Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Michael P]

It looks like Texas has granted Bill Clinton's wish of "safe, legal and rare": https://www.lifenews.com/2023/09/07/texas-has-just-17-abortions-in-2023-abortion-ban-saves-tens-of-thousands-of-babies/

[JasonT20]

Hmm, Meatloaf thought two out of three ain't bad. Only in Texas could anyone think one out of three is even better.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

You don't see the abortions which you don't see.

[Frank Drackman]

Meatloaf was the best part of "the Rocky Horror Picture Show"
well, after Susan Sarandon's breasts.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Why only tens of thousands? Why not hundreds of thousands? It doesn't cost anything to imagine a large number of saved babies. Why not make it a million?

[Michael P]

Why that number? Because some of us know how to count and how to look things up. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/09/texas-abortions-by-the-numbers/

[hobie]

Michael, I'm proud of you. You finally quoted a nonpartisan news source.

[Nelson]

I join in congratulating you, Michael P. Personal growth should always be acknowledged.

[Michael P]

Partisan sources in your books: ABC, CBS, and pittnews dot com.

That says something about you, not me.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually it's about 70 million fewer Afro-Amuricans since 1973, of course you have to calculate for how many babies the aborted females would have had (I've heard living females tend to have babies) Oldest aborted baby would only be 53, so most of them would still be alive.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Exactly the outcome Margaret Sanger wanted....

[Nelson]

"It doesn’t cost anything to imagine a large number of saved babies."

Just individual liberty, privacy, and bodily autonomy. And how valuable are those things, anyway? We can trust the government to make those decisions for us, right?

[shawn_dude]

And "saved" in what way? Destined for a life of poverty and a higher likelihood of turning to crime? Destined to stretch a family's resources even thinner leading to worse outcomes for older siblings?

Maybe use all those anti-abortion resources to truly save already born children by lifting their families out of abject poverty and giving them a fighting chance at a healthy life and good future.

[M L]

Intelligent for a toad . . . meaning really, really dumb.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

You all are missing the point. There is no way to count illegal abortions, because everyone involved hides them. So you can imagine whatever numbers you wish.

[John F. Carr]

If you want to count more accurately, a few of the survivors were aborted in blue states instead. Massachusetts had a couple hundred extra women coming from out of state to get abortions.

[shawn_dude]

And un/under-reported pharmaceutical abortions where the medication arrived in unmarked packages. Then round it off with numbers on any increases in emergency room visits for women with symptoms indicative of DIY abortions.

[Michael P]

The whole "defund the police" movement realizes now that they were a bad joke. https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/09/anti-cop-minnesota-dem-leader-wants-tougher-crime-laws-after-violent-carjacking/

[Michael Ejercito]

Of course.

Note that the same side that said "defund the police", that accused of the police of hunting down and gunning down unarmed Black men, the same side that accused of the criminal justice system of being systemically racist...

...is the same side that advocates for stricter gun control laws which would be enforced by these very same police in this very same system.

[Nige]

But you don't think that, so you must be okay wth it.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot missing the hypocricy detector chip

[Stella Link the dog]

Mengele experiences another SIGSEGV

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Maine State Police have announced that they are no longer going to patrol Washington County and other parts of rural Maine.

See: https://themainemonitor.org/washington-county-seeks-answers-to-lighter-police-presence/

[Kazinski]

Probably better that way. The county sheriff is should be the primary law enforcement officer, not depend on the state.

Maine is one of the safest states, and also a constitutional carry state, I think Mainers are well equipped to adapt to more local control over law enforcement.

[Frank Drackman]

also only 1.9% Afro-Amurican, not that that's related to crime or anything.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Hey Dr. ” I know a shitload of Massachusetts history” Ed.
I visited the Parker House this weekend for coffee with an acquaintance who has worked there for a decade. I mentioned your claim to her and we inspected the plaques. There are two. One commemorates Boston Latin. The other is a list of notable dates in its history. Neither says anything about geography, much less the North End. I just don’t understand how you lie, over and over, even when you know what you say is easily proven to be a lie; you just come back a couple days later with another one.
Completely without explanation.
DMN wondered along these lines a few years ago and came up empty. As he’s probably brighter than me it’s pointless to try to continue his efforts.
You are a disgrace to New England.

