact that good looking people are usually smarter than ugly people shatters your world.

Routinely making stupid choices gets in the way of financial wellbeing, so NATURALLY poor people are mostly going to be stupider than well off people. Because stupid people end up/stay poor!

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, I find the concepts of 'general intelligence' and 'physical attractiveness' to be pretty dodgy ones for any kind of quantitative measurement.

[Nige]

If you're willing to declare somone like Trump a brilliant businessman despite, if not actually because of, all his bankruptcies and bullying litigiousness and cheating of small vendors, you'll believe any old Victorian-era rubbish about the rich and the poor.

[grb]

A person willing to declare Trump a brilliant businessman needs to examine the facts. His daddy staked Trump a few dozen million and Trump lost it all. Then his daddy staked him a few dozen million more and he had some temporary success. This was the period of Trump Tower, but it was fleeting. Trump started throwing money around on casinos, airlines and sports teams and was soon deep in debt.

Then came a fallow period when daddy kept Trump on a short lease. This ended with daddy's death and the family making an asset dump of the inheritance. Even now, no bank will lend big money to Trump, whose main contribution to major deals is that most hollow of all things, his name.

If you look to find a "brilliant businessman" anywhere in his record of nonstop failure and grift, good luck. It's long been established Trump would have been much richer if he'd taken all the millions gifted to him done the street to the local Morgan Stanley and turned the money over to some pimply-faced kid with a fresh MBA.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Bet you have a million excuses for Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.

[grb]

I've always had the impression Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was an abdominal human being.

[not guilty]

An abdominal human being??

Well, Stephen King wrote a short story about "a man with a belly". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_With_a_Belly

[Nige]

As Martinned might say, 'Sie is nicht eine guten herr.'

[bernard11]

Which doesn’t imply that getting to the top of a mountain doesn’t require climbing.

Unless you're born there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even people who are born there don't stay there if they're stupid.

Heck, we had a guy where I work win the lottery. He retired to a life of leisure. A few years later he was back looking to be rehired. Why?

Because he'd frittered the money away, though it was enough for him to have lived comfortably the rest of his life.

[Sarcastr0]

The wealthy fail up all the time.

Our class structure is largely independent of any meritocratic system.

[Life of Brian]

Aw, the dude in a position funded by my tax dollars that allows him to sit around and post inane bullshit on the internet all day wants to talk about "failing up."

Cute!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Who thinks that? Nobody I know. Certainly nobody who has ever worked with the son/daughter of the founder of a company. More often than not they are arrogant idiots.

Is there a point here?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He's trying to make the equity argument.

[Ed Grinberg]

Is there a point here?

It’s the same point leftist idiots have been pushing since Karl Marx: confiscation, redistribution, etc. Works wonders every time it’s tried!

[Sarcastr0]

" if you looked too closely, you might find it hard to maintain your conviction that it isn’t the fault of the poor that they’re poor."

"You are correct that the rich are not smarter or better than the rest of us. But statistically, they do behave and think very differently from the rest of us.

And since we choose not to behave and think in those ways, we are to blame (some) for being poor."

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/30/why-the-debt-limit-is-still-really-constitutional/?comments=true#comment-10085675

[Ben_]

Did anyone say poor people should be blamed for not being rich? If everyone could make a few simple choices to get into the top 10%, then it would be more than 10%.

Able-bodied poor people can make good choices and get out of poverty. Or they can make bad choices and remain destitute. Stop telling them they can't improve.

[Sarcastr0]

"it [is] the fault of the poor that they’re poor."

This is a fucked up thing to believe.

[Ben_]

Individuals are responsible for their own choices.

Anyone who doesn’t "believe" that is saying that all choices are equivalent.

[Sarcastr0]

You're conflating choices and outcomes. Poor people that don't manage to climb out are not evidently making bad choices.

Class mobility has gone way down in the past 100 years. Do you think that's because the poor have gotten less virtuos?

[Ben_]

"Poor people that don’t manage to climb out are not evidently making bad choices."

If they are able-bodied and old enough to have made a large number of choices, then, on average over the population, they must not have made financially positive choices. Bad luck can’t be average luck.

You are confusing "virtuous" with "financially positive".

[Nige]

So now you ARE saying poor people can be blamed for not being rich.

[Sarcastr0]

This is an amazingly optimistic view of what people in poverty have to do, even ignoring what kind of decisions we equip them to make.

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

[Ben_]

"… decisions we equip them to make."

You should stop doing that to them then.

And then learn how averages work. The official poverty rate in 2021 was 11.6%.

Selecting able-bodied individuals already excludes 17% of the people in poverty.

Is there really a doubt that average luck and a lifetime of wise decisions isn't more likely than not to result in being in the top 88%?

[Sarcastr0]

We don't provide poor people with resources or information we provide to those who are better off. Do you deny this is true?

"Is there really a doubt that average luck and a lifetime of wise decisions isn’t more likely than not to result in being in the top 88%?"
Yes there is. I linked to some of the proof. Plenty of studies. On real people.
Your hand-waiving with numbers doesn't really prove that class mobility is easy if you are smart enough.

Privileged, ignorant, and angry is no way to go through life.

[Ben_]

Is there any honest doubt?

Besides Sarcastr0, will anyone say an able body, average luck, and a lifetime of wise decisions is not more than 50% likely to result in being in the top 88% of income earners?

[Ben_]

(among people starting out poor)

[Sarcastr0]

will anyone say an able body, average luck, and a lifetime of wise decisions is not more than 50% likely to result in being in the top 88% of income earners?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2022/06/29/stuck-on-the-ladder-wealth-mobility-is-low-and-decreases-with-age/

Your self-imposed numbers and ipse dixit are not doing great, chief.

[Ben_]

From your link:

"About 61 percent of young adults in the bottom quintile in their late twenties have climbed to a higher quintile ten years later."

[Sarcastr0]

Unless you, you know, adjust for age.

The odds of moving from the bottom to the top of the distribution decline even more with age. Over a quarter (28 percent) of those in the bottom quintile in their late twenties have reached one of the top two quintiles ten years later. The same is true of just three percent of those in the bottom quintile in their late forties. Wealth status is sticky at all ages – but much more so as the years pass.

[Ben_]

People who failed to make wise decisions in their 20s and 30s aren’t suddenly making overwhelmingly wise decisions in their 40s and 50s? No way!

[Sarcastr0]

The whole point you can't seem to fucking get is that for many poor people there is no magical set of wise decisions that will get them out of poverty.

Other people do not have your life. You have the empathy of a toddler.

[Ben_]

"Many" is a tiny fraction of the able bodied poor in that statement.

And even if they don't clear the very, very, very low bar of getting out of poverty, wise decisions will still leave them better off than unwise decisions.

You only pretend to have empathy in order to attack others. Telling people their choices don’t matter is destructive.

[Sarcastr0]

“Many” is a tiny fraction of the able bodied poor in that statement.
Your proof of this appears to be your own shallow ideology.

You only pretend to have empathy in order to attack others.
Well, this is a telling comment.

[Ben_]

Anyone can just look at the link you posted and see that staying poor is below average.

Here’s another study:

https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf

57% of people from lowest quintile move up to a higher quintile. And 36% move up but don’t quite make it out. And able bodied people are only 83% of people. And people who make wise choices are also a subset.

And that's just quintiles (20%). Poverty is 11.6%. So yeah, small fraction.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's so weird, I wonder why all these government programs and social engineering programs haven't worked?

It's almost was if the War on Poverty was really the War For Poverty. Considering the actual outcomes and all.

[Kazinski]

"Class mobility has gone way down in the past 100 years. Do you think that’s because the poor have gotten less virtuos(sic)?"

This is so mind numbingly stupid I have spittle coming out of my fingers as I type this:
There are no poor in this country. Worldwide there are fewer poor than anytime in the history of the world.

That's by the UN measure of absolute poverty.

Now of course measuring by relative poverty the news is stark: 20% of people are in the bottom quintile, and there has never been any progress in eradicating the fact that 20% of the people will make less than the other 80% of the people in the entire history of the world.

But as for your statement that there is lower class mobility that's bullshit too, because well over 1/3 of the lowest quintile are immigrants, according to Pew and the cbo.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s-immigrants-current-data/
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57061

[Sarcastr0]

There are no poor in the US because they could be worse off is stupid.

[Nige]

All those homeless people are ghosts.

[Kazinski]

No, it’s the UN’s global measure of extreme poverty and it’s based on how much money is needed to get a minimum number of calories.

Now maybe it should be higher, but it would have to be 10x higher to include a significant number of people in the US.

But if you aren’t using an actual yardstick of what resources are required to live a minimally acceptable life, then you are just complaining that some people have more than others.

