Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Look at how many third parties have ballot access in Florida:

https://ballot-access.org/2023/07/04/new-florida-registration-data-9/#comments

("But, but - a quarter of a century ago they had these illegal butterfly ballots in one county, and all those third parties..." OK, Grandpa, do tell us that story again.)

[Martinned]

Why do you think that's a lot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Italian_general_election#Electoral_lists

[VinniUSMC]

Everybody knows that nothing outside the US exists.

But seriously, why would Italy be at all responsive to a post about Flordia, which presumably is related to other states, not European countries?

[Martinned]

Because the question of how many parties is a lot of parties - in relation to ballots - isn't specific to the US context. I've mentioned the most recent Dutch national election ballot before, when we were talking about how many *candidates* is too many candidates for a ballot. How you organise a ballot depends on your election system, of course, but mostly it depends on what is a sensible question to put in front of voters (literally).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"How you organise a ballot depends on your election system, of course, but mostly it depends on what is a sensible question to put in front of voters (literally)."

Does organizing a ballot mean omitting the names of parties from the ballot? And who is the "you" who is doing it? The parties already in power?

Presumably, the voter goes in to the ballot box with at least some idea of which party or independent candidate he wants to vote for. If he can find his preferred candidate on the ballot, what harm does it do him to have the names of other candidates/parties listed?

[ducksalad]

You already know this but it’s worth repeating occasionally:

It’s now understood that many, perhaps the majority, of US voters don’t go into the booth to vote for a party or candidate. They go in to vote against a party or candidate, and the typical political ad is created around that.

So, for example, if you’re a Democrat your whole campaign is based on the idea that Republicans are evil and there is no alternative except to vote for the Democrat.

In a multiparty system you would have to give reasons why people should vote for you among many other choices. The Republicans and Democrats have no such reasons to offer.

[VinniUSMC]

Again, what does that have to do with Florida?

[Martinned]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you were going for the "Florida man" meme that hinges on people in Florida being uniquely stupid/weird.

[santamonica811]

Yesterday, I went with friends to see the new "Indy" movie after our annual BBQ. The movie was okay, and since we all went in with diminished expectations after reading the universal "meh" reviews, we were all fine with the movie itself.

But, it was the worst movie-going experience of my life. Why? Because the volume was horrific. Not only was it the loudest movie I've ever seen; it was at least 10-20 db louder than anything I've seen before. I lasted for one minute, then had to run to the lobby to check out some headphones. I jammed them into/over my ears for the next 2.5 hours, and that made it a bit more tolerable.

While doing this checkout process, I was chatting with one of the assistant managers. I of course asked if the volume could be turned down. He (nicely) said that, no, that was not going to happen. I then asked how many people would have to complain any any one screening for the volume to be turned down. He said (again, nicely) that the volume was not going to be turned down under any circumstance.

Okay, so I suffered through the movie. (If I had not been driven there, and if my keys and phone were not in this friend's car, I would have definitely left right away and Ubered back to my own car.) My friends thought it was loud, was quite loud, but no big deal for them. And I have, by far, the worst hearing out of the 7 of us. So, a real mystery.

Why am I posting about this on a legal blog? 1. Because I guess I'm firmly into "cranky old man" territory, so I might as well lean into that. 2. But more; I can't believe that theaters are not risking legal exposure here. It's now well over 24 hours later, and my ears are still ringing, and I have the first noise-induced headache of my life. I cannot imagine that some audience members are not suffering real and enduring hearing loss from this. I certainly know of people who have suffered similar losses at rock concerts. Here in America; we like to sue at the drop of a hat. I wonder if there are prior lawsuits. Perhaps even class actions?

[Martinned]

Presumably cranky old men is exactly why they set the volume at that level: because of people complaining about actors mumbling and about not being able to hear properly.

[shawn_dude]

In the US, it's become common for the audience to speak during movies without regard for other moviegoers. Maybe the higher volume is meant to drown out the jerks?

[Dr. Ed 2]

You raise an interesting question -- who determines the sound level? I doubt it is the theater manager. An inquiry to corporate might be interesting. And is it this particular movie?

[Caphon]

Because of your relatively impaired hearing, you’re likely the most sensitive to the risks of exposure to sustained loud volume, compared to your social group. I’m one of those who people who would have ringing in ears for three days after a concert, and have been shooting all my life and even with hearing protection (and no suppressors) it takes a toll. I’m hyper-sensitive to my exposure now because I want to keep what I’ve got. Agreed that the movie theater is bananas now. Foam earplugs and you won’t be missing a thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've had a similar problem at movies lately; Volume set WAY too high, high enough I wouldn't have minded some ear plugs, and I'm half deaf.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's the same thing with restaurants. They deliberately turn up the volume on background music, even despite complaints. Loudness cranks up your metabolism so that you eat and drink more. It's all about $.

Also if it's very loud you don't notice nuances. It's less apparent that this is a bad movie, or bad food.

[Martinned]

When you're talking your not eating. So less talking = more profit if you're a restaurant.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed!

[Mr. Bumble]

So after one time why would you continue to patronize that restaurant?

[bernard11]

I don't. In fact I sometimes don't even patronize it the first time, but leave when I hear the noise level.

It's not just the music, either. Surfaces are hard, kitchen noise comes through, and of course the loud background makes customers talk louder. I hate it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I right that a tenant can't get an injunction against another tenant for violation of right of quiet enjoyment, only against the landlord?

[Martinned]

I would think so. But they might be able to get an injunction for private nuisance.

[Martinned]

Huge judgment in the European Court of Justice on Tuesday. In Meta v. Bundeskartellamt, the ECJ held that the German Bundeskartellamt (aka the competition authority) was entitled to hold that Facebook violated GDPR, as part of a finding that it abused its dominant position in the antitrust sense.

Being an econo-laywer, I would have probably said that data protection is an aspect of quality, and therefore fair game for the competition authority, but that the question whether company X violated a specific data protection statute should be left to the specialised data protection authorities. But what do I know?

[not guilty]

In the wake of the Supreme Court's execrable decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), several criminal defendants and civil plaintiffs are litigating whether the federal “felon-in-possession” statute — 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) — violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

There is now a circuit split on whether the validity of § 922(g)(1) withstands analysis under Bruen. The Third Circuit en banc ruled as to a litigant who had been convicted in 1995 of making a false statement to obtain food stamps in violation of Pennsylvania law that the Government had failed to show that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied. Range v. Attorney General, https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212835pen.pdf . This conflicts with the Eighth Circuit ruling in United States v. Jackson, No. 22-2870, 2023 WL 3769242 (8th Cir. June 2, 2023), that Congress acted within the historical tradition when it enacted § 922(g)(1) and the prohibition on possession of firearms by felons” in affirming the felon-in-possession of a defendant previously convicted of sale of a controlled substance under Minnesota law.

In a recent pretrial order, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the felon-in-possession indictment of a defendant who had been convicted in 1992 of aggravated assault and manslaughter in Mississippi and had served “about 15, 16 years” in state prison. The district judge in a comprehensive opinion painstakingly reviewed and applied District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and Bruen, concluding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant despite more than 120 U.S. District Court decisions cited by the Government which recently determined that the government had met its burden of historical analysis under Bruen.

I wonder how long it will be before SCOTUS addresses a § 922(g)(1) conviction.

[not guilty]

The Eighth Circuit opinion referenced above is here. http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/06/222870P.pdf

[not guilty]

The Southern District of Mississippi order of dismissal is here. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863670/reeves-order.pdf

[Dan Schiavetta]

There is no stopping point to the Bruen rationale. It will soon be illegal to stop a man who raped his wife at gunpoint from bringing a loaded gun into his bedroom as soon as he gets out of prison.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, that's just nonsense.

There's been an incredible amount of "felony inflation" since the founding of this country, and the courts are taking that into account, limiting loss of civil liberties to felony felonies. That's all that's going on.

You do, by the way, understand that it being illegal for a rapist to have a gun doesn't mean he won't have a gun, any more than it being illegal for him to rape prevented him from raping, right? If you actually want to prevent that from happening, you need to leave him in prison.

[Martinned]

If you actually want to prevent that from happening, you need to leave him in prison.

Or, maybe, make it harder for anyone to buy a gun? Not a lot of rapists with guns here in the UK...

[Mr. Bumble]

I doubt that guns are used in most rapes whether here or in the UK. If a weapon is involved it would most probably be a knife.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Or, maybe, make it harder for anyone to buy a gun? "

Yeah, it was obvious you were headed that way, and no, screw that. We don't burden thousands of people to mildly inconvenience one bad actor. Or shouldn't, anyway.

[Martinned]

Not getting shot at is such a burden...

[Mr. Bumble]

You make it seem as if the use of guns was the only source of violence. See story of San Francisco mothers being beaten with baseball bats.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/bat-wielding-kids-attack-san-francisco-moms-nannies-outside-school-wealthy-neighborhood

(If you object to the link a DDG search did not provide any MSM stories about these incidents)

[Nige]

It's the only source of violence with a rabid politically-powerful cult following. Except for maybe the US military itself? (As a source of violence with a politically powerful cult following, that is.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do not understand the us military....

[Nige]

It's a massive waste of money whose deployments have been routinely disastrous.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Blame the civilian leadership.

[Nige]

Sure. Rotten from the top.

[Mr. Bumble]

Starting with the Commander in Chief?

[Nige]

By definition.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being prevented from exercising a civil liberty, just because a small fraction of people abuse it, is such a burden.

[Martinned]

In what sane universe is shooting people a civil liberty?

[VinniUSMC]

The same universe in which Martin makes responsive arguments probably.

[Martinned]

If shooting isn't a civil liberty, then I don't see how owning a tool for shooting people can be. (Think speech, broadcasting, and TV cameras, if you will.) Is that a clear enough explanation of the connection? Or do I need to dumb it down still further?

[VinniUSMC]

If shooting isn’t a civil liberty, then I don’t see how owning a tool for shooting people can be. (Think speech, broadcasting, and TV cameras, if you will.) Is that a clear enough explanation of the connection? Or do I need to dumb it down still further?

As if you could get any dumber? Go ahead, race yourself to the bottom.

[Brett Bellmore]

" then I don’t see how owning a tool for shooting people can be. "

By, trivially, being listed in the Bill of Rights as one?

[Martinned]

@brett: Not everything in the Bill of Rights is a human right/civil liberty ("inalienable right", if you will), and not all human rights are listed in the Bill of Rights. Some things are just legal rights because they happen to be in the constitution, but there would be no inherent moral/philosophical objection to taking them out.

[Brett Bellmore]

"@brett: Not everything in the Bill of Rights is a human right/civil liberty (“inalienable right”, if you will), and not all human rights are listed in the Bill of Rights."

Right from the ACLU's "Civil liberties are whatever we decide needs defending, the text of the Constitution has nothing to do with it" playbook. They came up with that line because they wanted to pretend they actually defend all "civil liberties", but couldn't bring themselves to actually defend the ones they didn't like.

Here's the interview with Strossen where she announced that lame excuse.

While, sure, there are indeed civil liberties that aren't listed there, (The Bill of Rights itself says that!) everything there listed IS, definitionally, a "civil liberty". And that you don't LIKE that civil liberty counts for nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

It is a peculiarity of gunchat that some are so zealous they are often 180-degrees on how their phrasing will play to people.

See also officer-involved gun discharge event after which individual died.

[Ed Grinberg]

In what sane universe is shooting people a civil liberty?

more (suggested) wisdom from Martinned:

• In what sane universe is saying hateful things about people a civil liberty?
• In what sane universe is keeping homeless people from one's home a civil liberty?
• In what sane universe is keeping millions of $ in one's bank account (and preventing its fair distribution to the needy) a civil liberty?
• In what sane universe is voting for a fascist like Trump a civil liberty?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"In what sane universe is shooting people a civil liberty?"

A universe where people have the right to life, and where it is sometimes necessary to shoot people to prevent them from depriving you of that right.

[Martinned]

You have a right to life with respect to the government, which might require the government to do things to reduce the risk of you getting killed. That might include training cops better, but it might also include getting guns off the streets. You do not have civil liberties with respect to other citizens.

[SRG]

We don’t burden thousands of people to mildly inconvenience one bad actor. Or shouldn’t, anyway.

We do when it comes to voting, and I've never seen you condemn it.

[Mr. Bumble]

How so?
Requiring ID to vote?

[SRG]

Getting acceptable ID isn't always the low-cost low-inconvenience process it should be. Lots of history on this - e.g., Alabama instituting a policy, later partly reversed, where they required ID from DMVs and then closed or reduced hours in DMVs in predominantly black counties.

How many incidents of voter personation are there?

Then there's the restriction of early voting, mail-in ballots, etc.

There's lots of motivated reasoning from pro-voter-suppression types. In theory voter ID makes sense. In prtactice it solves a basically non-existent problem - and reason will tell you why it's virtually non-existent.

[hoppy025]

LeQuonda seems to have no problem getting photo IDs when she needs them to get EBT cards for herself and her seven illegitimate children.

[hoppy025]

"There’s lots of motivated reasoning from pro-voter-suppression types. In theory voter ID makes sense. In prtactice it solves a basically non-existent problem – and reason will tell you why it’s virtually non-existent."

Sounds like most of your "reasonable" and "common sense" gun regulation.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The number of voters who engage in voter impersonation fraud is way way less than 1 in a thousand. Less than 1 in a million.

[Frank Drackman]

Since we're just pulling numbers out of our Umm, Kinder/Gentler Frank, "Keesters" how about 1 in a Gazillion? 1 in a Bazillion, 1 in a Google-Plex!!!!!!!!

[SRG]

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

Existing research and evidence shows that voter impersonation is extremely rare. Between 2000 and 2014, there were only 31 documented instances of voter impersonation. There is no evidence that it has changed the result of any election. In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.00006 percent" of individual votes nationally, and, in one state, "0.000004 percent — about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning in the United States."

If you doubt Wikipedia, they do provide links to the data source

And trhe reason it's rare is obvious - the penalty is high and the reward for any individual voter - that one additional vote - hardly offsets the penalty.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Exactly right. It's the least efficient way to try to cheat. It's virtually impossible to change the result of even a small local election that way, for a variety of reasons.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is that the same UK where you are now trying to implement knife control???

[Nige]

Pretty sure the UK has banned certain types of knives, you can get arrested for carrying one without a 'good reason,' and it's illegal to sell them to under 18s.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it's illegal to sell someone under 18 any sort of knife at all. Even disposable cutlery for picnics.

You need a "good reason" to carry a knife in public, unless it's a folding blade knife under 3". Note that only unsafe folding blade knives are legal for carry, lock blades don't count as "folding". And even carrying a legal knife home from the store isn't explicitly protected, you have to rely on a judge's discretion there.

Many types of knives are outright banned.

And they're strongly considering requiring even kitchen knives to have blunt ends.

I don't think the proposal to have a registry of butter knives is going anywhere at present, though.

[Nige]

Imagine if there was some sort of gun control in the US you woulnd’t be able to butter your croissant with a glock.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Too bad the US doesn’t have any gun control at all, right?

[Nige]

Buttery guns!

[DonP]

There are still a massive number of willfully ignorant people/voters that actually believe you can just walk in and walk out with an AR15, .308 Deer (Sniper) Rifle, et. al. No questions asked, no background check, no forms to fill out.

[Nige]

There are still massive numbers of people mad that you can't.

[Martinned]

You can't argue with results. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/march2022

[VinniUSMC]

The results being that the homicide rates have been largely unchanged over the past 40 years? That knives are used to kill people in the absence of guns?

What results do you think you're showing here? It doesn't look like you've managed to make a coherent argument, yet again.

[Martinned]

The results being a homicide rate that is consistently much, much lower than in the US.