[David Nieporent]

You are a disgrace to New England.

Surely just to Maine and Massachusetts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did you look on the ground? It might be set into the sidewalk.

Next time I am in there --- and it will be a while, I will take a picture of the damn thing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, you won’t.

[Nelson]

Most of us realized that from the get-go.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is there any evidence the conservatives who wanted to defund the FBI and other law enforcement agencies for protecting our Capitol against insurrectionists and investigating Trump-related misconduct have developed any self-awareness?

This blog should be known as Geno's Crab Shack -- its disaffected right-wing fans are especially crabby this morning. Must be the passage of few weeks in which the proprietor has not published at least one vile racial slur.

Carry on, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

Again with the Klingers Carrying on,
if I didn't know you were Disgraced Rape-ist and Mediocre College Foo-bawl defensive coach Jerry Sandusky I'd swear you were Barry Hussein Osama,
You always this arrogant after your old employer opens a can of Whup-Ass on those West Virginia Hillbillies?

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I’d swear you were Barry Hussein Osama

These are your carefully cultivated fans, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason America's better law schools have probably learned to stop hiring movement conservatives for faculty positions.

But don't worry . . . if tenure isn't enough to preserve your current positions, Liberty, Regent, Ave Maria, South Texas College Of Law Houston, and maybe George Mason will be in the market for disaffected culture war casualties alienated by all of this damned reason, progress, modernity, inclusiveness, and science. Maybe Oral Roberts or Bob Jones will start a law school, too!

[Jimmy the Dane]

There was no "insurrection" and the media only rediscovered the word "riot" magically on January 6th. That is also the day that they magically stopped their hatred of police and went on a lovefest for law enforcement.

If you can't see that you are being clowned by the left, then you must be blind at this point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The convictions for seditious conspiracy indicate you are mistaken.

Your record indicates you are a delusional, bigoted misfit.

But the Volokh Conspirators love having you around!

[Randal]

That is also the day that they magically stopped their hatred of police and went on a lovefest for law enforcement.

No, that day was November 3, 2020.

[Ben_]

She will either repudiate her Facebook post and go back to being pro-crime or lose her position in Democratic Party politics.

[Michael P]

People should probably stop listening to Laurence Tribe, but leftists will keep going to him for their rage-driven endorphin fix and consistently bad take on laws and constitutionality: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/09/08/ragefully-wrong-a-response-to-professor-laurence-tribe/

[santamonica811]

You may be making a fair point re Tribe's objectivity (or lack thereof). But relying on a whore like Turley is hardly helpful . . . he's now a reliable apologist for almost All-Things-Trump on Fox News. Lots of more-credible sources out there.

[Michael P]

Do you have any substantive rebuttal of his position(s), or are you just proving his point about name-calling and empty invective?

[Sarcastr0]

If you read the comment, it was explicit not taking issue with the substance.

You come in here posting shit sources looking for a fight, sometimes people will note that your media diet is calibrated to make you angry and wrong.

[Michael P]

That's hilarious, seeing as how you regularly get caught lying in the comments here.

[Sarcastr0]

Neato deflection. You're just really excited about fighting about anything this morning, eh?

The people who call me a liar are not very good at posting examples. Or understanding what gaslight means.

[Michael P]

I have better things to do than keep a log of the times you've embarrassed yourself and your side here. But I guess you realized that calling Turley a "whore" was too stupid to be defensible, so maybe that's something to be satisfied with.

[Sarcastr0]

So you have nothing and now are bringing in comments I didn’t make.

Did you just make a list of partisan crap to slam into the open thread on Monday or what?