Which is exactly what you are complaining about.

[Sarcastr0]

You are not poor because you are not literally starving is callus and dumb.

[EscherEnigma]

Who thinks that? Nobody I know.
I mean, even putting aside prosperty gospel evangelicals, a lot of the support for Trump was on the basis that being so rich, he must be smart.

You see similar arguments for Musk: he's rich, so he must be brilliant.

Not sure why you'd deny this.

[ducksalad]

1. Rich people didn't earn their money through personal labor.
2. ?????
3. Therefore, the money belongs to me, Sarcastr0!!

[bevis the lumberjack]

I didn’t see him say anything about money. I don’t understand his point, but it’s an assumption on your part that he’s talking about confiscating money. Or whatever it is you’re trying to say.

And he’s right and you’re wrong - inherited money isn’t earned. But all wealth is not inherited.

[Ben_]

"inherited money isn’t earned"

Inherited money was originally earned. The people who earned it have a human right to spend it on their heirs.

[Michael Ejercito]

As I stated in another comment, if their heirs avoid giving away their inheritance to the President of the Bank of Africa to help him move billions of dollars to the U.S. in exchange for doubling their wealth, they deserve to keep it.

[Ben_]

Did you forget to take your medication? Or did you take too much?

[Sarcastr0]

Putting your weird formulation of an inheritance tax as a violation of human rights aside, your comment is about the wrong people. Some on here think rich people are better than the rest of us, as proven by their wealth.

That’s some secular prosperity gospel nonsense for a bunch of reasons, inheritance being one of them.

[Ben_]

Strawmen can be argued to have said anything.

[Sarcastr0]

Not a strawman - there are people on here who think the rich got there by merit, and the poor failed to by not having as much merit.

You are playing footsie with that position yourself.

[Ben_]

Obviously individual poor and rich people fit those descriptions. Other individuals don’t.

The average rich person undoubtedly made more positive financial choices than the average poor person (understanding this requires that you understand that “the average person” is not an individual but an average of a set of individuals).

[Sarcastr0]

Being born rich is a great choice to make. Especially if you're an average of a bunch of people.

[Ben_]

Envy and jealousy lead to bad choices. I hope poor people aren’t listening to you.

[Sarcastr0]

Where am I hating on rich people? I'm saying they're not better than anyone else.

I reserve my moral opprobrium for those claiming some inherent merit in wealth.

You're the one saying the able-bodied poor are that way because of their own choices. You have no small contempt for poor people.

Hiding behind class warfare accusations is just a sign you don't quite understand what you're arguing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"able-bodied poor are that way because of their own choices"

Objectively true.

Out of wedlock births, committing crimes, using drugs, excessive drinking, among other things.

[Sarcastr0]

Out of wedlock births, committing crimes, using drugs, excessive drinking, among other things.

This here? This is bigotry.

[Ben_]

If you think it’s wrong to tell people how to escape poverty, you’re pro-poverty.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This is bigotry."

Name calling, because you cannot refute it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bob,

You provided no evidence for your bigoted and offensive bullshit. You think 'rich people' don't do those things? Fucking idiot.

Calling you appropriate names is the only response you deserve.

[Sarcastr0]

Switch poor for blacks.

That was open bigotry.

[Ben_]

Also, property and providing for family have always been human rights.

Only devout communists disagree, and even they eventually change they minds after living the lifestyle they advocate.

[Sarcastr0]

"Property"
"Providing for family"

Vaguer rights than these I have never seen.

Is an inheritance tax a human rights violation?

[Ben_]

Is an inheritance tax a human rights violation?

At 100%, yes. At 0.001%, probably not.

A better question is whether the tax is for funds to benefit the public or for giveaways to individuals.

[Sarcastr0]

What an incredibly clear and implementable right.

[Ben_]

Yeah, not stealing from people is extremely "clear and implementable".

[Sarcastr0]

Still with some very unclear contours, Ben.

Of course if all you want is to gin up anger, then.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Who on here think that rich people are better than the rest of us? Names.

[Sarcastr0]

I provided quotes and a link to the thread above, bevis.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Some on here think rich people are better than the rest of us"

Who?

[Sarcastr0]

I provided quotes and a link to the thread above.

Also Ben's doing a great turn of the poor deserve it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"poor deserve it."

Still not the same as "rich people are better than us".

[Sarcastr0]

Luckily the quotes provide that.

Both positions are shockingly bad.

Ayn Rand can suck it.

[Kazinski]

Well I don't think the poor deserve it, but the consequences of being poor are an incentive for many to end their state of poverty.
And having grown up poor, I know of what I speak, and if I didn't I could ask my wife who grew up helping her mother sell street food in Phnom Penh in the aftermath of a genocide.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m quite sure that being poor is not fun as it is, and people will still want to be less poor even if the government makes it less miserable.

Benign cruelty is a concept as ignorant of human nature as communism.

You were poor? I thought you could be poor and live in the US!

[Kazinski]

Relatively poor, I was using your definition.

[Michael Ejercito]

If they manage to avoid giving away their life savings to the President of the Bank of Africa to help him move money to the United States in exchange for one billion dollars, then they certainly deserve to keep their life savings.

[Nige]

So inane you said it twice.

[M L]

"Given the lack of class mobility in the modern era, it’s frankly creepy and aristocratic to think that we just have this overclass of a small people and families who are inherently better."

They're not better.

But there is far more "class mobility" in the modern era than any other.

[Bob from Ohio]

"idea that the rich are better than us"

Nobody, [other than a few rich idiots], thinks that, dummy.

[Sarcastr0]

I provided quotes and a link.

This thread has people saying the poor deserve being poor for making bad financial choices.

[M L]

In your mind does rich + poor = 100% of the population?

[Sarcastr0]

The middle class existing is not really relevant to the combo of blaming the poor for being poor and exalting the rich for being rich.

[Nige]

Since Biden is president maybe they'll acknowledge the erosion of the middle class that's been going on since Reagan.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I provided quotes and a link."

I am not reading an old thread to guess on who you mean.

How about a name?

"This thread has people saying the poor deserve being poor for making bad financial choices."

Not the same as "“idea that the rich are better than us”.

[Sarcastr0]

The quotes can be searched for in the linked thread, to find who made them.

I hope this helps.

[Bob from Ohio]

So, no one actually said "rich people are better than us". As I thought.

[Sarcastr0]

If you have an issue with the relevance of the quotes I provided, then make them.

Playing the 'no one literally said the words' is just lame.

[Bob from Ohio]

You didn't "provide" any quotes, just "look at this"

Pull the quote that makes your point, if you can.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How about you not be a lazy fuck?

Oh, right, genetics and general stupidity.

[Gandydancer]

"...it’s frankly creepy and aristocratic to think that we just have this overclass of a small people and families who are inherently better."

Who thinks this about them?

[SRG]

Radley Balko puts the boot into matching bullets – the evident consequentialism of police and prosecutors is disturbing but not surprising.

Devil in the grooves: The case against forensic firearms analysis

Last February, Chicago circuit court judge William Hooks made some history. He became the first judge in the country to bar the use of ballistics matching testimony in a criminal trial.

In Illinois v. Rickey Winfield, prosecutors had planned to call a forensic firearms analyst to explain how he was able to match a bullet found at a crime scene to a gun alleged to be in possession of the defendant.

Scientists from outside of forensics point out that there’s no scientific basis for much of what firearms analysts say in court. These critics, backed by a growing body of research, make a pretty startling claim — one that could have profound effects on the criminal justice system: We don’t actually know if it’s possible to match a specific bullet to a specific gun. And even if it is, we don’t know if forensic firearms analysts are any good at it.

(My bold)

Would prohibiting forensic firearms analysis from trials make it more difficult to win convictions? It seems likely. But as we’ve seen with the hundreds of DNA exonerations to date, ensuring the evidence used in court is backed by sound science is the difference between convicting the correct person for a crime and convicting . . . just anyone.

[bernard11]

It's amazing to me that tests like this are allowed as evidence without rigorous testing and validation.

It's just not that hard to design a procedure that would determine whether this sort of matching is valid or not. That design would be a reasonable assignment for a student in an intro statistics class.

[SRG]

Yeah – as Balko points out, once one judge allows it, a second will follow suit, and so on and so forth, and judges will be too lazy to investigate further. There is also a thick slice of arrogance involved – few judges are prepared to admit their lack of relevant competence to assess the merits of purported scientific claims.

But for me the most disturbing thing is not that the equivalent of tarot card readers (Balko’s analogy) are allowed to judge the efficacy of tarot card readers, but that the prosecuting side are so unwilling to stop using tarot card readers and insist on continuing to use them. It’s another example of how their vested interests are in convictions, not justice.