[Mr. Bumble]

capthyperbole?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"It will soon be illegal to stop a man who raped his wife at gunpoint from bringing a loaded gun into his bedroom as soon as he gets out of prison."

What is wrong with him having a loaded gun in his bedroom?

First, we aren't even getting into how radical a belief it is that a man *can* rape his wife. A generation ago (and even today in much of the world) it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife (or she to rape her husband). The wife's recourse was divorce on grounds of cruelty at which point she wasn't his wife anymore, and *then* it would be rape. But not until then.

I'm not going to get into if this change is a good or bad idea, I'm of two minds about it, but it wasn't a crime in 1791! (Back then, the wife's brothers & father would have a "chat' with the husband -- I'm of two minds about that as well.) But you are using an example of something that (while morally wrong) wasn't a crime until about 1990 or so.

So your example involves someone who wouldn't even have gone to jail (hospital maybe, but not jail).

Second, maybe he is reformed. Maybe he found Jesus or something -- we spend a lot of money trying to "reform" prisoners, we do some seriously sick stuff to sex offenders, seriously sick is the only way I can describe it, maybe it works. (Maybe it works because it is so sadistic...)

Third, maybe he moves to Rural Maine -- where police officers have patrol areas the size of the State of Rhode Island. Where a 90+ minute "Code 3" (lights & siren, speed limit +30) is normal. Where, in a dry year (when there are no wild berries to eat), it's not unheard of for a hungry bear to break into a house.

He should be denied the right to protect himself? On what basis?

And if you are going to deny felons their 2A rights, why not all of the other Amendments as well? For example, why shouldn't they give up their 4A rights as well? Why bother with search warrants for someone who's already been convicted of doing something? As to their voting -- so what if the majority of them are male, and a high percentage of felons are Black.

Why not also deny them their 1st Amendment rights. Sitting through an hour church service every Sunday won't hurt them and might help. Or make them go daily as the Catholics do, or do all the stuff the Jews do -- the're felons, they have lost their Constitutional rights.

Are you really willing to say that they have lost their Constitutional rights? And if not, why only their 2nd Amendment rights?

And on a practical basis, you need a gun to kill someone? Tell that to the perps who killed 3000+ on Sept 11th with box cutters....
And what is a SUV but a guided missile with 20-30 gallons of high explosive in the back? I had a client who decided to run over her husband with a SUV, and -- much to the horror of bystanders -- proceeded to drop it into reverse and run over him again to make sure he was dead. She didn't need a gun....

Historically, we had no laws preventing felons from owning firearms -- we had no laws about firearms at all. So where is the research indicating that denying them legal gun ownership is effective? Conversely, the research that shows that those who are inclined to re-offend are not willing to also violate a law regarding gun possession?

[Nige]

'how radical a belief it is that a man *can* rape his wife.'

Okay stop right there.

[bernard11]

we aren’t even getting into how radical a belief it is that a man *can* rape his wife.

Wow. What an asshole you are. Amazing.

And I don't give a fuck what the law was in 1791. This just illustrates the stupidity of the whole "history and tradition" nonsense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fuck the facts?

[Sarcastr0]

It’s morally vacuous to think that history is in your favor on how to interpret the 2A.

Most people would be explaining around that issue, not leaning into it.

[Don Nico]

Why do you bother with Mr Ed? Mute is your friend

[Sarcastr0]

I find him horrifascinating.

[Nige]

'I’m of two minds about it.'

[Martinned]

Marital rape is a pretty recent change in the law in many countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#Legal_changes

R. v. R. (nice one for Eugene's pseudonymity post), where the House of Lords held that marital rape was unlawful, was handed down in 1991 and caused a lot of hooplah. (Because it was basically judicial lawmaking.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Dr. Ed has already proudly declared himself pro-murder. Is it really such a surprise that he's also pro-rape?

[grb]

We await word from Ed whether it's OK for a husband to beat his wife - something also not criminal in the past.

(He's probably of two minds about it)

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK and legal are not the same thing.

[not guilty]

If history and tradition are the benchmarks -- if a woman has no fundamental right to bodily integrity and autonomy -- a state statute criminalizing a husband raping his wife is a lawless exercise of the police power.

The common law had long held that it wasn’t legally possible for a man to rape his wife. It was in 1736 that Sir Matthew Hale—the same jurist who said that it was hard to prove a rape accusation from a woman whose personal life wasn’t entirely “innocent,” setting the standard that a woman’s past sexual experiences could be used by the defense in a rape case—explained that marriage constituted permanent consent that could not be retracted. https://time.com/3975175/spousal-rape-case-history/ (Anyone dubious about relying today on Hale's writings should perhaps reread Justice Alito's majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022).)

[TwelveInchPianist]

First, we aren’t even getting into how radical a belief it is that a man *can* rape his wife. A generation ago (and even today in much of the world) it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife (or she to rape her husband).

To be clear, it was generally legally impossible for a women to rape a man whether she was married to him or not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If he is intoxicated?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, according to Findlaw

The antiquated common law definition of rape was unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife, by force or threat, and against her will.

In no way, shape or form could a woman rape a man.

[Nige]

Misogyny has always harmed men, too.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Perhaps, although I'm not sure what that has to do with this.

[Nige]

Really. How odd.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you think that making a ridiculous argument makes you look good?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I looked over much of the district judge’s opinion, and checked his Wikipedia page. He’s a down-the-line progressive, and indeed the parts of the opinion which I read seem like a criticism of the Bruen decision. Applying Bruen, he decided the government hadn’t met its burden under that decision to justify disarming violent felons.

Was this a form of trolling – dismissing the indictment to fix attention on the supposed badness of the Bruen decision?

[not guilty]

The judge had asked the parties to weigh in on whether the court should appoint a historian as an expert witness under Fed.R.Evid 706 to assist the court. The government advised against that, perhaps to its detriment.

The order of dismissal does illustrate how far SCOTUS went off the rails in Bruen.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

…or that it was a situation of “look what you made me do!”

If I were to compare originalism to an ideal form of jurisprudence, then originalism would lose. But the alternatives to originalism, at least as put forward by the progressive jurists, seem to involve bypassing the Art. V amendment process and changing the constitution by pure majoritarianism - whether a majority of a legislative body or a majority of a court.

Replacing the flawed originalist perspective in favor of some progressive's prescription for evolving, etc. constitutionalism would be like the dog that lost its bone jumping to seize the reflection of a bone in Aesop's fable.

[not guilty]

SCOTUS has granted the government's petition for certiorari in United States v. Rahimi, which presents the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-915.html

The Fifth Circuit there vacated the defendant's conviction under § 922(g)(8) and declared the statute unconstitutional in the wake of Bruen. The case accordingly gives SCOTUS an opportunity to clarify the proper scope of its Bruen decision.

Here's hoping the Supreme Court will heed the warning of Justice Robert Jackson, dissenting in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949):

This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds, and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, Jackson was in dissent, and was arguing that too much free speech was bad.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you can get a bag of Cocaine into the White House, you can get a bag of Anthrax into the White House -- or worse, a mixture of both. It would test positive for Cocaine and I don't believe there are field tests for Anthrax. Memory is that you have to look at it under a microscope or something.

Why am I thinking that the USSS already know whose Coke it is, and hence aren't worried about Anthrax. But on the other hand, if they have food tasters, shouldn't they have drug tasters as well? This is not completely hypothetical, look at some of the stuff that the CIA did in attempting to kill Castro. So hard would it be to supply Hunter Anthrax-laced Cocaine, knowing that he would be sneezing it in the presence of the POTUS....

And the absolute last thing we need is anything happening to Brandon. 25th Amendment or impeachment, yes, but God help us if some nut (or Putin) were to harm him...

[Martinned]

There are easier ways to kill the President.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I like to think that it isn't easy to kill the President because we really don't want it happening.

[Martinned]

It’s harder to kill the President than just about any other person in the US, but it’s still pretty easy for a sufficiently equipped adversary. (Particularly if they don’t care about getting caught.) Unless you’re going to lock the president up in the White House, there is no way to avoid that.

Look at how the ETA assassinated Luis Carrero Blanco, Franco’s crown prince, in in 1973. They blew his car so sky high that parts of him (and his car) landed on the other side of the church he was driving past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Luis_Carrero_Blanco

There is no way to protect the president against that much explosives. Likewise with all sorts of (other) military-grade weapons.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dodge Dart versus armored limo?

[Martinned]

If you stick enough C4 in that Dodge Dart, it can make quite a dent.

[John F. Carr]

It is unlikely you could get a truck full of explosives close enough. When the president's location is known in advance, say giving a graduation speech, there is a lot of security.

Security could not easily stop an airplane targeting a presidential event outside of Washington. Because of that fear, after 9/11 the the rules for pilots and airports became stricter. The feds made an airport operator in north-central Massachusetts rip out a runway. The potentially terrorist enabling airport owner did not meet security standards for a concrete runway, only dirt.

[Martinned]

Did you see what they did with Carrero Blanco? Why wouldn't that work for a US president? (Burying explosives in the street, to save you the click.)

[John F. Carr]

According to Wikipedia the target regularly traveled the same route and the assassins rented a building next to the street. I doubt you could get away with that near the White House. Maybe in Delaware.

You might pull up a manhole cover and pack the chamber underneath with explosives if you knew a month or so in advance where the president was driving. Rumor has it the Secret Service interferes with cell phone reception to prevent remote detonation of pre-planted explosives.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dodge Dart versus The Beast?
I doubt you'd get the thing off the ground.

[BadLib]

There are many claims on the internet that the SS inspects manhole covers on the President's route and then welds them shut.

Something similar with mailboxes (although I think some sources say the just remove them).

I've no idea if this is true as I've never had the opportunity to see it being done.

[Martinned]

Yes, if you wanted to kill the President you might have to hedge your bets and put explosives under several routes he might take.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And that has cost lives.
The Knox County (ME) Airport -- an old Navy one -- used to use the state highways outside the airport to get from one side to the other. But after 9-11, they had to have secured/attended gates and hence had to eliminate the second one.

Hence the only way to get to the other side of the airport was to drive across the main runway, and you guessed it -- killed four.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is the Secret Service over extended? Their purpose has grown from just protecting the current president.
With 5 living ex-presidents and their families under their protection they seem to be spread very thin.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not like they can't just hire more agents as the number of people they're assigned to protect increases.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You're right, Brett -- the concern I have is the *repeated* management issues with them. The drunken fight with hookers overseas during the reign of B. Hussain. The USSS gun left in the bathroom of Mitt Romey's plane. Other stuff....

It seems that each time, someone gets fired and the whole thing keeps going on as before. I think it is more of a management issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's a matter of being over-extended, just the general decline in competence and professionalism in government.

[Martinned]

As long as the terrorists who want to kill a (former) president have a similar decline in competence...

https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-obama-justice-department-capitol-mccarthy-27934bbd095111e7eb2bac5b5bb24e06

[Mr. Bumble]

Which home was that? Now that he's a 1%er he has several.

[Nige]

The one Trump sent him to.

[DonP]

Now the Secret Service has to do a "Assault Sandbag" patrol for him too.

[David Nieporent]

Especially since anthrax is not a contagious disease!

[Dr. Ed 2]

The latest version is that it was found where visitors leave backpacks, packages & cell phones. I presume that someone is watching this because you don't want that stuff stolen, and these are people that security has already screened.

So (a) how the hell did it get past security and (b) what else could get in?

If this actually is true, and that is impossible to know with this administration, this is a big-time security breach!

[Longtobefree]

"So (a) how the hell did it get past security and (b) what else could get in?"

(a) in a packet of hundred dollar bills for the big guy.
(b) anything Hunter wants to

[santamonica811]

Sorry, shithead,
You had the bad luck of this happening on a weekend when no Bidens were even near the White House. But before you fuck off and die, I'm looking forward to reading your apology here.
[My 2023 promise to be more charitable and kindly to Josh Blackman does not extend to Russian trolls like you. Totally fair game.]

[Mr. Bumble]

That was kind of harsh.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Mr. Bumble 7 hours ago

What a great open thread so far. Not an ad hominem or yo’ momma to be seen and some varied and interesting topics."

Looks like you jinxed it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh well. In my defense, I did qualify it with "so far".

[santamonica811]

You’re right. Long…I apologize. (Not for the sentiment, but for the wording.) You’ve been a jerk and a troll here since you first posted. But the profanity added nothing, and I do regret using those unkind words.

[Zarniwoop]

I presume that ... these are people that security has already screened.

Do you have evidence for this presumption, or are you talking out your posterior orifice again?

"There is strict security to get onto the White House complex, and visitors are asked to leave their phones in small boxes before entering the West Wing"
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4081787-secret-service-substance-found-at-white-house-was-cocaine/

Now that is arguably still ambiguous (differentiating the WH complex from the West Wing), and I've never been on a WH tour.

But my assumption has been that a visitor ditched it so he wouldn't be carrying drugs through the security checkpoint. Why would someone ditch a baggie after clearing security?

[santamonica811]

I can think of two reasons: 1. Accident. (If a highly-trained professional can leave a gun behind, then anything's possible, I guess.). 2a. Deliberately left behind, to cause general mischief. 2b. Deliberately left behind, by someone is the opposite party, to make the current administration look bad.

Since a tiny baggie of coke will not set off a metal detector (obviously); I see no way to prevent things like this, short of strip-searches for everyone coming into the White House.

[Mr. Bumble]

We will likely never know. You have to wonder though, who would be so stupid as to walk into the White House with a dime bag?

[John F. Carr]

Anthrax is not a great assassination tool, especially with such an unreliable delivery system, and the president has better than average medical care.

[Martinned]

Another topic that is more relevant to a US audience than you might think: Ouster clauses.

An ouster clause is a UK statutory provision that seeks to remove the jurisdiction of the courts over something. The courts take a dim view of such provisions, but at the same time in the UK there is supposed to be parliamentary supremacy. So the courts end up reasoning that Parliament can't possibly have intended to do exactly the thing that it almost certainly did intend.

You'd think that a country with a constitution like the US wouldn't have to worry about that, and yet the issue arises in some form all too often. (See: GITMO, but also Harper v. Moore.)

More generally there's the question whether the courts can and should develop canons of statutory interpretation that push back against illiberal outcomes even if they end up doing some pretty silly things with the intention of the legislator. After all, as long as those canons are well-established, the legislator can take them into account when drafting statutes. (In the same way UK courts have given guidance about what Parliament would have to say if it really, really, really wanted to oust the jurisdiction of the courts.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"You’d think that a country with a constitution like the US wouldn’t have to worry about that,"

Article 3 reads, in part, "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

I don't think it's the most natural reading, but this has been interpreted to allow Congress to strip federal courts of all jurisdiction over particular subjects.

[Martinned]

Indeed. Though you'd think that too enthusiastic jurisdiction stripping would cause issues with the bill of rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think too enthusiastic jurisdiction stripping might cause the Court to take issue with how that clause is interpreted. I think the most natural reading is actually that Congress is entitled to give the Court original jurisdiction over specific topics, even if they would otherwise default to appellate. An actual power to strip the courts of jurisdiction entirely would have been more explicit, I think, as it violates the separation of powers built into the Constitution.

[Martinned]

Or the courts might seek to resolve this problem by interpreting the statute in question very narrowly, or even contra-textually. Which is basically what the Brits do.

[bernard11]

I disagree, Brett.

The relevant sentence reads:

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

That sure sounds to me like they have appellate jurisdiction unless Congress says they don't. I don't see anything that authorizes Congress to give the court original jurisdiction on matters not specified in the previous sentence.