[Michael P]

Yawn. You jumped in to white-knight poisoning a well, not thinking that it would work better if you actually had something to criticize.

That comment about deflection was hella projection, huh.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, you accuse me of something you just did in this threads, but you bring no examples.

You wanted santamonica811 to coming in with a tu quoque, but he explicitly declaimed that fallacy. So did I.
We are both criticizing you, not your argument. This seems hard for you to deal with.

[Michael P]

Lie harder, Gaslight0, we can all read right up there where SM811 tried to poison the well and you decided to attack me instead of addressing substance.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Turley has become a clownish attention whore.

Like just about any whore, though, he can find a market. Lesser Americans are lining up for his services!

[Frank Drackman]

"Hella"?? 2002 called, wants it's Hipster slang back,
"Bro"

Frank

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael P,

"Lie harder, Gaslight0, we can all read right up there where SM811 tried to poison the well and you decided to attack me instead of addressing substance."

1. Please describe the substance of the supposed lie Sarcastro told in this thread.

2. What do you mean by suggesting santamonica811 "tried to poison the well"? What well? What poison? He noted the substance of your criticism of Tribe's objectivity ("or lack thereof") was possibly fair. He noted that Turley was no more objective in that he has similarly found profit in being the go-to talking head for Fox as a Trump apologist with a law degree.

3. "You decided to attack me..." My, aren't you sensitive. Turley is a shit source, especially given he's in the midst of an internet spat with Tribe. This thread demonstrates you are looking for a fight. And, given you regularly, and nearly exclusively, post slanted, outrage stoking sources, I think it's a fair characterization that "your media diet is calibrated to make you angry and wrong."

*Your original post was just hating on a liberal commentator for hire by citing a conservative commentator for hire.

**As to being wrong, recall we had a multi-day argument in which you finally admitted, contrary to your original assertion, that Black patients were harmed by the use of circa 1999-2003 "race conscious" formulas to determine who gets kidney transplants.

[Michael P]

Wow, are you STILL going on about that racist decision to change how kidney disease is scored? You spent most of those several days pointing to a single study as proof that a different mechanism (not one that was standard in the US before or now) was less racist against Black Americans — and ignoring the fact that you had NO basis to make that claim because that study only included Caucasians! The only thing I admitted there was that you are too damned stupid to understand why you were thoroughly wrong the whole time.

But here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael P,

I noticed, and I hope everyone else does, that you didn't deny that you ended up admitting (because you had to because even you were citing studies that supported that point) that the initial point you entered the comment thread asserting was wrong and that, in fact, the old formula did harm Black patients.

You are now misrepresenting what went on during the "several days". But it's enough you admitted the truth then and don't deny it now. I can't realistically expect more from you.

Nobody asked for the definition of poison the well. I asked what you though the well was and what you thought the poison was in this thread. But I'll take your misdirection as if I, or anyone else, doesn't understand the "poison the well" metaphor that, in fact, you have misused it here and there was neither poison, nor well, just a comment you didn't like.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And just to be clear about Michael P's misrepresentation:

One of Michael P's comments:

"If a study doesn’t include Black people, it’s irrelevant to the point at hand? You could at least try to not live down to the “Only Black Lives Matter” stereotype. I cited that study because it shows how Europeans recognize that the 2021 CKD-EPI equation is terribly biased. See also https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/987711 ."

Michael P cited the study that didn't involve Black participants. SMH.

But here's a recap for anyone interested:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/04/19/race-and-kidney-transplants-a-brief-rejoinder-to-dr-stanley-goldfarb/?comments=true#comment-10029306

It details how Michael P consistently tries to change the subject even when, or maybe especially when, he has proved himself wrong.

[M L]

Michael P: Post a cogent link with many good points.

Braindead leftists: Ad hominem blather ad nauseam, zero substantive response.

Read one comment subthread and you've read them all.

[M L]

Sounds like Tribe needs to be locked up!

That's how we are doing this now right?