I predict that there will be an increasing number of appeals against verdicts based on ballistics analysis, with appellate courts dismissing most appeals on the apparent grounds that these issues should have been raised at trial – even though as a practical matter they couldn’t have been, but on the real grounds that the consequences of admitting all these faulty convictions are too terrible to imagine/permit.

[Michael Ejercito]

Remember the good old days when we can trust the science and follow the science?

After the last two years, more skepticism is clearly warranted. I am not yet agreeing with Balko or with Judge Hooks; this does warrant an impartial examination.

[SRG]

The point being that what is going on is not science. Trust the science - or rather, trust the scientific method/process - and so either make these unscientific fields of "expertise" conform to scientific approaches or just junk them.

[Kazinski]

Well it doesn't seem hard to come up with a reasonable test to figure out if it's reliable. Shoot 100 rounds out of 100 different 9mm's, then take one of the 9mm's fire another round and match it to the correct round in your original sample.

I in a 100 accuracy seems adequate to make it admissible, but of course not definitive. And then you can test all of the experts every 5 years using that standard

[David Nieporent]

Even that overstates the accuracy of the method, because you're comparing it to a known, limited pool. "None of these were the gun that fired this bullet" should also be a option.

[Kazinski]

That, but also you’d probably need to test each model separately, different manufacturers using different designs and tolerances may have vastly different individual variability between ballistics markings.

[Bored Lawyer]

As a non-lawyer, you may not realize part of what is happening. Under the very influential Supreme Court case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the trial court is supposed to act as a gate-keeper to weed out junk science. But that is a limited inquiry: "The focus, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate." If the principles are grounded in the scientific method, they are admissible.
Furthermore, once a certain threshold is reached, the trial court is supposed to admit the evidence, and rely on the the jury's discernment to decide its validity. "Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence." In fact, it is common that experts with opposite conclusions on the same issue will be admitted at the same trial.
So the legal regime allows for weak but barely supportable theories to be admitted as expert testimony.

[Michael Ejercito]

One could argue that in an ultimate sense, a stricter standard be required for forensic evidence presented by the prosecution,

However, Daubert must control in an appeal of Judge Hooks's ruling.

[SRG]

I am aware of Daubert - though as I've never heard anyone pronounce it, I don't know whether it's pronounced as an English word or a French one. Unfortunately almost no judge is qualified to assess scientific conformity - though as I noted, they are unlikely to admit this. And the idea that one will encounter duelling experts is a fiction in many criminal cases, I suspect. As Balko notes, with most ballistics labs refusing as a matter of policy to offer an exculpatory report, and given expense, there may be no expert available for the defence.

[Bored Lawyer]

I was replying to Bernard11. And I have always heard it pronounced with a T at the end.

[SRG]

Thank you!

BTW I note that unlike most illawyers, I have proven that IANAL by flunking law finals at college. I always found the law far more interesting when I could choose what to read up on...

[Bored Lawyer]

It would seem to me that this could be tested easily. Fire 20 rounds in 20 different guns, and ask the labs to identify what make and model shot them. Or, if they need a gun to match, fire 40 rounds in 40 different guns, switch out 20 of them, and ask them if they match or not. If the tests don't do better than a random answer (Yes or No), then it's junk science.

[SRG]

That's addressed in the full article. It's junk.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, the article just says it's not established. I am proposing actual tests.

[Ridgeway]

Shoudn't the test be:

1) Take 40 guns of the same make and model
2) Fire and collect a round from each
3) Randomly choose 1 of the 40 guns
4) Give the tester the 40 rounds, and ask which one came from the chosen gun.

If the tester can do so successfully, and the test process can be successfully repeated, that would seem like good evidence that each gun leaves a reasonably unique "fingerprint." If not, then it does seem like junk.

[Bored Lawyer]

I thought part of the test was telling what kind of gun it comes from -- make and model. At least that's the way it always appears on TV shows ("It was a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber.")

But yes, your test is a good one, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Prof. Baude with another banger on the nuances of Constitutional jurisprudence and the practice of using precedent to define words not defined in the text itself:

This, in essence, is the positive-law/legality approach, in which we judge the government's actions by the same legal baselines that apply to all other parties.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/31/the-source-of-law-in-tyler-v-hennepin-county/?comments=true#comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Another Thursday. Another day older and deeper in debt.

[Davedave]

Metaphorically shovelling 16 tons of bullshit doesn't count as work.

[Mr. Bumble]

I take it that you are talking about the 16 tons of bullshit that appear here every Thursday from all sources.

[Bored Lawyer]

And now on Mondays, too!

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank God for taco Tuesday>

[Nelson]

Hey! That's legally protected! You have to say "Tasty Taco Tuesday" or "Taco Terrific Tuesday" or something.

[Illocust]

I'm noticing very little mainstream coverage over budlight and target sales drops. Seems like this would be the kind of marketing meltdown that would garner the same coverage as GameStops stock buying spree.

[Mr. Bumble]

An "inconvenient truth".

[Martinned]

They tried to do the right thing and then caved to conservative nutcases. Result: they annoyed everybody, and are losing sales hand over fist. Makes sense to me.

[Life of Brian]

They tried to do the right thing and then caved to conservative nutcases. Result: they annoyed everybody, and are losing sales hand over fist.

Cool story, but fully incompatible with the timing of either company’s stock slump against whatever “caving” behavior you’re referring to (what would that even be with AB?).

Also incompatible with lefties immediately circling the wagons and pretending they actually liked Bud Light.

Can you point to any calls from the left to boycott either AB or Target?

[EscherEnigma]

Boycott? Eh... but on the more queer-focused sites I go to, there are a lot of folks annoyed with Bud Light and Target caving. Target has largely framed it as a safety issue --"our workers aren't paid enough to deal with violent and crazy conservatives"-- so they've been getting off lighter, but a lot of folk were mad at Bud for throwing Dulvaney (sp?) under the bus.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Putting a perverted male cross-dressing freak on a beer can is not the right thing. You seem to avoid with great effort any comments on Sam Brinton
https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/world-website-storage/wng-prod/_850x531_crop_center-center_82_line/WOBrintonGetty022122.jpg

[Nige]

See? The response is driven by pure hatred, that's what's significant about this.

[Ben_]

They have to mention it on financial channels. It's fun to watch because they know they'll get bullied or cancelled if they say something the alphabet people don't like.

So Target "got caught up in culture wars" (by prominently featuring sexual-orientation-themed products for very young children).

[Nige]

They had lgtbq-themed stuff for years. The homophobic mob only just noticed, or only just felt emboldened.

[Michael P]

And Bud Light got "caught up" in the culture wars by intentionally hiring a spokesperson who is dissonant to most of their consumers.

[Nige]

Or, more accurately, 'transphobes went ape over forty-second tiktok vid.'

[David Nieporent]

They did not "hire a spokesperson." Dylan Mulvaney was not an employee or spokesperson.

[Kazinski]

Doesn't really matter, branding is about getting the consumer to identify with your product, and then they are more likely to prefer it.

Identifying your product with something the consumer does not want to be identified with, will undo all your branding work, unless your product has an intrinsic advantage over other competing products.

If I started drinking Bud Light 20 years ago because of its 'fratty image' and the scantily clad models next to the pool in it's commercials, which of course is a meaningless reason to select a beer, why blame me now if I decide to start drinking another brand because of something else completely meaningless?

After all I'm only your customer in the first place because I'm an idiot, now that you've grown, I can see I'm no longer worthy of your product, I know my own level and I'm more comfortable with the fratty image of 20 years ago.

[Nige]

It doesn't matter because its a big corporation, and therefore evil, so fuck 'em. What matters is the massive transphobic hatred in the people who reacted so wildly to the ad.

[Ben_]

"...which of course is a meaningless reason to select a beer..."

But Bud Light is hardly a unique, bespoke product. That's their biggest problem now: people have a reason to skip drinking it but they'll never have a good reason to go back to it. It's a random mass market light lager.

[apedad]

Cars registered in Texas after 2025 will no longer need to pass a safety inspection, but owners will still pay the fee

Most Texas drivers will no longer be required to have their cars pass an annual safety exam after state lawmakers removed the rule from Texas code.

Texas is one of 13 states that mandate annual inspections for cars. That will change in about 18 months now that the Texas Legislature has given final approval to House Bill 3297.

The 17 Texas counties that require emissions inspections will still mandate annual tests regardless of the bill becoming law. These are Brazoria, Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Johnson, Kaufman, Montgomery, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, Travis and Williamson counties.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/01/texas-car-safety-inspection-changes/

Huh, looks like I've always lived in a state that required annual inspections, so didn't know most other states didn't require it.