[Krayt]

After tobacco settlements, lawyers looked for their next big megayacht score, so turned their eyes towards fat and salt in restaurant food, to grind that industry under their heel. This was exempted from lawsuits.

[Martinned]

Huh? Why not just solve that problem by legislating the merits?

[Drewski]

Not to contradict the Wikipedia School of Law, but it's the Judicial Vesting Clause that gives Congress control over lower-court jurisdiction, not the section you quoted. It seems like an unnatural reading because you're reading the wrong words.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did you guys hear about decency returning to the White House? They found it in baggie where Professor Hunter had been working in library.

Norms restored!

[Caphon]

I’m surprised the Missouri v. Biden injunction isn’t making more waves in my more tech-oriented forums.

I’m amused at videos of Hunter on the White House balcony with all the mannerisms of someone who just did a couple gaggers. Doubly amused by how many of us can spot those mannerisms at a hundred yards with a mix of certainty, pity, astonishment at the context and perhaps some nostalgic humor.

I saw today that the port in Nagoya got hit and shut down by a ransomeware attack. The compromised system was the Nagoya United Terminal System. Still waiting to see the headline “Nagoya Port Hit Right In the NUTS”.https://www.securityweek.com/japans-nagoya-port-suspends-cargo-operations-following-ransomware-attack/

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe a lot of people in the tech industry didn't actually like being the government's censors? And so weren't unhappy about the ruling, even if they don't dare say so?

[Caphon]

I mean, yes, I would generally assume this for the more technically inclined in the industry if not the HR-types, but whether you love it or hate it, it’s a Pretty Big Deal worth discussing and I’m seeing proportionately little. The topic itself has not been lacking discussion for the last couple years in my circles. I can only assume the injunction is rather under the radar given it’s 7/4 release, the breadth of the injunction is so vast as to cause people to have little faith in it not being stayed or obeyed, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Even if they don't dare say so"; I think there's probably quite a bit of self-censorship going on, until they know which way the wind is blowing.

My personal expectation is that the ruling won't actually change much, at least as long as there's a Democrat in the White House. It will be like Operation Choke Point, the censorship efforts will just go under deeper cover, and to a large extent "naturalize" at many companies.

[Caphon]

I guess I need to be more pointed about it - self censorship is not the issue. Most of the forums I’m thinking of are psuedo-anonymous and everyone knows how to create burner accounts if their main account is personally identifiable. The topic and controversial takes have been discussed and hotly debated on these same venues for years. That’s not the issue, but I understand what you’re saying.

[not guilty]

I haven't read the complete opinion yet, but it seems to me that the suit for injunctive relief in Missouri v. Biden should have been bounced for failure of the plaintiffs to establish Article III standing. One component of standing in a federal court is that "there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) [internal quotation marks omitted]. Justice Scalia there elaborated:

When the suit is one challenging the legality of government action or inaction, the nature and extent of facts that must be averred (at the summary judgment stage) or proved (at the trial stage) in order to establish standing depends considerably upon whether the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or forgone action) at issue. If he is, there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it. When, however, as in this case, a plaintiff's asserted injury arises from the government's allegedly unlawful regulation (or lack of regulation) of someone else, much more is needed. In that circumstance, causation and redressability ordinarily hinge on the response of the regulated (or regulable) third party to the government action or inaction-and perhaps on the response of others as well. The existence of one or more of the essential elements of standing "depends on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts and whose exercise of broad and legitimate discretion the courts cannot presume either to control or to predict," ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U. S. 605, 615 (1989) (opinion of KENNEDY, J.); . . . and it becomes the burden of the plaintiff to adduce facts showing that those choices have been or will be made in such manner as to produce causation and permit redressability of injury. . . . Thus, when the plaintiff is not himself the object of the government action or inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is ordinarily "substantially more difficult" to establish. . . .

Id., at 561-62 [some citations omitted].

Here the alleged "censorship", if it occurred at all, was not traceable to the defendants before the district court; the wellspring instead was a series of decisions from the carriers of social media whom the plaintiffs had not sued.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the government doesn't get to hide behind the 'voluntary' decisions of private entities it coerces into doing things.

[not guilty]

The word "coerces" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, Brett.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you genuinely believe it is legal for government agencies to coordinate with platforms to censor citizens because they criticized a politician?

[Nige]

If that happened, yes, it would be.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Those actions were part of the case. You low-information buffoon.

[Nige]

Those *claims* were part of a case.

[not guilty]

"Do you genuinely believe it is legal for government agencies to coordinate with platforms to censor citizens because they criticized a politician?"

What I subjectively believe is not a good guide to determining what is legal or not, so what does that matter? Whether the actions or omissions of private actors constitutes state action constrained by the First Amendment is ordinarily a fact specific inquiry, guided by legal principles that courts have declared.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And you can't apply all that legal training and make a judgment as to whether or not something might be lawful?

Are you for real? Who paid you to represent them? Goats?

[not guilty]

Uh, you asked what I believe. Unlike many commenters on this blog, I don't have the requisite hubris to declare my "belief" to be the law.

When I was asked for a legal opinion by a client, I actually did some research.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You post your legal opinions all the time.

What a cowardly stance.

[not guilty]

Out of respect for other readers, I routinely back up what I say with applicable legal authorities. You, OTOH, don't seem to know your ass from a hole in the ground.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you or don't you give legal opinions?

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[not guilty]

What I write in these comment threads does not constitute "legal opinions" in the sense that lawyers often use that phrase. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-200-1399?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) Don't use terms of art when you don't understand what they mean.

I do frequently offer informed commentary about the law here, often in the context of personal musings, based upon my training, skills and experience.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, I will just say I appreciate your direct responses to my specific questions when I ask you for your opinion.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ask him something were the obvious conclusion puts the State in a bad light.

Oh he'll shut his mouth right up then. The one thing he won't do is blaspheme the State.

[not guilty]

Uh, blaspheming the state is an impossibility. The state is not a deity.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you autistic?

[not guilty]

No, I am not. Why on earth do you ask?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Because of your dogmatic pendantry.

[StellaLink_the dog]

" Because of your dogmatic pendantry."

Yes, out of control pendantry must be stopped!!!

https://www.dhgate.com/product/gross-letter-chain-necklace-punk-grunge-hiphop/521287672.html

[John F. Carr]

Does coercion need to be proved? In the Fourth Amendment context coercion is not necessary to make the government responsible for the actions of a private party.

[not guilty]

Coercion is significant, but not essential.

The government's exercise of coercive power over a private entity is one theory, among many, whereby private action can be attributed to the government for First Amendment purposes. See, Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn., 531 U.S. 288, 296 (2001).

[David Nieporent]

Yes, coercion needs to be proved, because private companies have every right to delete posts or cancel a user's account.

• Twitter says, "We don't want anti-vax nuttery here; we're deleting your anti-vax tweets." And then Twitter does delete those posts. Entirely legal.
• A doctor says, "Anti-vax nuttery is harmful. Twitter should get rid of all that stuff." Entirely legal.
• A doctor says, "Anti-vax nuttery is harmful. Twitter should get rid of all that stuff." And then Twitter does delete those posts. Entirely legal.
• A politician says, Anti-vax nuttery is harmful. Twitter should get rid of all that stuff." And then Twitter does delete those posts. Entirely legal.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey speaking of "anti-vax nuttery" did you see the current prevailing theory that "long covid" is being caused by the vaxx?

lol no refunds vaxxies

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of anti-vax nuttery indeed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-link-between-coronavirus-vaccines-and-long-covid-illness-starts-gain-acceptance

Your shameful and extensive ignorance does not make me a nut.

[Nige]

'Although more researchers are now taking Long Vax seriously, regulators in the United States and Europe say they have looked for, but have not found, a connection between COVID-19 vaccines and small fiber neuropathy or POTS'

You should ask for a refund from whoever tells you what's on the other end of these links.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The same regulators that were committing vaxx fraud.

[Nige]

Then maybe ask a refund from your own brain for confusing you so much.

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck the law, Brett says. Again.

If Twitter had no choice, how did they manage to say no so much?

This inherent coercion thesis is not based on actual evidence, just speculative paranoia.

[jb]

Yeah one of the fun parts of Elon dumping the Twitter files was seeing how much lower their takedown rate was compared to the other platforms.

[Nige]

And how they passed over the whole 'Trump request' database.

[Nige]

'The government doesn't get to hide behind the complete lack of evidence that they have done what we say it has done oh and let's ignore the fact that most of the stuff we're complaining about happened under Trump.'

[Brett Bellmore]

You're fantasizing the complete lack of evidence, there's plenty of evidence. Hell, Twitter was doing so much censorship work for the FBI that they ended up billing them over $3M for the work hours involved in doing it!

[jb]

Sigh.

The type of takedowns that Twitter actually billed the government for are explicitly exempted by the injunction.

[Nige]

Twitter didn't do a single piece of censorship for the FBI. I recognise that your conception of 'evidence' has entered the realm of the abstract, and the self-mythologising of right-wing victimhood has gone far beyond parody, but come on. Also, what you're claiming was 'censorship' occurred under Trump.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The FBI was out there getting Twitter to censor stuff the Ukrainian government asked for.

you people know so little about current events

[jb]

https://mate.substack.com/p/fbi-helps-ukraine-censor-twitter

"Twitter declined to censor journalists targeted by Ukraine".

Wow, look at that coercion. And this from someone calling attention to the requests.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well, that makes the FBI look totally good!

Good call, jb you've proved the FBI's innocence. They only attempted to silence American citizens on behalf of a foreign government!

Rank & file are good people!

[Nige]

FBI - still not censoring anyone!

[jb]

You seem to be kind of confused about the conversation.

I'm not interested in defending the FBI. At no point in this thread have I said that they should be encouraging Twitter to take down anti-Ukraine posts or those of anyone else (although I imagine there may be cases where that is appropriate, e.g., if some terror cell were using Twitter to coordinate an attack).

What several of us are pointing out is that Twitter is that the FBI bringing some accounts to Twitter's attention so that Twitter can look at whether they violate Twitter's ToS is not a form of coercion or state action and as evidence of that, Twitter usually does not do whatever it is the FBI is asking.

(By the way, will just once again point out for others that BCD is engaging in the good fight on behalf of Russian interests. Little surprise that the FBI "censorship" the troll is calling attention to happens to be opposed to Russian interests.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right, jb, that's a great inference.

Because I don't like agents of the State working with foreign governments to censor citizens, I'm secretly rooting for Today's Evil Bad Team!

I don't think smart people think like you do.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when you wanted an American teenager to spend the rest of his life in prison for guessing Palin’s email password?? And now you think it’s funny when foreigners hack into Democrats’ email accounts?? I will never forget. 😉

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. They did no such thing, Brett. You should try (a) reading real news sources; and (b) assuming they’re telling the truth rather than part of an elaborate conspiracy; rather than (c) getting all your news from right wing loons that tell you things that fit your conspiratorial worldview.

Twitter billed the FBI exactly $0 for what you mistakenly call “censorship work.”

The bills Twitter sent were for responding to information requests the government served on the company under the Stored Communications Act, as the statute expressly provides for. It's 18 U.S.C. § 2706:

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a governmental entity obtaining the contents of communications, records, or other information under section 2702, 2703, or 2704 of this title shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing such information.

[Randal]

So many things about the decision are retarded. The fact it happened under Trump. The fact that the companies routinely said no. The laughable examples of coercion like someone saying "I'm really really serious!"

But also consider what usually happens when there's coercion: the defendant gets enjoined from following through on the threat. There's gotta be a consequence for disobedience or it's just a suggestion, not coercion.

But there was no threat to enjoin, no consequence... so the judge was forced to enjoin... the suggestions themselves! No communication between these people on these topics.

That is the biggest example of prior restraint of speech in recent (or even distant) memory. This guy manifested the very distopia he was paranoid about.

What a maroon.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump judge does political stunt.
It’s a sad commentary on where the Trump people are, but it’ll be a bigger deal if it would ever go into effect.

Odds are really low so far.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Trump judge”

Lol. I thought it was harmful to disparage a judge over political crap. Oh, yeah, that’s only when Trump does it. It’s fine for your team.

And nice yo note that a judge trying to defend speech offends you. To you only Good Right-Thinking People should have rights.

You are an endless font of hypocrisy.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think all Trump appointees are tarred by being Trump judges, but this one, like Cannon, absolutely is. Maybe I should have said MAGA. But what he wrote is not a judicial opinion.

a judge trying to defend speech offends you
That is not what this judge is doing. Speech is not the issue here.

You have been shown to be utterly wrong on the facts be me and DMN and others, and you don't care. You are not a straight shooter on this, just another narrativist at war with reality and the actual law. No point in engaging you further on this one.

[Bob from Ohio]

"but this one, like Cannon, absolutely is"

Like you ever heard of him before now.

"Doughty's nomination was confirmed on March 6, 2018 by a 98–0 vote." wikipedia

Looks like your side dropped the ball!

[Sarcastr0]

District Court judgeships are not yet purely partisan.

No thanks to the efforts of nihilist partisans such as yourself.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"You are an endless font of hypocrisy."

Which font would that be? Comic sans, perhaps?

[Zarniwoop]

it’ll be a bigger deal if it would ever go into effect.

I heard a report on NPR this morning that one of the enjoined agencies already cancelled a meeting scheduled for today.

There hasn’t been reporting that I’ve heard so far on what the gov’t’s appeal route is. Given that this is looks, walks, and smells like prior restraint, I’m curious if the gov’t asked for a stay pending appeal of the PI yet, or when/how they will do so.

[David Nieporent]

I'm sure they've asked for a stay; they've already filed their notice of appeal.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the government's speech, not citizen speech, I don't believe prior restraint actually applies here, because the government doesn't have 1st amendment rights.

[David Nieporent]

People who work for the government certainly do.

[bevis the lumberjack]

They don’t have the right to use their rights to diminish ours.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Actually, that's literally what their job is. Having a government and living in a society means some diminishment of individual rights. How much diminishment, aye there's the rub!

[bevis the lumberjack]

I understand what you’re saying as to general rights and more or less agree. There are conflict of rights and limits for this purpose or that. Fine.

But our enumerated civil rights are different. Those they’re supposed to protect. And they are explicitly prohibited from violating them, with very, very narrow exceptions. “I don’t like what you said because it’s critical of me” is not one of those exceptions.

[Nige]

People are allowed to say they don't like criticism of them.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

True. I suppose the relevance of your particular complaint here rests on whether or not government employees actually coerced anyone into censoring posts or comments. But generally speaking I think you are right.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not when they're speaking for the government, they don't.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Brett being confidently incorrect again?

No way!

[bevis the lumberjack]

I sure sleep better at night knowing that so many people in our government are working so diligently to suppress speech.

God only knows what I might hear if they weren’t here to save me from ideas and opinions. Why, some of them I might even disagree with. The horror!!!!!

[Nige]

Given the paucity of evidence that that is happening, I certainly hope so.

[apedad]

What is a line-item veto? What you need to know

After Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers‘ (D) turned heads by using special veto powers to increase public education funding in his state for the next 400 years, it’s easy to wonder how he was able to make these changes to the budget.

Evers pulled out the line-item veto card on Wednesday to amend Wisconsin’s two-year spending plan, a move occasionally used by governors across the United States.

Forty-four states currently give governors the power to veto individual line items of state budgets. Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont are the only states that do not allow a line-item veto.

https://thehill.com/homenews/4082783-line-item-veto-explained/

Hmmm.... I knew the President doesn't have line item veto authority but didn't know gov's did (in some states).

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd be a bit surprised if that survives judicial review. The Wisconsin veto power is the most extensive of any state, but it has been twice amended to prevent this exact scenario.