[Michael P]

University of Pittsburgh finds out that "freedom of speech" means they can't charge conservative groups $18,000 in fees that they don't charge to other groups. Quelle surprise! https://pittnews.com/article/182093/news/pitt-no-longer-requiring-college-republicans-to-pay-for-security-fees-following-knowles-event/

[hobie]

Michael, do you and not_guilty set your alarms each Monday? Also, how do you get into a partisan lather so quickly? Do you at least have a cup of coffee first?

[Michael P]

Look at you, thinking the First Amendment is a partisan topic.

[David Nieporent]

Um, you're the one who described it partisanly. You could've said "'freedom of speech' means they can’t charge some groups $18,000 in fees that they don’t charge to other groups," as if security costs weren't a common tactic by authorities to dissuade people from staging controversial events, but instead you decided to make it about "conservative groups."

[Nelson]

To be fair, anything that slightly inconveniences cultural conservatives is an outrage to Michael P. Anything that actually infringes on the rights of those he opposes is A-OK, though.

But cut him some slack. He just learned that you can obtain information and post articles that don't come from the lunatic fringe. He's growing as a person.

Baby steps.

[hobie]

Nelson, I agree. Enough with the rancor. Today we welcome MichaelP...our newest member in the Brotherhood of Veracity. What? Too far?

[Michael P]

If you had another example of a group that they charged $18,000 in fees to, maybe your rewording would make sense. But you don't, so it doesn't.

[Joe_dallas]

The conserviative group got charged the extra fee because that was the cost of the extra security needed to protect the speaker and event against the left wing mobs that threatened violence. The extra fee should have been charged against the groups advocacting the violence or the ones committing the violence.

[Randal]

Well, it looks like the security fee is standard, so in that sense, every other group.

The University is characterizing the astoundingly-high $18,000 as a mistake. Who knows if that’s true, but it could be. They immediately rescinded it on notice.

So in other words, congratulations on another partisan nothingburger shitpost, Michael Pichael!

[Kazinski]

Interesting polling released by CNN this week: “CNN — President Joe Biden faces continued headwinds from broadly negative job ratings overall, widespread concerns about his age and decreased confidence among Democratic-aligned voters, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS.

There is no clear leader in a potential rematch between Biden and former President Donald Trump, who is widely ahead in the GOP primary. And nearly half of registered voters (46%) say that any Republican presidential nominee would be a better choice than Biden in 2024.”

The real surprise to me isn’t how Biden would do against Trump, but how he would do against the also rans in the GOP pack:

Trump 47 – 46 DeSantis (47% – each)
Mike Pence (46% Pence, 44% Biden),
Tim Scott (46% Scott, 44% Biden),
Vivek Ramaswamy (46% Biden, 45% Ramaswamy),
Chris Christie (44% Christie, 42% Biden).

And the clear winner Nikki Haley 49% to Biden 43%.

But even probably the least liked politician in America, Chris Christie leads Biden by 2 points.

As I said a week or 2 ago Haley might be the best GOP candidate to lower the national temperature. Be interesting to have two Indians square off Haley v Harris.

Its becoming pretty clear Biden is no longer viable as a candidate. Here is a Hindustan times report on Biden’s press conference in Vietnam:

“President Joe Biden wrapped up his first trip to Asia as president with a press conference in Vietnam that was marred by rambling answers, awkward jokes, and a nap request.This unexpected turn of events was marked by the commanding voice of his press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, who interjected, “Thank you, everybody. This ends the press conference. Thanks, everyone,” swiftly bringing the press conference to an abrupt conclusion. Meanwhile, Biden continued speaking, unaware that his microphone had been muted long ago.”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/white-house-personnel-abruptly-end-joe-bidens-rambling-vietnam-press-conference-leaving-many-wondering-whos-in-charge-101694394851164.html

[Michael Ejercito]

How was Trump doing in the polls in September of 2019?

[Kazinski]

Trumps approval then in the CNN poll was 49% same as Biden now.