FYI, the states currently requiring safety inspections are Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

[Mr. Bumble]

New jersey still requires motor vehicle inspections.

[apedad]

Isn't that just emission testing and not the full blown inspection, i.e., lights, wipers, etc.?

[Mr. Bumble]

I believe that you're right with regard to passenger cars and pickup trucks. Other vehicles can be subject to safety inspections.

[Commenter_XY]

Much more than emissions, apedad. The People's Republic has the motor vehicle inspection system down to a science. They can even tell you where to go if you fail inspection to get your car repaired - hint, hint.

No, the People's Republic of NJ nails you on fees, and taxes.

[MoreCurious]

Not on new cars. I just bought a 2023 car and the inspection sticker is good until 2028, by which time our collective journey to Hell in a handcart will be complete so who cares.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts safety inspections are lead generators for repair shops. I'll pass you if you buy a set of windshield wipers (which you don't need). Emissions inspections are to keep the EPA happy. In this computerized era one could do almost as well by having an inspector look at the check engine light every year or two. I have failed emissions twice, both times because a battery went dead or was replaced not long before the appointment. The car was fine, the computer was sulking.

[Frank Drackman]

cars gotta go through a "Test Cycle" varies depending on the make, and has to meet certain parameters (don't have a full tank of fuel) and you have to have an 8-12 hour break inbetween for the cycle to complete. I disconnect my cars battery while I'm traveling and often have to pass an emissions with just a few days left, lots of YouTube videos on how to do them, they're pretty involved the one for my ZO6 starts
1. Cold Start. In order to be classified as a cold start the engine coolant temperature must be below 50°C (122°F) and within 6°C (11°F) of the ambient air temperature at startup. Do not leave the key on prior to the cold start or the heated oxygen sensor diagnostic may not run.

2. Idle. The engine must be run for two and a half minutes with the air conditioner on and rear defroster on. The more electrical load you can apply the better. This will test the O2 heater, Passive Air, Purge "No Flow", Misfire and if closed loop is achieved, Fuel Trim.

3. Accelerate. Turn off the air conditioner and all the other loads and apply half throttle until 88km/hr (55mph) is reached. During this time the Misfire, Fuel Trim, and Purge Flow diagnostics will be performed.

4. Hold Steady Speed. Hold a steady speed of 88km/hr (55mph) for 3 minutes. During this time the O2 response, air Intrusive, EGR, Purge, Misfire, and Fuel Trim diagnostics will be performed.

5. Decelerate. Let off the accelerator pedal. Do not shift, touch the brake or clutch. It is important to let the vehicle coast along gradually slowing down to 32km/hr (20 mph). During this time the EGR, Purge and Fuel Trim diagnostics will be performed.

6. Accelerate. Accelerate at 3/4 throttle until 88-96 km/hr (55-60mph). This will perform the same diagnostics as in step 3.
and there's about 7-8 more steps.

Frank "Car Guy"

[Life of Brian]

Huh, looks like I’ve always lived in a state that required annual inspections, so didn’t know most other states didn’t require it.

How many times have you ever had a vehicle fail inspection? I've lived in states requiring inspections for nearly 2 decades now and never have myself or known anyone who did. Always struck me as being more rent-seeking by the auto shops than material increases in safety.

[Davedave]

If vehicles aren't routinely failing - not all of them, but large numbers - then the inspection isn't a proper inspection. Countries like the UK and Germany have proper inspections, which act to catch things that are dangerous, or will become dangerous if left unchecked.

Obviously the failures are skewed towards older cars, but not overwhelmingly so. It is astonishing how many people rely on an MOT to pick up their worn-out tyres, malfunctioning brakes, and so-on.

That said, any competent servicing garage does the service before the MOT, so the car will pass. With that in mind, the UK failure rate is ~25%. I cannot think of anything on the MOT list which I would be happy to see removed, so there's a strong suggestion that at any given time 25% of the vehicles on the road here are not really roadworthy.

It is abundantly clear that the UK is in a much better position in that regard than places without annual safety checks, so the argument for annual inspections is irrefutable unless you're happy for idiots to drive around putting you and everyone else in danger.

[Life of Brian]

It is abundantly clear that the UK is in a much better position in that regard than places without annual safety checks

Is it? I must have missed your source for that A/B comparison.

Mine for the US is here. TL;DR: Comparing states with mandatory inspection programs with states that do not showed no significant reduction in accidents. Also notes that roughly 2% of accidents are caused by mechanical component failures, against 94% caused by driver error.

[VinniUSMC]

Entirely rent-seeking in NC. I was nicked for the light inside my trunk not working.

[Davedave]

"I was nicked for the light inside my trunk not working."

The one which shows to drivers approaching you from behind, when you are stopped by the side of the road with your trunk lid open, which on most cars obscures the high level brake light, you mean?

[Mr. Bumble]

That is quite a stretch thinking a courtesy trunk light is a safety feature. Does an open trunk obscure the tail light/brake lights/flashers?

[Davedave]

Yes, in many cases it does. This is a known issue with recent(ish) vehicle designs, and has led to manufacturers putting lights on the inside of the lid for exactly that reason.

It's entirely possible that NC's rules are badly written and accidentally capture something else too, but it's obvious why there is a rule of that nature to begin with.

[VinniUSMC]

No, the light inside my trunk, which is only illuminated when opening the trunk. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have called it the light inside my trunk. Also, 2001.

[ducksalad]

I’ve had plenty of cars fail in TX. That includes cases where it really did fail, and cases where they “found” a misaligned headlight but offered to adjust it so it would pass for an extra $10.

At other shops it was openly understood that you’d pass if you asked up front for some minor repair like new wipers or an air filter, otherwise they’d have to find something.

Another shop the guy kind of slipped up and said he was charging “for the sticker” rather than “for the inspection”. But he’d do the inspection if I really insisted on it, which I didn’t.

Another exceptionally honest man (in a way) inspected my car, failed it, and then gave my money back in direct violation of state law and his own self-interest. Said that no matter what the law said, it just wouldn’t be right to take my money when I didn’t get a sticker.

[Life of Brian]

OK, so other than the last one (and you didn't mention why it failed, so can't measure it), this is a list of "failures" that don't materially impact safety at all, and are simply excuses by shops to bilk you for even more money than the inspection

That fits comfortably within the envelope of rent-seeking behavior in my book.

[David Nieporent]

In NJ (when they used to have safety inspections) they had state inspection facilities as well as private ones.

[Nelson]

Delaware gives 5 years for new cars and every 3 years after that. I had one car for 11 years and had to get 2 inspections. Easy-peasy.

[Nelson]

Damn, I just read about the bullshit scams you guys in states that use auto shops for inspections have to put up with.

Delaware has state inspections at the DMV. You drive into the bay, do stuff like turn signals and horn, and drive out. The line can suck if you go at the wrong time, but the inspection takes about 2 minutes and you drive around the building and get your registration. Easy-peasy.

[Ben_]

NY Post has another story on one of the numerous Biden bribery and FBI corruption stories:

https://nypost.com/2023/05/31/missing-biden-family-corruption-probe-witness-gal-luft-speaks-out-living-as-fugitive-in-undisclosed-location/

Lots of information in that article. Here's a sample:

"In March 2019, Luft met with four FBI officials and two DOJ prosecutors at the US Embassy in Brussels to provide information that Chinese state-controlled energy company CEFC had paid $100,000 a month to Hunter Biden and $65,000 to his uncle Jim, in exchange for their FBI connections and use of the Biden name to promote China’s Belt and Road Initiative around the world."

[SRG]

Thanks! It provides more justification for my decision not to vote for Hunter Biden in 2024.

[David Nieporent]

Why? To quote DJT, it just proves that Hunter Biden is smart.

[SRG]

I have higher standards than Trump 🙂

[Gandydancer]

~"Trump: ' it just proves that Hunter Biden is smart.'"

Link?

[Ben_]

Democrats think lying, corruption, and other criminal acts are "smart".

[Nige]

Democrats think if you had any actual evidence of any of that we'd have seen it by now.

[Sarcastr0]

Have you ever gotten a joke in your life?

[Ben_]

Deranged Trump hatred is a joke?

[Nige]

The joke was about Hunter Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

And DJT.

[Nige]

Didn't notice he was there.

Just like his Dad.

[Gandydancer]

Democrat lying is not a joke. It's a plague.

[Nige]

You're mad because people keep pointing out how full of shit this nonsense is.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog has operated for

EIGHT (8) DAYS

without publishing a vile racial slur and has published vile racial slurs in at least

FOURTEEN (14) CONTEXTS

between January 1, 2023 and today (that’s 14 discussions featuring vile racial slurs — often multiple racial slurs — rather than merely 14 vile racial slurs).