"In 1990, the voters amended the constitution to provide
that “In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill.” This amendment prohibited the governor from striking letters in a bill to create an entirely new word, a practice started by Governor Anthony Earl and continued by Governor Tommy Thompson. In 2008, the voters again amended the constitution to prohibit the governor from creating “a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill.” The governor could still veto an entire sentence, or parts within a sentence, but could no longer create an entirely new sentence from parts of two or more sentences."

His veto in this case arguably violated those changes, by striking out PART of the year in a date and a hyphen to transform "2024-25" into "2425". Even the Wisconsin supreme court might take exception to something that crude.

[Martinned]

Wow, that's pretty egregious.

[Mr. Bumble]

As egregious as the de-banking of Nigel Farage.

[Nige]

Oh come on, that was hilarious.

‘Outrageous! The bank has cancelled me because banks are woke lefty institutions!’

‘Actually we are a rich bank for rich people and you aren’t quite rich enough any more.’

[Martinned]

Not a fan of private companies deciding for themselves who they want to do business with?

[Mr. Bumble]

So you're OK with this?

[SRG]

Why aren't you? Are Coutts lying when they say he didn't have enough money in his account?

[Martinned]

Yes. In competitive markets (and UK banking is at least competitive-adjacent) I'm a big fan of companies being able to refuse to do business with whoever they like, as long as they don't do it on the basis of a protected characteristic.

(Speaking of which, the definition of "belief" under the Equality Act 2010, as interpreted by the courts, goes quite a bit further than I would probably prefer.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

I agree -- and isn't there something about how a current legislature can't bind a future one?

[Michael P]

A future legislature -- or even this one -- could pass a bill changing the text back to what was originally passed by them, but the governor would need to sign that.

I am curious how this kind of veto power interacts with veto overrides. Could the legislature override just parts of the governor's Frankenstein veto, or would they have to override everything as a package?

[Moderation4ever]

If you are familiar with the Wisconsin line-item veto you realize that Gov Evers veto this year is nowhere near the most surprising. There have been attempts to rein in the veto, but both parties enjoy having the power when their party controls the governorship.

[Michael P]

What more surprising examples have taken place since the 2008 amendment on this topic? How many two-year appropriations have been converted to multi-century ones?

[Moderation4ever]

Govenor Doyle took out a whole paragraph to increase school funding. Every budget session in Wisconsin is filled with wonder as we await to see the creative ways the Governor's staff will slice and dice the budget document. While the multi-century veto will get the most public attention it might not be the most important.

[Brett Bellmore]

It might just be nasty enough to get another constitutional amendment, though, if the Wisconsin supreme court doesn't feel like enforcing the 1990 amendment against it.

I think the Wisconsin veto power needs wholesale revision, not just tweaks on the edges.

[Moderation4ever]

While you are probably right that the Wisconsin line item veto needs more revision that it will likely get, it has the power to bring a new meaning to divided government.

[Michael P]

Jim Doyle's 2005 veto was what prompted the 2008 amendment that I mentioned (and increased school funding): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_veto

Did you mean some different one?

[Krayt]

The line item veto was conceptually to strike individual items of pork from a bill and reduce spending. As in a shopping list, where you cross off lines. Hence the name.

Of course the party in power doesn’t like it when the other side has the executive, because it upsets all their stuffing of ground up muscle, fat, and gristle into the selfsame animal’s own intestines.

[Life of Brian]

His veto in this case arguably violated those changes, by striking out PART of the year in a date and a hyphen to transform “2024-25” into “2425”.

Too cute by half, but the even more egregious part is that the changed date was for the end of a per-year spending increase for schools. So instead of vetoing a piece of spending, he vetoed its sunset date and thus amplified the amount far beyond the original legislative intent. Hard to see how that isn't a blatant separation of powers problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, from a policy standpoint, that was the worst part of it. But just from a complying with the terms of the state Constitution, the big part was actually taking out the "20" from "2024", because that was pretty on point for that amendment.

Sure, the Wisconsin supreme court are just the guys to say, "That's a number, not a word!" if they like the policy change. But even they might blink at something this obnoxious.

[jb]

Yeah, it seems like editing 2024-25 to 2425 is very much the same as editing letters to make a new word. But read literally, they're numbers not letters so technically the veto doesn't violate the language of the Constitution.

I could imagine judges with different judicial philosophies reasonably getting to different answers.

[Drewski]

A little pedantry: The "02" in "2024" is not a number, but rather two numerals. "2024" is a number, written as four numerals. Numbers and letters are very different things from each other, but numerals and letters are similar.

[Martinned]

I discovered recently that in the UK all spending proposals have to come from the government. The idea is that Parliament cannot make the government spend money it doesn't want to spend.

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5695/rule-3-the-financial-initiative-of-the-crown

In the US, my understanding is that the budget typically only ever authorises spending, it doesn't require it. (Hence the non-issue with the debt limit, legally speaking.) If the President has the power not to spend money that's been appropriated, why would he need a line-item veto over the budget?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because back in the '70's Congress actually passed a law mandating that appropriations be spent. Prior to that it was routine for Presidents to refuse to actually spend money on items they thought unnecessary or a bad idea.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yep. I believe it was Nixon who just said "I don't want to buy these ships".

[Dr. Ed 2]

A big fight was over the A-10 Warthog -- the Air Force didn't want it, but the Army needed it to take out tanks (there wasn't anything else that could do that) except that the Army couldn't have fixed wing aircraft, only helos. And the first Gulf War showed the value of the A-10, it would have been essential in any battle with the Soviets in Europe.

So the USAF got the A-10, which they immediately put into reserve units because they didn't want it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure, it wasn't exactly a stand off weapon, the AF didn't want their pilots getting that close to the enemy; Where's the glory in being shot down by a soldier with a bazooka?

[Dr. Ed 2]

From what I've read, the A-10 is an incredibly rugged plane with incredibly good cockpit armor protecting the pilot. There are reports of them making it home with incredible battle damage -- it's not like the plane is ever going to fly again, but it's a tough plane.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Query—do you still support the Gulf War?? We sent boots on the ground over a border dispute that disrupted the global oil market…is that actually a good reason to send boots on the ground??

[Dr. Ed 2]

The first one, yes. The second one I blame on Clinton loosing the peace.

We made Iran far stronger than it otherwise would be, and that's going to cause problem. The nice thing about the Cold War is that it kept the peace there as both the US & USSR stomped on client states wanting to cause trouble.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So you supported boots on the ground for a border dispute on the other side of the world???

[Frank Drackman]

Dr. Ed, there's so much wrong in your post it's almost like you don't know anything about anything,
1: the Army has several hundred Fixed Wing Aircraft, The fixed wing fleet consists of 278 aircraft comprised of four missions, 11 designs, and 25 series deployed to all 50 states and 11 countries. All Army fixed wing aircraft are commercial derivative aircraft and are divided into two categories: Special Electronic Mission Aircraft and Transport Aircraft
2: Not sure when the first Reserve Units got the Warthog but there were plenty of Active Duty Squadrons in the UK and Germany up through the mid 90's or some 20 years after the A-10 debuted,

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Nixon impounded funds for DOD Schools for a few months in 1973, they just shut down the schools from March through May, had to get by with "Sesame Street" and my Mom trying to teach me fractions, Science, Engrish (OK, maybe Engrish got short shrift) funny how she could cover in 2 hours what took the "Professional" Teachers a whole day.

[Martinned]

Does anyone know if that's constitutional?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the President does have a constitutional obligation to "take care that the law is faithfully executed", and the anti-impoundment law IS a "law", so, yes, I think it's constitutional for Congress to legally obligate Presidents to spend money. Just a really bad idea most of the time.

[Martinned]

I think so too, but then I'm not the one building vast edifices of case law on the words "executive power" in article II.

[apedad]

Here's some info about "impoundments," i.e., when the President decides not to spend appropriated funds.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-7/ALDE_00013376/

[John F. Carr]

I lived in a city where the council could not authorize spending not requested by the mayor.

[Martinned]

For all my American friends who are passionate about cricket, the 3rd test of the Ashes has just begun. Australia is batting, and somehow already managed to lose their first wicket. (Warner c Crawley b Broad 4, Australia 4-1)

I'm sure they'll still win though.

[Martinned]

O wow, Australia are at 91-4 at lunch. That's not good...

[SRG]

Wood bowling at 95mph+!

Bairstow owes us a century after those two drops. Should have moved the order up one to replace Pope, and bring Foakes in as w/k.

[Martinned]

It's starting to look a lot better now (touch wood). 240-4 is almost respectable.

Meanwhile the Netherlands has defeated Scotland in ODI qualifying to qualify for the world cup. I'm sure the country is going nuts as we speak.

[Martinned]

I should really stop live-commenting the cricket. 240-5...

[SRG]

I don't know if you know the expression, "putting the mockers on it" - like "kibosh", aka the commentator's curse, but the BBC text commentary occasionally records a batter's dismissal, when just before someone had said how well he was playing, as "Smith b Mockers"

I am always in favour of almost any team beating Scotland in almost anything. The Dutch have always been a pretty useful 2nd tier side.

[SRG]

Speed kills!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Joe Biden's first thought when they found Cocaine in the White House.

A. "Hunter!"
B. "CornPop!"
C. "I thought I'd hid that better"
D. "What's Cocaine?"

[Martinned]

It was probably still there from the 90s...

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing funnier than people who see humor primarily as a partisan cudgel!

[Nige]

'Humor.'

[Armchair Lawyer]

It’s more dark humor.

It’s still a federal offense to bring illegal narcotics onto federal property (like…the White House). And given the level of surveillance there, it should take all of 30 minutes to figure out who did it.

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/cocaine-white-house-shows-biden-has-looked-other-way-border-issues-expert-says

Why no one is charged? Typical Biden administration stuff, ignore the crimes for people they like, punish the people they don’t like.

It's just a sign of the utter corruption in this administration. People smuggling cocaine into the White House and no charges will be pressed.

[Sarcastr0]

As predicted, the pivot from shitty joke to 'BIDEN CRIMES' was not far behind. No one on this blog takes themselves more seriously, while being more unserious, than you.

"Everybody that comes in, not just the White House grounds, but also everybody that comes into that space, right, where you have to check that cell phone, they're accounted for. There's a manifest. There are cameras. I could go on. This literally should take them about 30 minutes to figure out whose cocaine it was," he added.

1) I don't trust the Trump White House sources justthenews dug up. This is not the first time you've gone way out on a limb based on those propagandist tools. I doubt you will learn.
2) Even assuming the policy is as this guy says, and hasn't changed in the Biden WH, what they're saying is that the cell phone check-in manifest policy may be too lax.

This is already shaping up to be another IRS whistleblower for you; good thing you have no shame.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Weee Wooo Weee Woooo Weee Wooo

The Tone Police have arrived! Just in time!

[Nige]

...you don't know what tone policing is, do you?

[Nige]

The administration staff is responsible for security? Wouldn’t that be the security staff? Do you have any proof that they know who brought it in and are deciding not to prosecute them? Or are you making stuff up based solely on a possibly naive faith in the omnipotence of surveillance technology?

The right-wing coneption of 'humor' as saying something dumb then sliding into wild accusations holds true.

[Brett Bellmore]

This administration is a dumpster fire, but it's your administration, so you don't care.

[Nige]

Well, I don't put much store in your opinion of the administration, that's true, but that doesn't preclude assessing what actually happened, as opposed to what's filtered through your fever-swamp brains.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And given the level of surveillance there, it should take all of 30 minutes to figure out who did it."

And all of whatever the statute of limitations is, to give a damn about it.

[Nige]

So, we've gone from 'haha joke it was Hunter's' to actual it's a serious massive cover-up and protection of Hunter's criminality.' In 0-5 seconds.

[Brett Bellmore]

The level of surveillance in that area is such that they could not plausibly have failed to identify whose cocaine it was. So the fact that they're making a show of not knowing whose it is is enough that we can conclude it's somebody they really do not want to implicate.

Since Hunter, a known cocaine addict, was in the White House about that time, it's pretty easy to figure out who likely left it.

[Nige]

Tried and convicted based on supposition, inference and putting the 'um' in circumstantial!

[Sarcastr0]

The level of surveillance in that area is such that they could not plausibly have failed to identify whose cocaine it was.

You know this how? Justthenews? Maybe wait for a bit for other reporting before you make such conclusive statements.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about comparing it to the US Capitol. They seem to have managed to identify most of the folks involved in the Jan 6th Frat Party, haven't they?

The Federal Government is going to have the same technology in the White House. And a Marine Guard, it appears -- a live set of eyes on the ground. And they actually have vetted those let into the White House -- they know who they are.

It's going to be harder to find out this? Right....

[Nige]

Believe it or not a tiny baggie of coke might be more difficult to track than a rampaging mob.

[Sarcastr0]

They seem to have managed to identify most of the folks involved in the Jan 6th Frat Party, haven’t they?

I don't know that 'most of' is true. Certainly they're still sending out 'have you seen this insurrectionist' requests.

[bernard11]

The Federal Government is going to have the same technology in the White House. And a Marine Guard, it appears — a live set of eyes on the ground. And they actually have vetted those let into the White House — they know who they are.

You're a fucking moron. That's an idiotic comparison.

I have no doubt that if someone marched into the White House waving a baggie of cocaine and shouting about whatever he intended to do with it he would be detained more or less instantly.

But that's not what happened.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, well, well. The story has begun changing.

Cocaine found in the White House was in a different location than previously reported, sources say

[Sarcastr0]

Proof of a coverup as much as the previous story not changing was!

Stories change early on.

We don’t live in a political thriller.

[Life of Brian]

The entrance is near where some vehicles, like the vice president’s limo or SUV, park.

We might call this Chekhov's completely gratuitous aside. No doubt many have been itching for an excuse to clean up the 2024 ticket.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So now you're a security expert, intimately familiar with White House surveillance and protocols?

When will you learn that you're not regarded as an expert on anything?

Also, regarding your poignant insight as to the likely culprit, you might want to check the fucking timeline.*

* From a reputable source, not the usual "I'm retarded too" websites you associate with.

[Kazinski]

The last 20 years of late-night tv.

Probably why Gutfeld is the top rated late night TV show, at least he's different.

This is from last fall but it hasn't changed much:
"With 2.494 million total viewers and 396,000 viewers in the key demographic group of adults 25-54, Gutfeld! beat not just everything else on cable, but the high-profile broadcast networks’ late night shows as well. CBS’ The Late Show with Stephen Colbert was a close second with 2.1 million viewers and 375,000 viewers in the key demo, followed by NBC’s The Tonight Show (1.289 million viewers and 318,000 in the demo), and ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live (1.285 million total viewers and 287,000 viewers in the key demo)."

I'm surprised NBC isn't changing hosts until they figure something out, it has to rankle being an also-ran in a genre they created.

[Frank Drackman]

and even though Gutfeld’s marginally a “Conservative” he’s constantly dropping Gay Double En-tawdras, “It’s been as hot in Texas as Lou Dobbs in a Mink Thong!!!” But you really want Comedy, watch the Clip of Colbert from Erection Nite 2016, as his head literally does a JFK Zapruder 313 when Mark Halperin (where’s he been lately) tries to explain what’s happening.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GUvmvsKZII

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

" when Mark Halperin (where’s he been lately) "
He is on Newsmax offering commentary almost daily.

[Ben_]

Democrat leaderships thoughts: "Wow, this would be a huge problem if we hadn't corrupted the news media and Federal law enforcement so thoroughly. "

News media thoughts: "How do we keep this from hurting Biden? I hope a huge disaster happens to America soon so we can change the subject."

If any prominent Democrats cared about the country, they'd be working to get Jared Polis or possibly Gavin Newsom drafted to run against Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

It is not a good sign when you need more and more to lean on: 'this is totally a scandal; the only reason no one cares outside the right-wing fever swamps is that every other institution in the world is Marxist.'