And Trump lost.

[Frank Drackman]

if you believe the Marxist Stream Media

[Kazinski]

Whoops, typo. Trump and Bidens approval in CNN's poll September of their 3rd year was 39%.

[Nelson]

I thought that was high, since Trump maxed out at 49%.

[Frank Drackman]

and yet served 100% as POTUS, Vot a Con-Try!!!!!!!!

[grb]

Kazinski : “Whoops…..”

Whoops, indeed. Per Gallup, Biden is actually running ahead of Trump and Obama at this stage of their presidencies. And whatever poll you look at, there’s not a lot of difference between Biden and any other recent prez. The sole exception was W, riding that 911 bounce.

To be fair, this isn’t just your usual partisan bullshit. It seems to be one of those standard tropes of political amnesia, where everyone pretends the predictable same thing is an awesome new phenomena.

As for your usual partisan bullshit on Biden’s acuity, what difference does it make? If he debates Trump, Biden will win just like he did last time. Remember : Even if Joe’s slowed a step, that still beats stupid (and in a showy obvious way). I recall all you right-types ranting & raving about Biden’s “dementia” in the last election. On and on about the topic! What did it get you after people saw Trump and Biden on the same stage?

https://jabberwocking.com/for-the-last-time-joe-biden-is-not-unpopular/

[Kazinski]

I was quoting CNN's numbers to stay consistent.

I hope you aren't saying CNN is intentionally skewing the numbers.

"Democrats on Capitol Hill seem to think the numbers are legit:
"Senate Democrats say President Biden’s moribund poll numbers are “concerning” and “frustrating,” but they are doubtful any messaging shift by the White House will change how voters view him before the 2024 election.

They acknowledge the 80-year-old president’s biggest problem is his age, which negatively influences how many voters view his presidency and contributes to a lack of enthusiasm for his 2024 reelection campaign.

“You got to be concerned about those poll numbers, you just do,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said. “There’s plenty of time to get them back up. Whether he can or not, I just don’t know but you got to be concerned.”

One Democratic senator who requested anonymity said voters at home expressed deep apathy about Biden’s prospective reelection during constituent meetings over the August recess.

The senator said the polling data “reflect all the miscellaneous encounters I’m having all the time.”

“There’s just no enthusiasm,” the senator said. “It does pretty much come down to ‘Well, he’s done a pretty good job, but he’s just too old.’”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4195015-democrats-express-frustration-with-bidens-moribund-poll-numbers/

You should tell John Tester he's falling for rightwing spin.

[grb]

Kinda missed the point, didn’t you? Yes, you can wind long-winded commentary on Biden’s poll malaise. But that hardly has the earth-shattering importance you think since: (a) the same poll numbers typically reappear in presidencies at this period – both those who win & lose subsequent elections, and (b) those polls are always accompanied with the same endless political yakking as if something new and unexpected was occurring.

But it isn’t, of course. It’s predictable as day following night. There are a bunch of political truism like that: A presidential challenger always polls better early. A president’s party always loses in the midterms. A candidate from the party that holds the White House two terms has bad odds wining the election. And a president’s poll numbers sag approaching the end of his term. None are 100% correct, but all have strong historical tendencies behind them. But the media and political subclass regularly ignore that history in their frantic obsession with the Now. That’s just the nature of the beast and fine if you’re informed enuff to see the big picture. I think I’ve helped you out some with that, Kazinski.

(you’re welcome!)

[Nige]

There is absolutely nothing unusual in this kind of 'Dems in trouble' coverage.

[Kazinski]

Here is John Zogby, a longtime Democratic pollster:

While they highlighted CNN’s finding that Biden and former President Donald Trump are about dead even in a 2024 head-to-head, John Zogby noted that minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, are abandoning Biden and that that is a red warning flag.

What’s more, he talked up the finding that former Trump U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley would beat Biden in a head-to-head, something to consider as Trump faces dozens of charges that are likely to tie him up in court during the reelection.