(This assessment does not address the homophobic, antisemitic, Islamophobic, misogynistic, and xenophobic slurs and other forms of bigotry incessantly and enthusiastically published by this remarkably white, strikingly male, ostensibly academic conservative blog.)

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, you've been repeatedly been called out for being Islamophobic and bigoted. You have actively called for the destruction of Islam and all other religions. Any Muslim readers will sensibly understand you to be a direct, existential, mortal enemy of their faith.

AIDS, you cannot hide behind a shield of righteousness and virtue. You are a proven liar and a racist imperialist. Your cultural imperialism will be held against you by your betters when American military and economic power cannot, and will no longer, shield you.

You and your values are doomed, AIDS.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I prefer reason and the reality-based world to childish superstition, sacred ignorance, and dogmatic intolerance.

This seems to bug Republicans, conservatives, and faux libertarians.

[Theendoftheleft]

How many times must we go through this, AIDS. You present your values and ideology as if they are predicated upon reason when they’re clearly not. In the face of the social constructivity of all values, of the very concept of equality being a spectral one, of any credible genealogy of the concept of equality showing it to be a contingent development borne out of particular historical circumstances, YOU blanche. For you desperately want to believe you’re equal. You seem to hate the semitic cults because they condemn you and your sex drive. Too bad, that doesn’t make you equal. Even if they disappear, secular society’s like China’s show that tolerance of your sexuality doesn’t follow; and nor MUST you be tolerated either, as if there was some metaphysical necessity for that.

More importantly, you scream about bigotry and inclusivity when YOU YOURSELF damn these other cultures as backward and superstitious. You’re just too cowardly to openly admit as much — even as a troll on this blog — for fear of ASSOCIATED labels (ie, racist, xenophobic, etc.) even though what’s at issue are the norms of those other cultures and not some biological/pseudo-biological category. Examples: you make fun of Christians for certain things but never Muslims despite their harbouring identical beliefs. You critique White Christians but never Black ones. You damn white racism but not other forms.

Your multicult normative aspirations — for it, too, is a cult — is itself superstitious nonsense, and NOT based on reason. Yet you are keen to misrepresent it as being otherwise, all whilst evidencing why you think various cultural norms are inferior and incongruous with your preferred ones.

Choose reason, AIDS. Most academics see normativity as non-truth-apt. Your values aren’t progress. Indeed, the harshness of the world is proving to you and your country that your value system and ideologies are evolutionarily inferior memes. Your liberalism and libertarianism (true or faux) probably won’t be around much longer.

[Estragon]

“blanche“

Hey leave the golden girls out of this

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe that's the spelling preferred by disaffected European right-wingers?

[Theendoftheleft]

You never respond on the merits, AIDS, because you can't.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Folks, just consider that Rev doesn't mind Falun Gong and Uyghurs torture and organ harvesting but Biden telling Uganda it can't deal with aggravated sexual perversion.....I am not a certified psychologist but I think the "Rev": is kind of a self-harm that results from supporting perversion.

How prescient of Clarence THomas (who the Rev calls 'conservative' but not Black) to say
"“Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society,” Justice Thomas wrote, adding that the decision had stigmatized people of faith.

“Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss,” Justice Thomas wrote, adding, “In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals.”

I knew guys like Rev in highschool. They went to Woodstock and if you weren't naked enough or said 'no' to some proferred mescaline they beat you up

[Michael Ejercito]

In the post about the Rahimi case, the Lautenberg Amendment was mentioned in the comments section.

Did it go far enough?

Why not also do the following regarding those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence?

- prohibit them from practiving law or medicine
- prohibit them from hacving any form of intimate contact or relationship
- require them to wear a distinctive badge when out in public

[John F. Carr]

I have heard of defendants being required to inform new dating prospects of their criminal status, the intent being to scare off women before they get beaten.

[Michael Ejercito]

That is interesting.

matybe congress should add that to the Lautenberg Amendment.

Or just outright prohibit any form of intimacy for them.

[Noscitur a sociis]

– prohibit them from practiving law or medicine

Works for me.

[John F. Carr]

The Republican governor of Nevada won the job by promising to respect the will of the people on abortion. This week, he signed a pro-abortion bill. I thought it was worth calling attention to a politician keeping his word.

[Bored Lawyer]

Sounds like the presidents who preceded Abe Lincoln.

[David Nieporent]

I don't recall any of them signing abortion bills.

[Bored Lawyer]

analogy:
* a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
* a correspondence or partial similarity.

Oxford English Dictionary

[Bob from Ohio]

"won the job by promising to respect the will of the people on abortion"

How do you know that "won" it for him? I assume he made a lot of promises.

[John F. Carr]

The election was close, abortion motivated voters around the country, and abortion was an issue in the Nevada governor's race.

[Bob from Ohio]

"politician keeping his word"

Kill those babies!

[Estragon]

“I didn't want to be celebratory, i left immediately. I'm deeply ashamed and i plead for your mercy, not for my sake but for the sake of my children and family who i deeply adore, love and live for.“

-Roberto Minuta

This individual is going to be sentenced in about 10 minutes, I will report back!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prosecutors reportedly requested a 17-year period of incarceration.

Fifteen sounds about right.

[Davedave]

17 sounds like ridiculous pandering to the far right mob. Why haven't these traitors been executed? Why hasn't Trump been charged with treason yet?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is the current over/under proposition on how many times former Pres. Trump will be charged or indicted by law enforcement authorities? 3.5? That seems reasonable.

[Frank Drackman]

Well "Under" (Reverend Sandusky loves the "Under") your number of convictions, "Coach", lets go to the Video Tape!!!
"On November 4, 2011, a grand jury[42] that had been convened in September 2009, or earlier,[30] indicted Sandusky on 40 counts of sex crimes against young boys."
ended up going to trial on 52 charges, convicted of 45 of 48 (4 dropped)
care to add any "Corrections" "Coach"???

Frank

[M L]

What did he do? Take a stroll through the Capitol?

[Estragon]

“ When I was recording police coming down the stairs, I looked in their faces, I saw they were... in pain. not physically but distraught and in that moment I knew it was a really bad day.”

[Davedave]

"I saw they were… in pain. not physically but distraught and in that moment I knew it was a really bad day.”"

The point where he realised his attempted coup didn't actually have any support from anyone else was obviously a bad day for him. But why should that keep him from the chair? Treason is treason, whether you recognise afterwards that your treason was doomed to failure or not.

[Estragon]

“As a father, I would be embarrassed for my children to see me behaving how I did that day. It would be a perfect example of how not to behave. My poor judgment didn't stop at belligerence, I entered Capitol, alarms blazing, chemical irritants in air... and despite my instincts saying not to go in, I did...
I was offered an opportunity to help police and I blew it. While using my own words as their evidence, it does not look like I was helping police. I failed at assisting police that day.”

[M L]

So he . . . took a stroll through the Capitol?

And also failed at assisting police. Wow, that's pretty bad.

[Estragon]

Excuse it all you like… and I know you will! Mr. Minuta has a few years to think things over.

[Bob from Ohio]

Solzhenitsyn spent years in prison too. Estragon: "he deserved it!"

[Estragon]

Stewart Rhodes, is that you?!

[Bob from Ohio]

Beria is that you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog attracts a large volume of un-American assholes.

Which might be the aim of some other un-American losers.

Carry on, clingers.

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, your real aim is the destruction of freedom of thought, association, and conscience, let alone your republican form of government, in order to Jacobin your society — and, indeed, the entire world, without our consent — into a brave new world. You are perfectly content with governmental and institutional policing of people’s thought and speech in order to ensure that they (profess to) respect and tolerate things that you yourself don’t actually respect or tolerate.

You are clearly an enemy of the American constitution and republic. You are a traitor, hiding behind a superficial ‘liberal-libertarian’ label. More than that, you’re a mortal enemy to freedom-loving, free-thinking people everywhere. You use the language of a marketplace of ideas but don’t believe in it at all.

You’re a fascist, AIDS, and the whole world sees through your pretenses and imperialist schemes.

Carry on, clinger, till your American betters tar and feather you.

[Frank Drackman]

“On November 4, 2011, a grand jury[42] that had been convened in September 2009, or earlier,[30] indicted Sandusky on 40 counts of sex crimes against young boys.”
ended up going to trial on 52 charges, convicted of 45 of 48 (4 dropped)

[Estragon]

Oh yes Beria, well known for public trials and determination of guilt and innocence made by a jury of one’s peers. Can you imagine the level of delusional self-regard to compare yourself to Solzhenitsyn right before a federal judge is going to sentence you for seditious conspiracy? You huckleberries get the heroes you deserve

[Theendoftheleft]

You Americans really underestimate the extent to which yours are now widely seen, across the globe, as Kangaroo courts…

That, leaving alone how your FBI and CIA have discredited themselves.