I also find it hilarious you think we'd buy your issues with Biden are specific to him. Any other Dem is there, and they will become the new most corrupt madman evar.

Your anger is nakedly instrumental. I do think you've fooled yourself, so you're not exactly lying, you're just a tool.

[Ben_]

You don’t care. Is it because you’re a Marxist? Or is it some other pathology that affects you?

Please let us all know why cocaine in the White House is something you’d like us all to ignore. No one told the rest of us why we shouldn’t care. Please help by informing us.

[Nige]

'Please let us all know why cocaine in the White House is something you’d like us all to ignore'

Hahahahahaha oh my lord you're basic.

[Nige]

Hard to believe but you lot are getting even more hysterical over Biden than you ever were about Obama.

[hoppy025]

This Obongo judge is a traitorous piece of shit. The 11th Circuit should reverse and remove him from any suit involving Florida or DeSantis, as he clearly can't be objective.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/04/politics/judge-blocks-florida-law-voter-registration/index.html

[Moderation4ever]

This was a stupid law and the judge made the right decision. It was an attack on the voter registration process and had nothing to do with election integrity.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I didn't know there was a constitutional right to handle voter registration cards.

TIL

[Brett Bellmore]

Having a right to do something generally involves having a right to assistance in doing it, and there's a limit to how much the government can interfere with that assistance. Surely you're familiar with that concept from the context of gun control?

Some of the provisions of this law, such as the prohibition of people with certain felonies on their record handling registration materials, is fairly defensible. Other provisions are just pure burden without any payback in terms of election security.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't agree and see little wrong with a person with felony convictions from registering people. It would be reasonable to preclude non-citizens and some felons from working in the clerks office where registration are recorded and checked, but working the front lines to get people registered and started in the verification system is little more than simple clerk work that almost anyone could do.

[Brett Bellmore]

It wasn't just any felony record, though. For instance, it bars handling registration materials by anybody ever convicted of a felony violation of the election code. Is there really something wrong with thinking that people who've literally been convicted of election related felonies can't be trusted in this context?

Aside from that, it bars felons who haven't had their voting rights restored; Once it's restored, they're OK.

I do not think it is sufficiently irrational to not trust convicted felons that this particular part of the law is unreasonable to the point of being unconstitutional.

Other parts, OTOH, yeah, they are that unreasonable.

[Martinned]

Fortunately it is famously easy for Florida felons to get their voting rights restored...

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it is not, and I will gladly concede that Florida has its problems there. But in terms of justifying government policy, saying that convicted felons can't handle elections documents until they've gotten their right to vote back is hardly so irrational as to be unconstitutional.

Some of the other requirements, yeah, they easily clear that bar.

[bernard11]

I will gladly concede that Florida has its problems there.

And who or what do you think is the source of those problems?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suspect the state government, which had this policy forced on them by a citizen initiative, is not terribly enthusiastic about putting in the work necessary for it to operate smoothly. The system for finding out what you owe is a complete mess.

That said, the initiative organizers attempted a bait and switch, they were quite clear in their pre-vote descriptions that restoration of voting rights would only happen after all restitution and court costs were paid. Then once it passed they claimed to be shocked that the state was requiring that felons actually do that to get their voting rights back.

[hoppy025]

The fact is, nearly all convicted felons will vote Democrat, because they're black, violent, stupid or some combination of the three. That's the reason Democrats want them voting. Not because of any appeal to rehabilitation, but because they want votes.

[hoppy025]

Anything that keeps low-IQ blacks from voting for Democrats is a good thing.

[Krayt]

This makes sense. Are they concerned felons or non-citizens are gonna hack things?

Still, the judge said "When state government power threatens...to reduce individual rights to ashes."

Hyperbole much?

[not guilty]

There is no substitute for original source materials. The preliminary injunction order. is here. https://www.aclu.org/documents/ruling-preliminary-injunction-granted-7-3-2023

Hoppy025, what do you posit as grounds for judicial disqualification by a higher court? Please be specific. BTW, "I don't like it" does not constitute such grounds.

[hoppy025]

Bias.

[not guilty]

Begging the question doesn't answer my question, hoppy. There's a reason that is called a fallacy.

What facts do you posit as grounds for judicial disqualification by a higher court?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, hoppy.

[hoppy025]

We can start with his unhinged rant about DeSantis.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you’re going to have a link that says “the legislation”, it should actually lead to, you know, “the legislation”, not just another article telling you about it. You sometimes get the impression news outlets don’t want their readers to know too much about what’s being reported on.

In this case, the “convicted of certain felonies” provision seems to be reasonably related to election security. I agree the rest of it is offensive, though.

[hoppy025]

Offensive doesn't necessarily mean constitutional.

[Brett Bellmore]

It often does when you're dealing with laws burdening exercise of a civil liberty.

[Michael P]

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/jawboning-against-speech is a good (although not very recent) run-down of ways in which government agents seeking to censor private parties enjoy access and influence that set them apart from "just the same as anybody else", to roughly quote a censorship apologist here.

[jb]

The article is fairly interesting and also fairly long so I haven't gotten through the whole thing yet, but it's worth noting that the "jawboning" it describes is very much not the type of behavior that the administration was just prohibited from doing.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Went to a ballgame yesterday and it got me to thinking. Of all of our major sports baseball is the most tied to its past with its unwritten rules and adherence to tradition and so on.

The All-Star break starts Sunday and I wonder….is there a way to carry on a recent tradition associated with the ASG? Is there another sham political narrative we can use this year to screw Georgia again? It’s as American as apple pie and Chevrolet!!

[Kazinski]

Georgia survived just nicely without the All-Star game, and it was likely a good part of the reason Stacey Abrams lost the governor's race so badly, they might not have survived as well if she got elected.

Hopefully institutions like MLB are learning to actually check to see if the sky is falling before they start the chicken little dance.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I’m a Gen Xer and I love watching sports…but I just don’t care about all star games and MVPs and recruiting or anything ancillary to regular season games and playoffs anymore. I do like everything from a historical perspective and so I know who the MVP was in 1955 but I don’t care about who wins the MVP in 2023. I assume that is just the natural progression of following sports is that it loses some of its magic as one grows older.

[Frank Drackman]

Kinder/Gentler Frank, old fogey voice, when I was a kid only baseball you got on TV was NBC's "Game of the Week" on Saturday and Monday Night games later on, in 1978 the Dodgers televised no Home games, and only Road Games with the Giants or Sunday, and if they were on National TV you got the "Back up Game" (always Expos/Phillies)
Had to listen to the Radio, couldn't believe when we moved to the South and every Braves game was on Channel 17 (WTCG, wasn't TBS yet) Even the West Coast games (of course 1970's Brave Baseball was hard to tell from the 3 Stooges re-runs they'd show during rain delays)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

What a great open thread so far. Not an ad hominem or yo' momma to be seen and some varied and interesting topics.

[Frank Drackman]

Looks like my Kinder/Gentler Virus is spreading. Unfortunately, might not reach the "Reverend" Sandusky.

[Michael P]

New Zealand is institutionalizing reverse racism in medical care, joining earlier US efforts: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-surgeons-must-now-consider-ethnicity-in-prioritising-patients-for-operations-some-are-not-happy/ONGOC263IFCF3LADSRR6VTGQWE/

[Nige]

If you don’t like it, blame the system or the institutionalised racism that allowed people of certain ethnicities to languish on waiting lists for years. If being Maori or Pacifika means that they get repeatedly and routinely skipped over and delayed, then it only makes sense to focus attention on them as a corrective.

‘Shepherd said the tool was rolled out in Auckland in February and, due to positive evidence that it is helping to eliminate inequities in the healthcare system, it is now being rolled out across the other northern region districts.’

Seems to work, too.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Happy Georgia Guide Stone Destruction Day!

[Nelson]

I had never heard of the Georgia Guide Stone. What a crazy story!

[Brett Bellmore]

We happened to be in the area and saw it just a week or so before it was blown up.

Actually, the bomb just damaged it, it could have been repaired. Local authorities instantly used it as an excuse to finish demolishing it before money could be raised for repairs. I suspect they were happy to have an excuse to be rid of it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bonus question for the forum.

Assume for the sake of argument that Trump in convicted before the election, and Biden wins the election.

What are the chances that Biden decides to pardon or commute Trump's sentence after Biden is re-elected?

[Nige]

Borderline certainty.

[gVOR08]

Why? I see the question of a pardon all over. but I have yet to see any credible reason for Biden to do it. What good would a pardon do for Biden? For Democrats generally? For the country?

And please don’t respond with anything like the “healing” BS Ford used. Didn’t heal anything. Biden should continue staying well away from this.

[Nige]

Collegiality. They never learn.

[grb]

Nige : "Borderline certainty"

Yep. Two Points :

1. In said scenario, Trump’s political career would be over. No matter how much WWE-grade entertainment he provides the base, a loser is still a loser.

2. I trust Joe Biden would announce his mercy in the most humiliating manner possible.

The good of the country is all well and good, but the announcement itself would make this special….

[Mr. Bumble]

You need to get out more often.

[not guilty]

"What are the chances that Biden decides to pardon or commute Trump’s sentence after Biden is re-elected?"

Only Joe Biden knows. But I wouldn't bet the rent money on it.

[apedad]

100% - with some conditions

1. Trump comes 100% clean on everything
2. He disappears and plays golf, screws eastern European babes . . . anything but be in the public eye.

Actually, if I was Biden, upon conviction I would offer immediate pardon with this:

3. Drop the president candidacy, including all state tickets, close the PACs, no more speeches, etc.

[Bob from Ohio]

"upon conviction I would offer immediate pardon with this:

3. Drop the president candidacy, including all state tickets, close the PACs, no more speeches, etc."

Yup, leader of party in power, after show trial, lets his chief political opponent off in return for dropping his campaign. Seems legit.

[David Nieporent]

For once I agree with Bob. Both the optics and substance of that proposal are awful.

[gVOR08]

Why would Biden, or anyone else, believe Trump would honor any deal he agreed to?

Also too, why would anyone assume Trump is still screwing anyone? (In the sexual sense of screwing. Otherwise there are long lists of donors he’s screwing and would continue to screw. )

[Nelson]

He takes anti-hair loss drugs. Guaranteed he takes prescription dick pills. His vanity could never accept sexual impotence.

[Nelson]

"3. Drop the president candidacy, including all state tickets, close the PACs, no more speeches, etc."

This is a terrible idea. Straight-up corrupt practice and a horrible tit-for-tat look. There isn't a single part of this that's good.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pardon? Not a chance. Commute any jail time that's part of the sentence? Sure. It's really important to the Democrats that everybody agree with them about Trump being a criminal. Creating sympathy for the guy by putting him behind bars at approaching 80? Probably not so high on their to do list, they'd settle for disqualification from office and financial penalties.

The flip side question is, if Trump loses while/because of being prosecuted by the administration he's running against, how many people are going to think Biden's win is legitimate? The Democrats are playing with fire here.

[not guilty]

If Donald Trump dies outside of custody, he will have gotten away with serious criminality. I doubt that Joe Biden wants to see that happen.

[Brett Bellmore]

Joe Biden is about the last guy who would want to establish robust precedents about high level politicians doing hard time. Now that he's breached this particular norm, he's an obvious target for prosecution the moment he doesn't control the DOJ anymore.

[not guilty]

As I have said repeatedly, when I get a tu quoque response, I know I've struck an exposed nerve.

[Krayt]

That is the once and future response. The Republicans, who were fine with a special prosecutor churning indefinitely with Clinton, suddenly don't like it. And vice versa for the other side.

As once was, so shall it be again, over and over, with ignorant shills flopping sides in a poster child for situational ethics.

[Brett Bellmore]

What actually happened with Clinton is that situations just kept coming up that demanded a special counsel because the AG had an obvious conflict of interest. It kept happening over and over, because he was just that kind of guy, he'd been in perpetual legal trouble from his days in Arkansas.

Eventually there came a point where Reno flatly refused to appoint any more independent counsels, the law be damned. So every time one of these cases came up after that, it got dumped in Starr's lap, as the last counsel she'd bothered appointing.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's "what actually happened with Clinton" is always gonna be something no one else has heard about.

[not guilty]

Uh, Brett, Janet Reno did not appoint Kenneth Starr. She appointed Robert Fiske. A three judge appellate court panel replaced Fiske with Starr. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/080694clinton-starr.html

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don't interrupt Brett with facts.

[David Nieporent]

he’s an obvious target for prosecution the moment he doesn’t control the DOJ anymore.

Sure, as long as they first change the rules of evidence so that "They were speculating about it in OAN" is admissible.

[John F. Carr]

I doubt that Biden cares as much as you do. If there is value in pardoning Trump, not a donation to the Biden presidential library but serious value, then he will pardon Trump or more likely commute his sentence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look into why Daniel Shays was pardoned.

If Trump dies in jail, he will become a martyr for a lot of people you don't want to have a martyr.....

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : ".... become a martyr for a lot of people you don’t want to have a martyr….."

I sense a Nostradamus Ed prediction on its way!

[Randal]

how many people are going to think Biden’s win is legitimate?

How many people thought his first win was legitimate? We're well past this point with Trump no matter what circumstances he loses under.

[John F. Carr]

31.6%

[Moderation4ever]

A pardon is not an acquittal, it is forgiveness, and at a minimum a subject of a pardon should accept guilt and express remorse. What are the chances that Trump would accept guilt and express remorse? Is it greater or lesser Biden pardoning Trump?

I would not favor a pardon but would favor clemency for any sentence requiring incarceration..

[Zarniwoop]

at a minimum a subject of a pardon should accept guilt and express remorse.

A person like Trump, I would completely agree. I'm also on the "clemency not pardon" train.

But we see this over-generalization a lot. A person pardoned following determinative DNA evidence of innocence does not "accept guilt" by accepting the pardon, and no one in their right mind thinks they should "express remorse". Some cases (again, not Trump's) are readily distinguishable from the dicta in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915).

Thanks for listening to my standard rant about the Burdick dicta 🙂

[David Nieporent]

None. First, Trump is never going to be sentenced to actual prison, which is the only scenario in which pardon/commutation would make sense.

Second, if he did pardon/commute the sentence after the election, it would send the message that the prosecution was about the election.

Third, Trump faces a bunch of state charges for which Biden can't pardon/commute anyway.

[Krayt]

'member when states picked up the ball just in case Trump pardoned himself?

No, they won't either.

[David Nieporent]

Um, you know that there's already a state prosecution going on in NY, right?

[EscherEnigma]

If Trump was given prison time? Then a pardon/commutation is basically guaranteed. Biden is obligated by propriety to let the case go through to it's conclusion, but there's no way he's going to allow anyone to get a real photo of Trump in a prison jumpsuit. If Trump wants that photo-op he'll have to do it himself.

If Trump is given house arrest? Then... I dunno. I could see it going either way, but I don't think the outrage over Trump being confined to one of his resorts for a few years is going to be nearly as high as him in prison.

If it's just a fine? Then probably nothing.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I have a friend at the FBI who says they measured Trump’s ankle at the arraignment and the Cankle Bracelet they developed for Hillary will work for Trump…and it saves taxpayers several million dollars.

[Frank Drackman]

What are the chances Biden will be alive on erection day 2024??
(Please, no Secret Service, FBI, Adam Schiff on a Spit, not talking assassination, just the odds of an 80 year old man with Parkinson's, Dementia, History of Aneurysm surgery, being alive in 16 months?

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Private equity creating anesthesiology monopolies. Fuck these guys.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/29/private-equity-medical-practices-raise-prices/

With its acquisitions, USAP had become the region’s preeminent anesthesiology practice, and it quickly sought to raise rates, according to documents. One page of an internal USAP company presentation labeled “Guiding Strategies” at the time listed 11 points.

“Accelerate rate increases,” said one. “Pricing +/-5% range, for market’s lead insurers,” said another....For patients insured under the Cofinity network, effective payment to USAP jumped 29 percent, according to the internal company documents. For patients covered by another insurer, Anthem, USAP rates would rise 17.5 percent in the first year the contract was up for renewal, according to the documents.

[Mr. Bumble]

Take your choice as to the origin, but:

It’s Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future

Niels Bohr? Samuel Goldwyn? K. K. Steincke? Robert Storm Petersen? Yogi Berra? Mark Twain? Nostradamus? Anonymous?

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict/

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2

[Ed Grinberg]

I've been reading / commenting on this blog for years. Up until now, I have not encountered ideological censorship here.
The other day, I commented on a post by Prof. Somin. I also marked down a comment by Theendoftheleft, where he called Prof. Somin a tankie. (I wanted to see what people had to say about it.) I just checked back; the "tankie" comment is gone, as are all the comments I made.
Very disappointing.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's funny, because I followed your link, and Here's a "tankie" comment by Theendoftheleft. Are you sure you didn't just comment on a different post?

[Ed Grinberg]

I'm pretty sure that's a different comment (by the same guy).

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I’ve been reading / commenting on this blog for years. Up until now, I have not encountered ideological censorship here.

. . . not ideological censorship you disliked.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Do you think the government coerced Prof. Volokh into doing that?

[Voize]

What do you mean you "marked down" a comment?
Is it that you used the "Flag Comment" button?

If I remember correctly the effect of flagging a comment is that it disappears until a moderator reviews it (which never seems to happen) so maybe you did the censoring rather than the VC.

[Ed Grinberg]

Sorry, bad English on my part. I made a note (for myself) of the comment, to see what other commenters said in response.

[John F. Carr]

Recently resigned U.S. Attorney Rachel Rollins escaped prosecution for lying under oath. The Boston Globe reports on potential disciplinary action:

Marsha Kazarosian, an attorney and former member of the Massachusetts Bar Overseers, said the penalty for lying under oath is typically a suspension of a lawyer’s license for up to two years.

In one case, from 2009, a lawyer was suspended for six months for making false statements to police officers and a prosecutor and for lying under oath in a criminal trial.

That case was similar in some respects to the allegations against Rollins: the lawyer, Fawn Balliro, made the false statements in her personal capacity, not while representing a client. (Typically, the board views infractions related to client representation as more serious.)

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/07/05/metro/rollins-could-face-suspension-law-license-disbarment-hands-state-disciplinary-board/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rollins did a lot more than just lie under oath.

She tried to rig an election, she threatened a malicious prosecution of a TV reporter (who got it on tape), etc.

She learned at UMass Amherst that being Black means that the rules don't apply -- and she *almost* got away with her stunts.

[apedad]

(SECDEF) Austin administers military oath of office to new recruits as US military faces continued recruiting crisis

To mark the 50th anniversary of the all-volunteer force, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin traveled to Fort Meade, Maryland, by Black Hawk helicopter on Wednesday to administer the military oath of office to 85 brave young men and women. 67 of these new recruits shipped out to basic training just hours after the ceremony, leaving for bases all across the country, including Parris Island, South Carolina, and Fort Moore, Georgia.

College has also become a more popular option for high school graduates, with 62% of high school seniors pushed to go directly to college. Another reason for low recruitment numbers is the perception among some that the military has gone "woke." The nation is also facing a health crisis among young people with 77% of America's youth not eligible to serve, according to a Pentagon study.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/austin-administers-military-oath-office-new-recruits-us-military-faces-continued-recruiting-crisis

Sure Fox News.

The young folks don't want to go into a "woke" military so instead they'll go into the liberal, woke, brainwashing, higher education system.

Sure. . . .

[Bob from Ohio]

32 miles from the Pentagon to Fort Meade. He flew in a multi million helicopter which burns a lot of fuel.

Its a "Green" military now, I thought?

[Nige]

The US military is one of the worst polluters on the planet.

[Frank Drackman]

and the Sahara desert is hot and dry, thanks Captain Obvious.
Used to love how the pilots would dump 5,000 pounds of fuel like they were tossing a piss bottle out the window just to be able to cut a mission short and land with less weight.

[Nige]

wasn't obvious to Bob, edgebot

[EscherEnigma]

Its a “Green” military now, I thought?

... even if you actually heard that from a credible source, why the ducking hell would you believe it?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on the Department of Defense Climate Adaptation Plan
Oct. 7, 2021 |
Climate change is an existential threat to our nation's security, and the Department of Defense must act swiftly and boldly to take on this challenge and prepare for damage that cannot be avoided. Every day, our forces contend with the grave and growing consequences of climate change, from hurricanes and wildfires that inflict costly harm on U.S. installations and constrain our ability to train and operate, to dangerous heat, drought, and floods that can trigger crises and instability around the world."

Looks like I've been lied to!

[EscherEnigma]

So, did you just leave out the part of the quote where he said anything about the military being "green", rather then talking about dangers and challenges?

That said, and I can not put enough emphasis on this, if you ever see someone --anyone-- claim with a straight face the military is "green" in the environmental sense, then you should never play poker with that person.

[Nige]

The military and intelligence communities have recognised the threat of climate change for a while now. That doesn't stop the US military from being one of the worse polluting institutions on the planet. After all it's not their job to do anything about climate change, just to deal with the disasters and instabilities that go with it. The usual snafu.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Another idiot in the Biden Administration.

They can say the phrase “existential crisis” a bazillion times and it doesn’t mean one actually exists. But it does lead to rushed, herky jerky decisions like we’re making now which will eventually lead to a fucked up mess.

Y’all better start accumulating money to pay your future energy bills, because on days when it’s available you’re gonna want some.

[Nige]

You can deny it a billion times, doesn't mean it'll go away. We're making rushed decisions now because people like you pretended it wasn't coming because fossil fuels are just so darn profitable, who cares if we're trashing the planet?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bob, he’s Important. Important People don’t sacrifice, even in the face of an existential crisis. Sacrifice is for us normal guys.

He gets steak, we get bugs. If you don’t like it you should have worked harder to be Important.

[John F. Carr]

Several years ago there was a widely reported case of child abuse that went undetected by Massachusetts DCF. In response the governor ordered the agency to work harder to take children away from parents. A judge recently ruled the policy unconstitutional:

Massachusetts child welfare officials violated a mother’s constitutional rights when they denied her request for a hearing to challenge neglect allegations, a Suffolk Superior Court judge found, in a decision that could have implications for thousands of parents and caregivers investigated each year by the state.

The ruling, handed down in late May, has already prompted the Department of Children and Families to shift course. State officials said they are now offering those accused of neglect — but who, under a DCF policy, were not given the chance to appeal to an impartial hearing officer — the ability to request a so-called fair hearing. In the quasi-judicial settings, DCF’s decisions are just as likely to be overturned as upheld, state data show.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/07/02/metro/mother-was-accused-neglect-dcf-then-denied-her-hearing-challenge-it/

[apedad]

Which out-of-state driver’s licenses are no longer valid in Florida?

Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Wednesday a list of out-of-state driver’s licenses that are no longer valid in Florida due to a new law considered to be its toughest immigration crackdown to date.

As of July 1, these out-of-state licenses are no longer valid in Florida if the driver is in the U.S. illegally.

Delaware
Connecticut
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Vermont

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4083211-which-out-of-state-drivers-licenses-are-no-longer-valid-in-florida/

Doesn't this bump up against:

Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

[Mr. Bumble]

You know that this is selectively applied.

[not guilty]

How is a driver's license a public act, records, or judicial proceeding of a state?

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts started giving out licenses to euphemisms this week. When do we go on the list?

Massachusetts law allows nonresidents to drive here based on whether the other state allows Massachusetts residents the same privilege. The executive branch, not the courts, makes the call. It is up to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, or in practice the governor, to decide whether to allow Florida licensed drivers or Florida registered vehicles on our roads.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That dates back to the 1930s and predates the Interstate Highway Act which requires nondiscrimination re out-of-state drivers.

HOWEVER a state can revoke your right to operate in that state-- memory is that Connecticut had done that to the truck driver who killed the motorcyclists.

What DeSantis has done is revoke the right to operate in Florida if you are an illegal alien. HOW he is going to determine that is beyond me.

[John F. Carr]

The revocation you are talking about is ordinarily an individual determination. Kill a bus full of school children, flip the bird in front of a cop, whatever it takes to suspend a resident's license will suspend a non-resident's right to operate. The driver is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. So we have laws saying if you are in debt to the government your license can be suspended, but we don't have laws saying it is illegal to drive while in debt to the overnment. The two are similar, but the first one puts you on notice that it is illegal to drive.

[VinniUSMC]

If the driver is in the US illegally, they shouldn't have a driver's license to begin with. No problem here.

[Sarcastr0]

Your shouldn't is trumped by a number of elected bodies deciding otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

Once you've identified somebody as present illegally in the US, whether they have a driver's license should be a question for their home country, as they should be deported, so they wouldn't be driving here anyway. So the whole issue only exists because of the habitual refusal to enforce immigration laws.

[Sarcastr0]

You continue to fundamentally misapprehend how law works. You only complain about enforcement discretion existing wrt immigration, which is telling.

Your should is also not actual law. Mass deportation is also impossible, would be wreck our economy, and wasn't even done by Trump.

I too would like us to disentangle our economy from illegal labor. But I like to deal in practicalities, not your insane rage at illegals.

Has France convinced you to support mowing them down with machine guns yet?

[Mr. Bumble]

Dissembling and obfuscation as always.
When found, illegal aliens should be deported as required by the applicable law.
That's all Brett said.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two words: Operation Wetback.

Eisenhower did mass deportations.

[Sarcastr0]

"During the entirety of the Operation, border recruitment of illegal workers by American growers continued, due largely to the low cost of illegal labor, and the desire of growers to avoid the bureaucratic obstacles of the Bracero program. The continuation of illegal immigration, despite the efforts of Operation Wetback, along with public outcry over many US citizens removed, was largely responsible for the failure of the program. Because of these factors, operation Wetback lost funding."

A lot of misery and pissing of our ally for no real benefit.

But at least it wasn't mass murder!

[BrotherMovesOn]

Hey, that's Dr. Ed's job.

[SRG]

In principle, yes, but in practice it allows for the driver to get insurance. While I am not sure what percentage of unlawful immigrants drive without insurance, I would prefer it if a given driver had had to take driving lessons and was covered by insurance, immigration status notwithstanding.

[Mr. Bumble]

Drivers aren't insured, vehicles are. There is no state that I'm aware of that requires the holder of a driver's license to have insurance.

[SRG]

Try to insure your vehicle as a named driver without a licence...

[John F. Carr]

Insurance goes with the car and not the driver as long as you have a good driving record. In many states if something bad happens to your license status you are required to file an "SR-22" form proving that you the licensed driver have insurance. If you do not own a car you may be required to buy an insurance policy for yourself. If you own a car you ask your car insurance company for SR-22 and they gouge you for as much money as they think they can get. While I can't speak to the original motives, the form seems to be a holdover from the pre-computer era to make sure your insurance company knows you have a bad record. Here in Massachusetts such paperwork is not required. Your insurance company asks the state how many points are on your driving record.

[bernard11]

Insurance goes with the car and not the driver as long as you have a good driving record.

I don't understand this. People who don't own cars often have insurance, because they rent or borrow cars occasionally. So how does that work?

[John F. Carr]

In America the owner of a car is ordinarily responsible for insuring the car. The insurance covers anybody who drives it. (Summary of a long law which also covers situations like loaners while your car is in the shop, stolen cars, your teenager who is not allowed to drive your expensive-to-insure sports car, and leases.)

In my state, if I borrow your car and wreck it the bill is paid by your insurance and the accident goes on my driving record. If I am only an occasional driver of your car then your insurance will be unaffected. If I am a regular driver of your car then your insurance company can insist I be listed as such on your policy. Your insurance rate will go up because of my record.

[VinniUSMC]

I don't care what the gray box said, but to clarify, I mean that illegal immigrants shouldn't be issued driver's licenses by a State government.

Of course other countries have licensing conventions which can be reciprocal with the US. But an illegal immigrant that goes into a government building attempting to have a driver's license issued should be immediately detained and deported. Not given a state-issued driver's license. And said license should obviously not be valid anywhere in the US. Validating illegal immigrants with a state-issued driver's license is absurd.

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe universality of drivers licenses is actually a consequence of an interstate compact, not the full faith and credit clause.

[EscherEnigma]

Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

No.

But it does illustrate that the US has a bad history of taking one piece of paperwork and shoving more and more responsibilities on it over time. If all driver's licenses were attestations from a state that a person was a quallified driver, and nothing more, then this wouldn't be a thing. But since we've overloaded them as age verifiers, citizenship tests, and so-on, you get things like this.

The US rejected the idea of a national ID card almost a century ago. But we keep trying to implement it in other ways. To predictable disaster.

[Zarniwoop]

Adam Unikowsky has a good post up on the 303 Creative standing issues. Per usual, it’s well written and informative, while still pretty accessible for non-lawyers. I'm looking forward to part 2.

https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/contrived-cases-make-bad-law

[SRG]

I find him a very good and accessible writer.

[not guilty]

Good analysis by Mr. Unikowsky. Thank you for the link.

When SCOTUS wishes to further weaponize religious belief in the culture, such trifling considerations as Article III standing are no obstacle. Case of controversy? Subject matter jurisdiction? Fuhgeddaboudit!

The Supreme Court in 303 Creative merely deferred to the Tenth Circuit's standing analysis, notwithstanding the requirement that "every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review[.]" FW/PBS v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (plurality opinion). For the reasons articulated by Mr. Unikowsky, the district court's reasoning in denying standing to the plaintiffs is far and away more persuasive than the Tenth Circuit's reasoning in approving standing.

[David Nieporent]

For the reasons articulated by Mr. Unikowsky, the district court’s reasoning in denying standing to the plaintiffs is far and away more persuasive than the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning in approving standing.

Weird how Sotomayor didn't so much as mention the standing issue in her dissent, then.

Look, 13 judges considered this case, and exactly one — the district judge — thought that there was any problem with standing.

The state did question standing in opposing 303 Creative's cert petition, but in its merits brief it didn't bother to argue that. (Of course that's not determinative; you can't waive standing as a defense. But it's telling.)

[Bob from Ohio]

The libs on the court, unlike the lemmings here, at least recognize that lib groups use pre-enforcement challenges regularly.

[EscherEnigma]

How is it telling? If the court had serious doubts on standing, it would have denied cert. I mean, if they were going to dodge on the merits again, why bother granting cert in the first place?

[David Nieporent]

And yet, they DIG cases all the time. (I mean, a small percentage of cases, obviously, but it's 1 or 2 a term where that happens. If you argue against standing, that gives you two bites at the apple.) A cert grant means four justices wanted to hear it; it doesn't mean that five think there's standing.

[EscherEnigma]

So in your view it's "telling" because they didn't waste their time on a long-shot, and instead focused on the arguments they thought had a better chance?

Yeah, consider me unpersuaded. And here's a hint: if you want to persuade me, you should probably try something I don't know.

[David Nieporent]

I think it's pretty telling that they completely ignored a potentially winning argument, yes. It tells us that they didn't think it was a good argument.

And again: Sotomayor. Why didn't she (or either of the other two dissenters) raise the issue? Why did 12 of the 13 judges to consider this case simply not think that standing was a meaningful obstacle?