How on earth do you think the USA is going to recover its global reputation? Why should our Western governments and intelligence services ever trust yours again?

[Estragon]

You concern trolling is duly noted. Is stewie Rhodes really the hill you want to die on? The guy is gross, and a dumbass. He should serve out his term at Gitmo.

[Theendoftheleft]

I shan’t, and needn’t, die on any hill. It’s the credibility of your legal system, your political order, and your global reputation which is at stake here, even vis-a-vis Rhodes’ case. Disliking the man, his views, and his actions doesn’t mean that the rest of the world can or will plausibly believe that your ‘legal’ processes and treatment of him (and like cases) were credible, fair, or in accordance with the rule of law.

[Estragon]

4.5 years

[John F. Carr]

The government asked for 17 years.

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-oath-keepers-seditious-conspiracy-sentencings-7a826241ad3a667cfec9a8c4538c36b2

[Estragon]

Next up: Edward Vallejo!

[Estragon]

36 months, some portion of which will be home confinement.

[Estragon]

I’m sorry this was not accurate: 36 months in prison, followed by a further 36 months of supervised release— some portion of that will be home confinement.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Since the end of World War II, Minnesota has had four ballot-qualified parties other than the Democratic and Republican Parties. But if the new law, requiring a vote of 8% instead of 5%, had existed in that past period, Minnesota probably would not have had any ballot-qualified third parties other than the Reform Party in 1996-2000."

https://ballot-access.org/2023/05/29/if-minnesotas-new-8-vote-test-for-party-status-had-existed-in-the-past/

Minnesota and other states are simply concerned with avoiding ballot clutter.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

President Sponge Brains Shits His Pants took a massive dive on the stage today at the Air Force Academy graduation today.

The crowd started cheering, lol.

[Mr. Bumble]

New Biden theme song is: Trip, Stumble and Fall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6EgQFXYxbg

[Mr. Bumble]

How soon before he channels FDR and is in a wheel chair?
https://twitter.com/jacobkschneider/status/1664343681321541636

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, my mother spent her last ten years in a wheel chair because she couldn't reliably stay upright, but she was sharp as a whip until the last few weeks. And FDR might have been stuck in a wheelchair, but he was no dummy. (A power mad authoritarian, sure, but not a dummy.)

But Biden can't claim to have working wits, either.

[Moderation4ever]

He got right up and walked back to his seat. Bruce Springsteen tripped on the stage a day ago, got up and kept rocking. The Pres and Boss don't let little falls stop them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He got right up "

Three men helped him up.

[Moderation4ever]

So, Springsteen was also helped up. I am curious what do you do when a person trips and falls in front of you? Do you help them or just laugh at

[Michael P]

Was Biden wearing overly tight pants too? If so, why, and who dressed him like that?

[Gandydancer]

Your characterization of what happened was, "He got right up and walked back to his seat."

I haven't seen the video, but if three men helped him up then you were lying.

Whether if someone fell in front of Bob Bob would help them up or just laugh at them is irrelevant to whether you were lying. No one is criticizing those who helped Biden up. We are criticizing your misleading description of what happened,

[Theendoftheleft]

Nor has being non-compos mentis stopped Biden either.

At what point will you admit that the presidency has become a global laughing stock?

[MoreCurious]

We began to admit that beginning on January 20, 2017, and never stopped until January 20, 2021.

[Theendoftheleft]

Why did you stop then? Because you're too cowardly to face the world, and yourselves, honestly about your current president?

[Bob from Ohio]

"massive dive on the stage"

3 years ago at another service academy Trump walked up a ramp slowly and it was a big scandal.

I doubt this will get the coverage

[Commenter_XY]

It is sad to see an old man like that victimized by malevolent people around him; he is being cynically used. You have to wonder about the company he keeps.

[Mr. Bumble]

Start with “Dr. Jill”. AKA Edith Wilson.

[EscherEnigma]

And a few years before that it was a big scandal that Obama wore "mom jeans".

Maybe you should just accept that not all "scandals" are worth caring about, and that sometimes the media is desperate for anything in a slow-news week.

[Moderation4ever]

Thanks for saying this, the truth is that some news is just silly. The story of President Trump having TP stuck to his shoe was tabloid stuff that had no business on the regular media.

President Gerald Ford was an athlete in college and beyond. He had a habit of tripping and Chevy Chase made a living by parodying Ford. Candidate Gary Bauer fells off a stage flipping pancakes in New Hampshire. President Carter collapsed in a 6 mile running race in 1979. People fall, they get up and move on.

[Gandydancer]

Wilsons’ concealed stroke wasn’t silly, and neither are Biden’s obvious mental failings.

[Michael P]

I am glad to see that the Court (8-1 in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters) finally started to put some common-sense limits on organized labor's ability to extort employers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Roughly the customary volume of bigotry from the Volokh Conspiracy’s fans today, or perhaps a bit less than usual. The Conspiracy’s white, male, conservative law professors thank their carefully cultivated audience for another day of “often libertarian” bigotry, delusional ignorance, and disaffected white grievance.

Carry on, clingers.

[Estragon]

Two more sentences today! First up is David Moerschel:

“When I was on those stairs, I felt like God said to me, get out of here and I didn't and I disobeyed God and I broke laws. I'm not sorry because I'm being punished, I'm sorry because of the harm my actions caused other people...”

[Estragon]

“"I don't mean anything bad about Kelly Meggs, but he was a used car salesman. It was dumb to follow that guy."

LOLOLOLOLOL

[Estragon]

36 months!

[Estragon]

Joseph Hackett is next

[Estragon]

42 months for Mr. Hackett

[M L]

The movie "What is a Woman?" is now available free on Twitter. 43 million views and counting so far after 18 hours.

https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1664424891372941312

I watched it a while ago and it was better than I expected.

[M L]

I just watched the first 7 minutes again. I'd recommend trying the first 7 minutes, it delivers a gut busting laugh.

[M L]

Now over 50 million.

Does anyone have an example of a viral video having more than 50 million views in 18 hours in the history of the internet?

[M L]

78.3 million.

[M L]

MSN (?):

Health Shocker: Jamie Foxx Left 'Paralyzed and Blind' From 'Blood Clot in His Brain' After Receiving COVID-19 Vaccine, Source Claims

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/health-shocker-jamie-foxx-left-paralyzed-and-blind-from-blood-clot-in-his-brain-after-receiving-covid-19-vaccine-source-claims/ar-AA1bZrwx

Jamie Foxx Left Paralyzed And Blind As An Effect Of The COVID-19 Vaccine – Reports

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/others/jamie-foxx-left-paralyzed-and-blind-as-an-effect-of-the-covid-19-vaccine-%E2%80%93-reports/ar-AA1c1xEh

[Nige]

That poor, poor chicken.

[M L]

The Telegraph:
I fear we are witnessing a Covid cover-up

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/01/i-fear-we-are-witnessing-a-covid-cover-up/

We all deserve pandemic answers – the person with cancer now incurable because of unjustified delays, the single mum trapped in a tiny flat over a hot summer with three young children, the families forced to say their final goodbye to loved ones over a mobile phone and the educational opportunities lost by a bright child from a poor family who didn’t own a computer.

It was all so unspeakably cruel, but was it a necessary evil to save lives? That’s the central question to the whole convoluted inquiry. It’s one I fear that will not be capable of producing a fair and unbiased response from an establishment which pushed lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing and disinfection at every available opportunity. Men with high-vis jackets and clipboards sprung up from nowhere. Who really ordered all this and was it ever necessary?

I fear that we are seeing the beginnings of a great Covid cover-up, a disastrous whitewash – despite the venerable efforts of Baroness Heather Hallett – with history being rewritten in front of our very eyes.

[Nige]

Wow that IS rewriting history. The UK tried to skip lockdowns, but the death rate grew so appalling even Johnson noticed.

[Gandydancer]

Wikipedia: "Karol Sikora (born 17 June 1948)[1][2] is a British physician specialising in oncology, who has been described as a leading world authority on cancer.[3][4][5]

Nige: Blatant serial liar, post numerous anonymous fact-free and/or blatantly false comments in the Volokh Conspiracy comment threads. As here.

[Theendoftheleft]

Queen, are you working with Rev. Arthur (aka AIDS) on the corpse of John Wayne Gacy’s campaign for Democratic POTUS 2024?