[EscherEnigma]

if you want to persuade me, you should probably try something I don’t know.

[David Nieporent]

Well, since your arguments are so bad, I assume you don't know the basic facts.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court in all likelihood granted cert because the majority disagrees with the Tenth Circuit on the merits -- lack of standing be damned. A ruling that the district court lacked Article III standing without reaching the merits would have resulted in a remand with instructions to dismiss the lawsuit. SCOTUS wanted to reach the merits, so it cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil. (A Man for All Seasons (1960).)

[David Nieporent]

Not to repeat myself, but that might explain the majority; it doesn't explain the dissenters. Why weren't there furious dissents claiming that the whole case was phony,¹ that cert should never have been granted, and that the case should be DIGed? Sotomayor, whatever else one thinks of her, is no shrinking violet. If she thought that standing was lacking, she'd have not been shy about saying so.

¹I'm not talking about the Steve inquiry. Just the supposed unlikeliness of enforcement.

[not guilty]

David, what do you contend that Adam Unikowsky gets wrong in his standing analysis?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If I may interject...

Since "Stewart and Mike" were clearly made up (lies) invented to bolster the standing argument, what are the consequences for the lawyers and plaintiff for knowingly filing false statements with the court?

[not guilty]

Knowingly asserting a falsehood to a court is serious misconduct by a lawyer. (Ask Rudy Giuliani.) Professional discipline could follow.

As to the plaintiffs, consequences are unlikely.

[David Nieporent]

If there were the slightest evidence that they knew it was false, they should be harshly punished. (That is, of course, assuming that it is false. What "Steve" told the New Republic is not, of course, sworn testimony.)

[David Nieporent]

Well, for one thing, he ignores the Communication part of Smith's plan. He's evaluating the chances she gets sued based on a completely random set of events. But she wants to explicitly say on her website that she doesn't do work for gay weddings. If she does post that, her chances of being sued no longer depend on an extended chain of unlikely hypothetical scenarios. Now she becomes a target like Jack Phillips.

(He doesn't ignore the Communication issue entirely, but he looks at it for a different reason. I agree with his argument that if her Accommodation argument fails, then so does her Communication one.)

Moreover, he's establishing a standard in which a pre-enforcement challenge effectively can't be brought if the issue is potential discrimination, even though he agrees that pre-enforcement challenges are legitimate.

Also, he spends a lot of time mocking 303 for the math on the Mike/Stewart thing, rather than mocking the state for its absurd argument that we just can't possibly know.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, could you elaborate on your statement, When SCOTUS wishes to further weaponize religious belief in the culture...; what exactly are you talking about? Not being facetious, I want to make sure I understand the genesis of the statement.

[not guilty]

Litigants claiming that their religious exercise is being impinged have recently become a favored class before the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S.Ct. 63 (2020); Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. ___ (2022); Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. __ (2023); Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022); Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. ___ (2021); American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019).

This special solicitude for religious litigants has coincided with the appointment to SCOTUS of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Bear It.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Bear It."

You might want to update the autocorrect on your phone? 🙂

[not guilty]

That was no autocorrect. I was lampooning one particular justice's participation in the atrocious Dobbs decision.

I remain surprised that the Dobbs court failed to cite Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), for the proposition that a woman has no right to reproductive autonomy vis-a-vis the all powerful state.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"For the reasons articulated by Mr. Unikowsky, the district court’s reasoning in denying standing to the plaintiffs is far and away more persuasive than the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning in approving standing."

Really? 303 Creative intended to communicate that they planned to offer services only to opposite-sex couples. Once they did that, anyone who wanted to see them punished (same sex couple or not, interested in a website or not) could request a site for a same-sex wedding, then file a complaint when they were turned down.

Far from being speculative, enforcement against 303 creative was a near-certainty.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yes, really.

Maybe you should try reading the argument you think you're refuting. You'd look at least a little less stupid.

"This allegation is an excellent illustration of how this is a fake case. Ordinary Earthlings trying to make a living, even those who don’t want to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, don’t enter the wedding website design business while proudly and publicly proclaiming on their websites that they won’t serve same-sex couples. The website design industry is fiercely competitive. 303 Creative is competing with thousands of designers, all over the world, some of which specialize in wedding websites.

Declaring “we don’t design websites for same-sex couples” is obviously going to be alienating to lots of potential customers. 303 Creative’s market will largely consist of people in their 20s and early 30s. Gallup reports that 89% of Americans aged 18-29 support same-sex marriage. And, I’d suspect that twentysomethings with enough disposable income to pay someone to design a wedding website are even more likely to support same-sex marriage. Most, maybe all, of those couples are going to be turned off by 303 Creative’s announcement. Why do this? Why not just politely decline in the unlikely event that a same-sex couple seeks your services? Obvious answer: in order to manufacture standing.

Anyway, the district court held that 303 Creative had standing to challenge the Communication Clause, but the challenge failed because (a) 303 Creative didn’t have a constitutional right to promise to do something illegal, i.e., violate the Accommodations Clause, and (b) it couldn’t argue that the Accommodations Clause wasn’t illegal under the First Amendment because it didn’t have standing to challenge the Accommodations Clause. As the court put it: “Allowing her to use a claim challenging the Communications Clause as a Trojan Horse to challenge the Accommodations clause indirectly would undermine the Court’s prior finding with regard to standing.”"

[John F. Carr]

Unlike the student loan case which involved a one-time event, the free speech case is very likely to come up again.

[Aunt Teefah]

The GOP primary has just begun, but it has already reached a fever pitch. One new ad declares Ron DeSantis to be "evil", and compares him to fictional serial killer and rapist Patrick Bateman. But this was not Trump engaged in his usual mudslinging (or "silly season", as some might say). It was the work of DeSantis himself.

The ad has to be seen to be believed: https://twitter.com/DeSantisWarRoom/status/1674899610379116546?

I'm sure this will have some appeal with the internet-addicted groyper contingent. But what the hell are all the mee-maws and pep-peps that populate Republican primaries supposed to do with this? Has there ever been a purported "serious candidate" for president who was as off-putting on an interpersonal level as DeSantis is?

[David Nieporent]

Has there ever been a purported “serious candidate” for president who was as off-putting on an interpersonal level as DeSantis is?

You mean other than his main opponent?

[not guilty]

Let's not forget Hillary Clinton.

[Aunt Teefah]

True, stiff competition. A lot of similarities between the two, actually. Both craven climbers who radiate evil. But she at least knew enough about political comms to not put out an ad like that.

[Nige]

'Radiate evil.' Well, that's subjective enough to be completely unfalsifiable.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

DeathSantis killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden…unlike Trump DeathSantis won’t stand up to the right wing echo chamber and just goes with the flow like when right wingers started rejecting Covid mitigation measures.

[Nige]

Realy? On a personal level? Is the scaling up for misogyny or bothsidism?

[Aunt Teefah]

Don't know what to tell you; sometimes two different politicians can both be bad. No misogyny or bothsidism, especially when they're both on the same side, at least when it comes to American aggression and war crimes. "We came, we saw, he died" and torturing prisoners in Gitmo are two faces of the same sickness.

[Nige]

They can indeed, but the question was about how they presented personally. I’m not sure I buy into the idea that the attempted interventions in North Africa, which were already in turmoil and being subjected to war crimes, were equivalent to the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions and the wholehearted embrace of torture by the Bush administration. It isn’t as if they had to manufacture evidence for their reasons or invent legal pretexts to torture people.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

McCain and Graham literally warned Qaddafi to his face that he would be killed if he gave the Lockerbie Bomber a hero’s welcome…Iraq and Afghanistan emboldened Qaddafi because he didn’t think we had the stomach to use military force in Libya. What we did in Libya is consistent with American values unlike Iraq and Afghanistan after 2002.

[Nige]

Still ended disastrously. Maybe that’s just being consistent, too.

(Though I blame the international community for not coming together and imposing sanctions, the more so since we've had a recent example of how effective that could have been, as well as Obama and Clinton for deciding they had no choice but to intervene.)

[Aunt Teefah]

I'd actually have to disagree. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, but there is no doubt that he has a certain charisma. Yes, he's incredibly gross both inside and out, but at least he's a skilled entertainer. DeSantis is just . . . nothing. A grievance-fueled careerist predator with no ability to relate to human beings.

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm sure those are good faith conclusions about Ron!

I do like the classics though, well done. Newer GOP politicians are always worse than the hated older ones.

[Aunt Teefah]

I make no claim of "good faith" as to Meatball Rob. But the conclusions are correct.

In terms of whether he's "worse", I doubt it. I suspect that a Trump or DeSantis administration would be essentially identical in terms of policy output. But at least Trump can be funny.

[EscherEnigma]

You don't find a man openly lusting after his own daughter to be off-putting?

[grb]

Aunt Teefah : "DeSantis is just . . . nothing"

Yep. You take random stunts, gimmicks, and cheap theatrics. Mix in petty malice as a bonding agent. Press the resulting glop into a human-shape mold.

That's DeSantis.

[SRG]

Has there ever been a purported “serious candidate” for president who was as off-putting on an interpersonal level as DeSantis is?

This guy?

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you actually MET DeSantis? I have. He's about the most ordinary guy (major party!) candidate for President I've ever met.

Now, Cruz? Sheesh, he was so oleaginous I was surprised he wasn't leaving an oil slick everywhere he went.

[Sarcastr0]

Being a good retail politician hasn't been enough for quite some time.

DeSantis comes across extraordinarily awkward on TV. I agree he's not really top 5 most off-putting, but he's pretty bad.

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm sure those are good faith conclusions!

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for calling me a liar, but I don't require every judgement to be tested by my partisanship. Maybe I'm biased, but I'm not in bad faith.

You never seem to understand this trait in other people.

[Bob from Ohio]

Pull the other one.

The idea that you are above partisanship is just stupid. I realize you shtick is "reasonable lib" but we don't have to buy it.

[Sarcastr0]

"Maybe I’m biased, but I’m not in bad faith" is not a statement that I'm above partisanship.

I'm just above the depths you willingly wallow in.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don’t require every judgement to be tested by my partisanship" doesn't mean "above partisanship"?

[Sarcastr0]

I see you don't understand the difference between having a bias and intentionally lying.

Seems about right.

[TwelveInchPianist]

When you do it, it's at most having bias.

When people on the other side do it, you think they're intentionally lying.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, TiP. That's what I said.
I'm so well known for calling other commenters liars!

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're known for gaslighting, but poo-flinging is a close second.

[Sarcastr0]

Joining the crew who doesn’t know what gaslight means.

What an asshole you have become. Back in time out for you.

[Life of Brian]

Ackshully, inferring that you don't routinely call other commenters liars is a splendid example of your wont for gaslighting.

[SRG]

One who I instantly reacted adversely to, though initially not too many others seemed to, was Carly Fiorina. When I first saw her in a candidates' debate my initial reaction was, she might just as well walk around the stage with a sign saying, "I'm a sociopath". I thought it was almost ridiculously obvious. But apparently not.

[Brett Bellmore]

I had more or less the same reaction to Bill Clinton. Actually bothered me, because I wasn't comfortable having such a strong visceral reaction to somebody.

[EscherEnigma]

Let's be fair here.

If you're on the stage for a presidential primary debate, you are a sociopath. Every single one of them, both sides. You just don't get there without being a sociopath.

Well, maybe not third-party candidates. After all, if they were serious they wouldn't be third party. So the requirements are different.

But any Democrat or Republican on a primary or general debate stage for the presidential election? Sociopath. Full stop. If you think otherwise, you're either naive or engaging in motivated reasoning.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Sociopath. Full stop."

And to think people say I'm nihilistic

They are just egotists.

[EscherEnigma]

You just confused nihilism with cynicism.

[Bob from Ohio]

Cynical is what idiots call realists.

[EscherEnigma]

You know, calling me an idiot realist might be the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

I see very little evidence that Rand Paul is a sociopath. I mean, pro bono eye surgery does not really fit that profile.

I might follow you reasoning if you said narcissist, because you pretty much have to be one to think you're up to being President.

[ducksalad]

I mean, pro bono eye surgery does not really fit that profile.

Ah, but that's exactly what he wants you to think! He probably does the evil scientist laugh after every successful surgery.

[Sarcastr0]

If you’re on the stage for a presidential primary debate, you are a sociopath. Every single one of them, both sides. You just don’t get there without being a sociopath.

Nah, this is facile bullshit.
It's a strong American tradition to shit on politicians, and this is just more of that. No real truth value, just vibes.

[ducksalad]

Agreed on Cruz up until 2018 or so.

Then he seemed to realize he’d peaked and didn’t need to put on the slick 24/7. Grew a beard, more relaxed posture, almost a slouch, wants to be left alone when on vacation, sometimes almost seems like he’s giving his real opinion rather than calculating what to say. Still would never vote for him but he seems less fake.

[Brett Bellmore]

Met him at a candidate forum back in 2016, so that's plausible.

[not guilty]

Newt Gingrich?

[Ben_]

"…off-putting on an interpersonal level …"

Why are Democrats so shallow? When did you all decide you wanted to be like middle school mean girls?

Remember when Democrats used to talk about helping out poor people? There used to be a core part of the Democrat party that actually cared about something besides grifting and attacking and punishing Americans. That was a long time ago.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why are Democrats so shallow? "

Why do birds fly?

He's just repeating the current propaganda line. Its a transparent effort to help get Trump nominated.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ha ha classic! DeSantis is getting crushed by Trump, and it's all because of Democratic propaganda.

[Bob from Ohio]

"crushed"?

We've had primaries already?

[Aunt Teefah]

I'm quite certain Trump can handle himself fine in the GOP primaries (which he is leading by over 30 points in the polls) without my contributions to the Volokh Conspiracy comments section.

[Aunt Teefah]

Why are Democrats so shallow? When did you all decide you wanted to be like middle school mean girls?

"Teacher, teacher, they're being mean! Whatever happened to civility and decorum??
Anyway, as I was saying, here's why trans people and immigrants need to be eradicated . . ."

Do you honestly think anyone is actually buying your bullshit?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male,
conservative blog
has operated for

ZERO (0)

days without using a vile racial slur
(these guys haven't even made it past four hours)
and has published vile racial slurs in at least

NINETEEN (19)

different contexts (that is 19 different discussions,
not 19 racial slurs — many of the relevant exchanges
featured multiple racial slurs) during 2023 (so far).

(This assessment does not address the number
of homophobic, antisemitic, misogynistic,
xenophobic, and Islamophobic slurs, and other
incessant expressions of bigotry, that constitute
a signature element of the Volokh Conspiracy.)

---------The Volokh Conspiracy's everyday display
of habitual conservative bigotry is brought
to you, in large part, by the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies. --------

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dear Diary,

Today my feelings were hurt with violence words. I'm about to cry. I wish the DOJ would stop people from hurting my feelings so much.

Sincerely,
Your man, Artie.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Artie was censored (with prejudice) by the Volokh Conspiracy Board of Censors for poking fun at conservatives.

I am Arthur.

More important, I defend the Volokh Conspiracy's entitlement to publish as much bigoted content -- including the habitual use of vile racial slurs -- as these white, male, conservative bloggers and their right-wing followers choose. Hypocritical bigots have rights, too. But not the right to avoid having others call a bigot a bigot.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dear Diary,

My feelings keep getting hurt by more word violence. I have uncontrollable shakes and will spend another day hiding in my closet. Someone needs to do something about all this violence!

XOXOXO,
Arthur The Brave

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Dear Mainstream (including UCLA, Georgetown, and a few others),

We can be as bigoted as we like at the Volokh Conspiracy, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Uh . . . right?

FU FU FU FU
The Volokh Conspirators and their carefully cultivated fanbase

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dear Diary,

I am about to have a meltdown! No no words are appearing on my screen and no one is saving me from this violence!

Please send someone to make me feel S.A.F.E.!

Panicking,
Arthur the Strong

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'll settle for winning the culture war and watching every one of you right-wing culture war casualties be stomped into irrelevance and replaced by your betters as my country continues to improve against conservative efforts and Republican preferences.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What do intrastate migration patterns and billion Culture War Casualties like Bud Light, Target, and now Unilever say about the looming victors?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Open wider, clingers. In America, the record establishes, our bigots don't win, and current batch of bigots is nothing special.

[Ben_]

Words: bad. Getting law enforcement to kidnap or kill people who are not like you: totally cool. They’re The Good Guys!

[Nige]

Words: bad, so bad, you have to add them to what the person said and then pretend he actually said them!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Consider this hypothetical:

A bunch of homosexuals are at a bookstore and they are plotting how to groom some kids at an upcoming Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library.

Trump's DOJ sends some agents to the bookstore and suggests to the bookstore owner that the homosexuals are engaging in harmful speech and he should remove them from his establishment. The store owner kicks out the conspiring homosexuals but lets the ones in the glory holes stay.

Was anyone's rights violated?

[not guilty]

“A bunch of homosexuals are at a bookstore and they are plotting how to groom some kids at an upcoming Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library.
“Trump’s DOJ sends some agents to the bookstore and suggests to the bookstore owner that the homosexuals are engaging in harmful speech and he should remove them from his establishment. The store owner kicks out the conspiring homosexuals but lets the ones in the glory holes stay.
“Was anyone’s rights violated?”

Let’s break that down. Assuming the bookstore is a private entity, the owner has the right to exclude others from the premises. So no, the “conspirators’” rights were not violated.

Whether the owner’s rights were violated depends on whether the agents made unlawful threats of official reprisal to him. See, Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963).

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What if they went around and got all the bookstores and bathhouses to expel gays?

[Krychek_2]

*Were* anyone's rights violated.

[Ben_]

It depends on which people involved are the most special. Rights are only meaningful based on grievance hierarchy status.

[Nige]

Are the special people you and BCD who demand to be taken seriously on a moral and intellectual level?

[Krychek_2]

And when it comes to grievances, hoo boy do you and BCD have them. I don't see how you walk around with those heavy chips on your shoulders.

[Ben_]

You guys change the subject to personal attacks when you have nothing to say.

[Krychek_2]

Here's what I have to say: White, right wing grievances are mostly absurd -- every once in a while you guys have a legitimate complaint but not often -- and is mostly whining about how unfair life is. You would not willingly trade places with a black man, likely even a rich and powerful one, because you know in your gut that white privilege really is a thing. All you do is complain about any attempt to repair past damage done by real racism to minorities.

So go ahead and continue to amuse yourselves if it makes you feel better.

[Ben_]

That’s not the subject, so you still appear to have nothing to say.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben, the comment he was replying to was purely a personal attack.

A formulaic one at that.

[Ben_]

^ Posts like this are why people consider you dishonest.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "It depends on which people involved are the most special. Rights are only meaningful based on grievance hierarchy status."

Also you: "You guys change the subject to personal attacks when you have nothing to say."

You are a hypocrite. Though that comes along with being such a tool.
The folks that call me dishonest are not those into considering much of anything; I am not concerned with them.

FWIW, I don't think you're dishonest, just too angry to worry much about what's true.

[Ben_]

You felt personally attacked by the words "grievance hierarchy"

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, I'm just not a moron and know who you were talking about.

So do you.

[Ben_]

Apparently the shoe fits you then.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the journal removed the study within 24 hours.

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/06/lancet-study-on-covid-vaccine-autopsies-finds-74-were-caused-by-vaccine-journal-removes-study-within-24-hours/

Eat shit, vaxxies.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Rare link between coronavirus vaccines and Long Covid–like illness starts to gain acceptance

https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-link-between-coronavirus-vaccines-and-long-covid-illness-starts-gain-acceptance

lol get fucked you vaxx maxx boosted morons

[jb]

Assuming that the study is methodologically sound (which apparently the folks at the Lancet think it is not), it seems to be saying 74% of deaths identified as being linked to the vaccine in other studies were actually related to the Covid vaccine. I guess that's somewhat useful to understand the validity of those other studies, but the study is not identifying a hidden batch of vaccine deaths that no one has heard of before.

[Moderation4ever]

I like to know a little more about the reason for the drop. The lead author here is an epidemiology student. That doesn't mean the paper is bad, but it seems a pretty controversial conclusion to come from a student and not a researcher. I would note that the paper had a pretty heavy list of contributors and I wonder why the student got first author.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You'd be surprised how many students are first authors. It's not uncommon.

[Moderation4ever]

Surprise me with a number?

My checks from a 2020 NSB report states that about 8% of undergraduate participate in research that get published. That is participates, not first author. I would be less surprised by Mr. Hulscher's paper if this was an undergraduate journal, but we are talking Lancet and that pretty far up the chain.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You didn't say "undergraduate" in the first comment.

In my experience, undergraduates are not very common first authors.

[Don Nico]

Did you look at the Author Credit Statement?
"First author" in a non-alphabetical author list typically means that the person did the bulk of the research analysis and writing. While it would be unusual, it is certainly possible that a senior graduate student could be first author. It is also the case that the other authors take responsibility for everything in the paper, UNLESS expressly noted in the text or footnote.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Student as first author;
1: They are trying to help the kid build a CV.
2: None of them are first author, with the rest not.

The latter is part of how MLK2 came to lead the civil rights movement -- none of the established ministers would tolerate one of their competitors getting the lead role, but "letting the kid do it" wasn't a judgment of any of them.

[Nige]

'Eat shit, vaxxies.'

Those mountains of vaxx-related deaths still remaining elusive, eh?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Just look to Hawaii as it has the lowest natural immunity with highest vaccinated immunity….nothing out of the ordinary going on in Hawaii as millions of Covid infected mainlanders have traveled there the last 15 months.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://brownstone.org/articles/cdc-altered-death-certificates/

In almost every death certificate that identifies a covid vaccine as a cause of death, the CDC committed data fraud by not assigning the ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects to the causes of death listed on the death certificate.

[Nige]

You literally tied yourself in a knot with that one.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It explains where much of the evidence went.

Covered up by the Big Pharma-loving Democrats at the CDC.

D'uh.

[Nige]

You didn't even read your own comment.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You were looking for the mountains of vaxx related deaths. I showed you evidence of the CDC burying mountains of vaxx related deaths.

And now you are crying and suggesting I'm the one whose confused.

Good grief.

[Nige]

No, you didn't. Your own comment contradicts your thesis.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not a mountain, though it does appear that they did have a policy of refusing to assign that code.

[M L]

French police should be able to spy on suspects by remotely activating the camera, microphone and GPS of their phones and other devices, lawmakers agreed late Wednesday.

https://www.barrons.com/news/france-set-to-allow-police-to-spy-through-phones-b21f1f21

[ducksalad]

Wonder how long it'll be before it's illegal to:

(1) buy a SIM card for cash without showing ID.
(2) modify your phone to add physical disable switches for the microphone and GPS.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is it POSSIBLE to disable the GPS? Isn't it also using tower triangulation?

[ducksalad]

You are screwed on evading the tower triangulation if you want to actually use your phone in a densely-served urban area. In theory you could lower your signal level until only one tower can pick it up but that’s an enormous hassle, would require continuous adjusting as you move around (or really good hacking skills), would kill your data rate, and make calls much less reliable.

The GPS is usually a separate chip on the board. If you want to permanently kill it, don’t care about the warranty, and have an $80 reflow solder station you can pull the chip. Or even carefully cut some traces with an Exacto knife under a microscope. (Until too many people do this, and they update the firmware to disable the phone entirely if it detects missing GPS functionality.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Interesting Daily Beast article

"Conference Apologizes for White Professor’s ‘Very Public Racism’"

Banner, who was named in the statement, doubled down after saying that she didn’t feel as though her whiteness had benefited her in her career, a witness in the audience told The Daily Beast on Sunday night.

As discomfort and revulsion swept through the room, Banner insisted that she was in her eighties and that her mind would not be changed,

These academics sound like a bunch of serious, scholarly folks.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A White dumbass who claims she would have had an easier time professionally during the 1950s and 1960s had she been Black and a lesbian? Maybe that's just the senility talking.

Or maybe she is just auditioning for Volokh Conspiracy Dream Girl, or a plum position at the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, or DeSantis campaign?

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you think she's wrong? Could be. It happens.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How do law professors attract an audience this dumb and disaffected?

By being the Volokh Conspirators.

Carry on, clingers.

[David Nieporent]

The issue, of course, isn't whether she's right or wrong. The issue is the insane reaction reported by the Daily Beast.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Neil Delamere, Irish comedian, on The Bugle podcast:

U.S. Republican politicians are a lot like competitive swimmers. They are only in it for themselves, and they are obsessed with eliminating drag.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hope he has a day job.

[Nige]

After all the efforts at cocaine jokes, some humility is in order.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He doesn't need one, he's a massively successful comedian, award-winning documentary writer and presenter, and BBC on-air personality. I'm sure he appreciates your concern, though.

[Bob from Ohio]

"massively successful comedian"

Unknown in the US. The US is the Majors dude, Ireland is just Single A.

[santamonica811]

Dude, it is a reasonably funny line. Not as good as "American beer = making love in a canoe," but close enough.

[Nige]

If he was a shitty but succesful US entertainer you'd elect him president.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Unknown in the US. The US is the Majors dude, Ireland is just Single A."

I don't think he's exactly unknown here. And he is big all over the UK and Ireland, he appears on the BBC regularly. And he's very funny, and he doesn't just lampoon the right. But whatever, humor is a subjective thing.

[santamonica811]

Al,
What is a presenter? I've heard the term before, but I have no idea what he or she actually does. (I'm picturing the pretty men and women on "The Price is Right," who model the various prizes, but that can't be what you're referring to, yes?)

[Bob from Ohio]

Its "host".

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It’s used in UK and maybe Canada.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, sorry, it means he is the narrator and host of the documentary.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If news breaks that drugs were found in the White House, and everyone, and I mean everyone collective says the name of the President's crackhead, druggie son.

Does that mean decency has returned to the White House?

[Nige]

Was the story of the prodigal son a parable about decency?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Nope. It was about Jews and Gentiles. To bad they don’t allow real bibles in China, you might be a better person.

[not guilty]

About Jews and Gentiles? Where do you get that? The parable was told by an observant Jewish teacher to an audience of (Jewish) Pharisees and scribes.

Presumably the swineherder who hired the younger son was a Gentile, but how is that in any way central to the story?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The older son represents the Old Covenant Jews, while the prodigal son represents New Covenant Gentiles/Chosen whose sins are forgiven and are welcomed into salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ as represented by the father.

Much to the chagrin and envy of the Old Covenant Jews. Chagrin and envy that still endures.

[not guilty]

Again, where do you get that? The audience was Pharisees and scribes, who were kvetching about Jesus receiving and eating with sinners. Jesus's ministry during His time on earth was to Jews, mostly in Galilee and Judea. His message was not preached to Gentiles until after His death and resurrection, when Peter went to visit Cornelius in Caesarea. Why would Jesus talk about Gentiles to the Pharisees and scribes?

[not guilty]

BCD, do you make shit up with religion, just as you do with law?

[Nige]

An anti-semite replaces bible text with his own made-up allegories.

[Nige]

Neither 'Jews' nor 'Gentiles' appears in the relevant parts of any bible I've read. Was Abraham sacrificing Isaac another father-son bible story about Jews and Gentiles?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Any theories on how MTG and AOC went from broke to having net worths north of $30M in less than four years as politicians?

Is the surest way to get rich in America these days is to become a Federal?

[jb]

I don't know what MTG's net worth is, but it looks like AOC may still have a negative net worth. Not sure where your $30M hallucination is coming from:

https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-pdfs/2021/10046833.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

AOC is not worth $30M. You been lied to again.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/apr/03/facebook-posts/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-isnt-worth-29-million-her/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which is worse -- this blog's deluded, ignorant, disingenuous, bigoted target audience, or the people who cultivate these antisocial, worthless right-wingers as an audience?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dear Diary,

Today my feelings got hurt again because someone believed something naughty about BIPOC. That violence is genocide against our most sacred and important population. I hope the government forbids these no-no thoughts to save humanity from Climate Change.

Tearfully yours,
Arthur w/a Dash of Hope and a Sprinkle of Faith

[Nige]

Today you got caught out in another lie. Like every other day.

[SRG]

Radley Balko on the Lafayette Park clearance:

https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-attorney-general-is-here-we-gotta

Trump not only knew the park was being cleared as he gave the speech that preceded his walk to the church, he boasted about it.

This gets at why this whole debate is so ridiculous. Trump wanted those images of protesters getting beaten and gassed — and wanted them juxtaposed with his triumphant stroll to the church. He wanted to be seen as the strongman unafraid to dispatch heavily armed troops to rough up a few unarmed radicals to impose order. That’s what his supporters wanted, too. The idea that the timing was entirely coincidental and this was actually about fencing is just farcical.

But this is also why it’s important to set the record straight, and not allow a clearly inaccurate narrative to linger. In addition to his fondness for strongmen, Trump has a history of prodding his supporters to commit political violence against his critics. As I write this, news just broke that the armed Trump supporter arrested outside the Obama home last month got the idea after Trump posted the Obamas’ address on his social media site. The same guy was also at the January 6th riots.

Trump doesn’t just proclaim that his political opponents are wrong, he calls them traitors and criminals who ought to be in prison. Trump believes a president’s relationship with federal law enforcement agencies is akin to that of a mob boss and his goons — that they exist to do his bidding. There’s also his weird habit of claiming bikers, cops, and troops are ready and eager to rise up in his defense should he ask them to.

This was all on display at Lafayette Park. It was a clumsy and desperate plea for attention, and Trump got exactly what he wanted. He got to show — at least in his own mind — that he was tough, that he faced down the protesters, that he reclaimed the streets. He got to accuse the media of spreading false information to boot. And he was never held to account for any of it.

Trump now knows he can get away with using federal police agencies to inflict violence for his political benefit. It’s a pretty safe bet that if he’s re-elected, he’ll do it again.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If Balko thinks the debate is so ridiculous, then why is he still participating in it?

I think most people think Trump looked ridiculous standing in front of the church holding the Bible like it was burning his skin, but that was a long time ago. In this narrative-driven media environment, no way we ever figure out what the absolute truth is. Why waste time on this?

[SRG]

A debate may be ridiculous, the underlying facts not.

In this narrative-driven media environment, no way we ever figure out what the absolute truth is.

This seems to be a popular theme at the moment - and oddly enough, turns up in the series "The Undeclared War".

It's an admission not merely of failure, but of a reluctance to put any thought or effort into discerning the truth.

[Nige]

He explains his reasons right there in the comment. Perhaps one of the reasons for the ridiculousness of the debate is the refusal to actually read what is written.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What is "chestfeeding" and why is the CDC publishing information for males on how to do it?

[not guilty]

Perhaps for the benefit of infants who would otherwise go unfed?

[ThePublius]

You are insane.

[Sarcastr0]

Trenchant!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Weee wooo weeee woooo weeee wooo!

Just in the nick of time to comment about the comment!

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, this is a thing I do. It is also a thing you do. just did, in fact!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Human males cannot breastfeed human children.

This is biology 101.

[SRG]

Because their milk isn't nutritious enough. not because they can't produce it.

[Sarcastr0]

BCD admitting trans women exist without realizing it!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Explain.

[Nige]

Imagine living in your world where anything different is either to be feared, or to be targeted to exploit the fears of others.