Gacy’s corpse best represents your values, including your side’s take on the current gender troubles. The lord knows that you wouldn’t want either vivo-centric/premacist views of personhood, or hetero-normative preferences (against the serial rape of teenagers), to prejudicially exclude dead persons from being included in campaigns for elected office.

Gacy’s corpse best represents the blue team’s aspirations for a progressive American future. So I hope it has your support.

[Dr. Ed 2]

QA would never think about cause & effect.

There is a massive untapped market of pissed off White males.
Could it be tapped outside of traditional lines of credit?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Ediot has said multiple times here he plans to only have sexual relations with bots,

Attacking people's sexual orientation now? That's just low.

[Theendoftheleft]

Woah, Yankee Doodle dipshit, it’s one thing to falsely claim to be equal ‘persons’, but no one in the rest of the world can plausibly believe that you imbeciles are actually adults.

Knockdown evidence: the considerable amount of your life/time you've dedicated to trolling this site.

QED.

[Michael Ejercito]

So when will the wahhabis in Saudi Arabia stop picking and choosing "which consenting adult couples can form marital unions"?

[Frank Drackman]

You finally said something that makes sense.

[Davedave]

There's no real comparison to be made. Biden was/is accused of cognitive decline. Trump was never in a position to decline.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, I'm fully on board with that.

Trump is too old, and I won't vote for him in the primaries.

DeSantis, Tom Cotton, Tim Scott are all much younger and better choices anyway.

[Nige]

The ultimate homogenisation.

[OtisAH]

“Everything is exactly the same all the time.”
-Milton Friedman

“There is no difference between purple and green. They are both colors.”
-Edmund Burke

“Of course I can walk 400 miles as quickly as I can drive 400 miles. It’s the same distance!”
-William F. Buckley

[Theendoftheleft]

Ha! What argument? Do you know what an argument is, fool?

[Religion and Politics, my life]

You rebutted a dumb argument with a dumber one. I think you will find sexual deviancy in many serial killers and rapists. That it isn't homosexual perversion really is not even a point.

[Theendoftheleft]

Silly American simpleton. I'm not trolling; I'm meta-trolling. And I've not dedicated years of my life to doing so, unlike your years dedicated to trolling.

Not that you're going to modify your life, your behaviour, or your beliefs in the face of this obvious fact about yourself. Other people have real hobbies, real creative and intellectual output, etc. By contrast, you are just a loser (and a proponent of an evolutionarily inferior meme).

[Mr. Bumble]

Or to vote by mail.

[apedad]

"I’m not trolling; I’m meta-trolling."

Can we make this the Volokh Conspiracy motto?

[Theendoftheleft]

HA! God you’re dumb. Learn basic logic. Seriously

I noted a difference between meta-trolling and someone’s trolling for years. Re-read my first post about the TIME you’ve spent. By contrast, I haven’t, and never would, dedicate anywhere near as much of my life to doing what you do. (For normal thinking people, unlike you, it’d be deemed a considerable waste of time.)

Furthermore, a MEME isn’t necessarily about biology, you uneducated twit; it hasn’t anything to do with the natural fallacy. Read Dawkins. Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance!

You are total loser who doesn’t even understand his own dogmas, and you certainly do adhere to an evolutionarily inferior meme.

[Theendoftheleft]

Which trolls would VC itself be meta-trolling? The American people?

[Theendoftheleft]

THAT'S the best you can do???

You really are a loser.

[Nige]

He isn't 'accused' of anything, it's just shit people say about presidents they hate, like saying Trump snorts adderall.

[Davedave]

That's what 'accused' means, in this context, Nige. Bit of cognitive decline there, yourself?

[Nige]

It's trash-talk.

[grb]

If we (God help us) have a Trump-Biden rematch, it will be fun to watch Biden out-debate Trump once again. For a day or two after each Trumpian debacle, we'll have blessed silence on the whole Biden Dementia meme from all the right-type here....

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.newsweek.com/voting-fraud-real-concern-just-look-around-world-opinion-1522535

"Among the 27 countries in the European Union, 63 percent ban mail-in voting unless living abroad and another 22 percent require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Twenty-two percent ban the practice even for those who live abroad.

There are 16 countries in the rest of Europe, and they are even more restrictive. Every single one bans mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot. Sixty-three percent don't allow mail-in ballots even for citizens living outside of the country."

[Bwaaah]

"MAGAns can’t get the idea that @the cover up is the crime"

Maybe one day they'll learn such a thing, and invent a "Hunter Biden" story as an example.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the well covered up Hunter Biden story no one knows about.

[bernard11]

Suddenly Bumble thinks Europe is a model we should carefully follow.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Abraham Lincoln

[Kazinski]

The Hunter Biden story where the DOJ just pulled off the IRS team that was investigating Hunter in violation of the whistleblower laws.

[Theendoftheleft]

AMAZING! You’re conflating Dawkins’ selfish gene theory with the concept of a meme as such. Thank you, once again, for demonstrating your ignorance. Your shamelessness in betraying it is fantastic too, you anti-science fuckwit.

And regarding the natural fallacy, I was responding to what YOU wrote: ‘Biology is destiny! What’s a little naturalistic fallacy with breakfast?’. It makes sense that you’d write such rubbish, since, as you’ve demonstrated repeatedly now, you don’t understand the concept of a meme.

Keep it coming! Show the world how stupid you are.

[Theendoftheleft]

Yep, that’s precisely what you do. (How many troll accounts on VC are yours?)

Regardless, actually go read Dawkins.

[Theendoftheleft]

See, you really can't respond on the merits, ie, on the selfish gene theory vs the very concept of a meme.

[Theendoftheleft]

I'm not confused, I'm witnessing.

[Theendoftheleft]

Are you seven years-old? You've just re-affirmed my point below about adults.

[Theendoftheleft]

QED.

[Theendoftheleft]

At this stage, why do you even bother? What drives you to post such a pathetic response?

[Sarcastr0]

the DOJ just pulled off the IRS team that was investigating Hunter in violation of the whistleblower laws.

Sure, dude.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Neither of you idiots addressed my point. You simply attributed thoughts to me that I don’t have.

Here’s another one. Is it ok that the left has books like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird pulled from libraries? Or is Right Minded book banning ok?

Can’t wait for your response calling me a racist.

[Sarcastr0]

"Why can you book banners never be specific about the exact books you’re talking about?"

the left has books like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird pulled from libraries
Many such cases.

[Martinned]

Is it ok that the left has books like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird pulled from libraries?

As we used to say in the early days of the VC: cite?

[Nige]

I directly adressed your point. Maybe you didn't like they way I did it, but I did.

When has the left had either of those books pulled from libraries? Irionically, the occasional story about someone trying to remove Huck Finn from a library or a curriculum (not by 'the left' so far as I know) were always met here with a united chorus of derision and opposition. Not any more. And you have to work pretty hard to ignore the reactionary anti-lgtbq backlash at work here, especially after the Bud/Target stuff.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Holy hell, it’s as if when someone makes a point you people don’t like you suddenly lose the ability to use google.

I’m not going to bother to look up every single instance, but here’s a couple

https://crosscut.com/news/2022/01/kill-mockingbird-hot-seat-wa-school-district#:~:text=When%20To%20Kill%20a%20Mockingbird,on%20an%20allegation%20of%20rape.

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/books/1298539/To-Kill-A-Mockingbird-Harper-Lee-Huckleberry-Finn-Mark-Twain-banned-books/amp

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think that's comparable to what's going on in red states?

Of course you do. Both Sides, after all.

[Nige]

You said 'the left.' Where is 'the left' in those? Groups of liberal parents at school board meetings, Democrat politicians passing laws and measures to support them, where are they? Where are all the liberals and leftists speaking up in support of the bans? The ALA lists them as 'most banned,' the same way they list all the books the right are overtly trying to ban. Where is 'the left?'

[David Nieporent]

Whatever the merits of those stories, neither one involves book banning. They're about the curriculum, not the school library.

[bevis the lumberjack]

None of this involves book “banning”. And yes, they are directly comparable to Florida. I know it’s more better when your side does it and neutrality pisses you off, but tough shit.

Yes, David, they’re coming out of libraries too, and the statement that it makes about the attitude of the administration toward speech is the same either way.

[Nige]

You have not demonstrated 'your side.' Creating false equivalences is not neutrality.

[Sarcastr0]

David, they’re coming out of libraries too,

And yet, those are not the sources you provided.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Google for yourself, lazy ass.

Of course you won’t because you have no principles related to censorship. When it happens you either defend it or dismiss it as nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

Asked for sources, you grumbled and then provided sources nearby but not on point.
And when called on it you refused to provide any more support for what you're saying.

This is not good argumentation.

[bevis the lumberjack]

So you’re fine with censorship on the left then. You’d rather criticize my argumentation (blocking books = blocking books) than criticize blocking Atticus Finch and Tom Robinson.

See if you can find a principle to buy on Amazon because you sure don’t seem to have one.

[Sarcastr0]

I said nothing like that bevis.

You love to pull a shit equivalence, and when it is denied say 'well you must be okay with the left side of the false equivalence.'

No. Stop making this awful strawman.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You said nothing at all. You’re avoiding criticizing it while getting the fucking vapors over the same thing in Florida.

Blocking access to books = blocking access to books.

And I haven’t even mentioned the left rewriting classics to suit their over sensitive attitudes.

Your side sucks on speech every bit as much as the other. Considering your president is hell bent on having a Ministry of Truth.

I know you don’t like balance, but either condemn censorship on the left or STFU.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh noes I didn't engage with your off-topic links other than asking you to stay on topic!

Better start assuming my thoughts on my behalf then.

I do have a position, but it's funnier to just not feed your bothsides engine and watch you fume.

[bernard11]

Bevis,

From your links:

To Kill a Mockingbird:

The Mukilteo School District recently approved removing the text as a required assignment for ninth graders. Under the change, the district retains the book as an option for teachers who still want to assign it.

Where is the ban?

That and Huckleberry Finn:

The Duluth school district, which includes more than 20 schools, is removing the books from the curriculum for ninth and 11th grade English classes.

However, copies of Lee and Twain’s classics will remain in the school libraries.

Again, no ban. No pulling from libraries.

Now, I think these are fine books. Pulling them from libraries is terrible, but that’s not what happened here.

Indeed, Huckleberry Finn is wonderful, and considered by some to be the best American novel ever. I think it actually should be in high school curricula.

I also know that there have been past efforts to ban it, which I considered absurd at the time. So don’t call me one-sided in my views.

[Michael P]

Where is the book banning?

Book banning, a form of censorship, occurs when private individuals, government officials, or organizations remove books from libraries, school reading lists, or bookstore shelves because they object to their content, ideas, or themes.

(Emphasis added, from https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/986/book-banning .)

[Theendoftheleft]

That's called circular reasoning, Queenie: I've looked at this site for about a month, and have read quite a few old posts from some time back. The names in the comments don't dissolve, you know.

It's as though you STRIVE to demonstrate your idiocy.

[Gandydancer]

“how does [random insult] know how long the Rev has been on VC[?]”

Artie keeps whining about when his alternate persona was banned and, iirc, it goes back to when VC was published by some newspaper, or before. Please try to catch up.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog is mostly a tantrum from culture war roadkill.

And a spot at which bigots can huddle together for warmth as the reality-based word passes them by -- until replacement.

[Theendoftheleft]

Choose reason, AIDS, not mere hopes and self-delusions. Your preferred sort of Americans are entirely incapable of propping up your country, let alone your legal-economic global empire. They prop up the former since they don’t and won’t meet replacement rate. The US’ economic influence, military dominance, and other forms of global influence will shrink dramatically over the coming two decades. At home, you have zero chance of convincing millions of Americans that your cultural re-alignment project isn’t authoritarian, a fundamental violation of their core constitutional norms (as they understand them, whether you wish them to or not), and a direct socio-economic threat to their children (eg their class standing, but not exclusively that.) Your political divisions will get more heated, not less — especially the way idiots like you talk.

The world is also realigning to liberate itself from your system and from your cultural influence. Even we in the rest of the West, your allies, cannot stand most of the things that you do. We also will not fight and die for your causes, especially not your — liberal — unempirical, ideologically-driven cultural genocide projects.

[Theendoftheleft]

Which includes yourself, of course. Glad you're finally appreciating your country's doom, along with the death and replacement of your hypocritical value system and superficial political ideology. That's actual progress on your part, AIDS.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I see a strong future for the United States.

In part because our vestigial wingnuts, bigots, and deplorable culture war losers will continue to be replaced. By their betters.

[Frank Drackman]

My Bad, if Mrs. Obama Bin Laden popped Obama Bin Laden Jr out of her snatch on the Jetway at JFK (that rhymes) OBL Jr would be an Amurican Citizen??? how about if she popped out twins? Triplets, Quadruplets?? (lets see OBL Jr, KSM Jr, oh and of course a Moe-Hammad Bin Laden)

Frank

[MoreCurious]

What pseudonym did you use here before you changed it to theendoftheleft?

[Kazinski]

Is CBS one of your approved sources, dude?
"An IRS whistleblower who claims the Justice Department interfered with the Hunter Biden criminal probe says that "he and his entire investigative team are being removed" from the investigation, according to a letter sent Monday by his attorneys to Congress."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-whistleblower-hunter-biden-investigation-removed-from-probe-his-attorneys-say/

[Theendoftheleft]

None.

[Theendoftheleft]

'And how does troll know how long the Rev has been on VC unless it itself has been there?'

THAT'S the circular reasoning, fool.

At this stage I just kind of feel sorry for you, shamelessly posting stupid things here all the time. If this isn't a waste of your life that's only because you're an imbecile who can't accomplish anything better and your life is worthless.

[Sarcastr0]

DoJ has a statement on this as well. It takes issue with some of the things you declare as facts.

Maybe wait until you know what's going on before weaving a while new conspiracy.

[Kazinski]

Going with what lawyers are claiming in letters to Congressional committees is not conspiracies. They may be allegations, but of course even allegations are assumed to be true at summary judgment stage.

So I'm going to make judgment here that the DOJ is illegally retaliating against the IRS whistle blowers here, until there is an opportunity for full discovery and an examination of the facts.

[Sarcastr0]

Taking what those lawyers claim as gospel is in fact a bad idea.

Maybe it’s not your conspiracy theory, but that doesn’t make it legit.

I’ll change my mind as it gets reported out by people not paid by one of the parties.

[Randal]

even allegations are assumed to be true at summary judgment stage

Is this intentional dumbassery or what? Allegations are never assumed to be true. Summary judgement takes the allegations as a hypothetical and asks, what if these were true?

Allegations are assumed to be false. Remember "innocent until proven guilty?"

[ducksalad]

Yes. Yes on the quadruplets.

[Randal]

Let's start working some good old corruption of blood while we're at it! Say it with me, "irritating constitutional provisions protecting undesirable people have got to go!"

[Theendoftheleft]

Well, you've baldly asserted as much, so you must be right. And it's not as though you haven't repeatedly shown that you're an idiot and a liar, so I guess I should take your word for it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Did Democrats in Congress demand documents from the FBI during that period, via lawful subpoena, and have the FBI refuse to hand them over?

Perhaps you can provide a link to this.

[Kazinski]

So what’s the conspiracy?

I’m talking about how the public will perceive the situation and how DOJ and the administration will react.

That’s punditry not conspiracy.

[Gandydancer]

Serial killers are in fact disproportionately homosexual.

Here are Wikipedia's demographic claims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

So, I'll start with Gacy and Dahmer in the homo column. You're about 19 behind. Let's see who runs out first.

[Gandydancer]

So, yours counts?

[Gandydancer]

Not as recently as AIDS. So your determination to mis the point is obvious.

[Gandydancer]

Remind my why "fags are great" can't be removed from school libraries but "fags are sickos" can't be painted on the streets. That they have different functions doesn't quite explain it.

[Gandydancer]

How about Dr. Seuss?

And don’t embarrass yourself like Nige does by claiming the those doing it aren’t of “the left”.

[Gandydancer]

It's not a "correlation", it's mainstream Christian dogma.

[Martinned]

Whose mainstream?

[Gandydancer]

Also by tribal Indians. Yet they were not citizens until made so by statute long after passage of the 14A.

[Gandydancer]

WaPo rigght, Newsweek wrong, or WaPo is being misleading?

[Nige]

The only thing lacking is any actual evidence that these were done by 'the left.' Or that the publishers of Dr Suess are 'the left.'

[Gandydancer]

The “actual evidence” that they are Lefty Loons is plain in the words used to justify their actions. Dr Seuss Enterprises announced it would stop publishing six Dr Seuss books that “portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.” If you find someone writing this way you know who he is. Can you imagine ME with a lisp like THAT?

[Randal]

Making things up to be mad about again are we?

"Fags are sickos" absolutely can be painted in the street.

People calling you all an asshole doesn't infringe on your freedom of speech, asshole.

[Gandydancer]

We're talking about government-endorsed graffiti, cocksucker, and if one painted “Fags are sickos” you absolutely would switch sides in a heartbeat.

[Gandydancer]

Christianity's.

[Randal]

If a government wanted to write "fags are sickos" in the street... what exactly do you think would prevent it?

Your made-up world doesn't make sense. But go ahead, keep yourself angry!