“The next number is the one that I think is perhaps the most devastating of all,” John Zogby said. “In a head-to-head matchup against Nikki Haley, and this should be of the greatest concern to the White House, Nikki Haley scores 49% to Joe Biden's 43%."

“This is catastrophic,” Zogby said.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/zogby-catastrophic-disaster-brewing-for-biden-reelection

[David Nieporent]

It's "catastrophic" that someone who has as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as Joe Biden himself does, who few people know anything about, is polling ahead of Joe Biden 14 months before the election?

Or is it "catastrophic" that John Zogby hasn't been quoted in the news much lately and needs to say something wacky to put the spotlight on himself?

[Nige]

Yeah, they do this stuff all the time, no matter how often they turn out to be full of shit.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not a no opinion polls person but you need to be pretty desperate to put credence in election polls right now.

Of course you are the guy who thinks the Dems have a plot to replace Biden so you do like your stories.

[Michael P]

If they don't have a plan to replace Biden yet, they really should get to working on one. It's increasingly hard for his minders to cover up his mental decrepitude.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes the awful fascist massive bribe scheme but also mentally incapable Biden. No need to be consistent when your worldview is resentment!

Biden has been pretty effective at getting stuff through despite an intransigent GOP. Certainly more effective than Obama. What does that say about your party of choice?

[Michael P]

You can defend the guy who lost a debate to two empty chairs if you want, but the rest of us can see that his minders are only really doing much within the core of executive prerogative. Vaccine mandates, oil and gas bans, outsourced censorship, controlling inflation, declaring that he doesn't want to contain Chinese militarism or expansion, sandbags, stairs -- he has had a long string of failures and (sometimes literal) missteps.

[Nige]

Haven't you learned yet that stuff in your bubble doesn't translate to the real world?

[Sarcastr0]

See, Biden is negotiating with Congress. In person. And the GOP keeps blinking.

I'd love it if he were younger - he'd really wipe the floor with the GOP! But he seems well capable enough to hand them their ass.

(I hear it's subtle stuff like inviting them to parties and to come to the oval office and whatnot. Not being high-handed.)

[Frank Drackman]

They have a plan, its called Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, US Constitution

[Kazinski]

If it doesn't matter now, why is anyone running?

But really the point is how few people want Biden to run in 2024, and now is the time to make that plain do he won't. If it goes too long then it'll be a backroom deal on who gets the nomination then if Harris gets passed over it will cause a lot of resentment. In September of 2019, Trumps disapproval made it clear he was going to have a tough time getting reelected, why would you think Biden would be any different?

Hiding from decisions that are better made sooner than later seldom turns out well.

Do you really think the 54% that disapprove of Biden are going to change their minds?

[David Nieporent]

Do you really think the 54% that disapprove of Biden are going to change their minds?

All of them? No. Some of them? Sure. Do you think approval rating is fixed throughout a president's term? But the key is this: he's running against Donald Trump, not against an abstract approval rating. In 2020, people who disapproved of both Biden and Trump went overwhelmingly for Biden.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers like to disregard the fact that there are fewer old, religious, white, rural, southern bigots in America every year — millions fewer each four years, consequent to replacement of clingers in the natural course by younger, better, more diverse, less bigoted, less rural, less superstitious Americans — and that the 2024 electorate therefore will be substantially less favorable to Donald Trump and the Republicans than the 2020 and 2016 electorates were.

That welcome demographic tide should not cause Democrats to become overconfident, though. If Republicans perfect a machine that mass-produces elderly, half-educated, superstitious, economically inadequate, easily frightened, roundly bigoted, backwater-dwelling, drawling White males — and Federalist Society lawyers (such as the Volokh Conspirators, Hans von Spakovsky, Brad Smith, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, Rudy Giuliani, etc.) figure a way to register the newly minted goobers to vote — better Americans could have quite a problem on their hands next year.

[Kazinski]

I hope he doesn't end up running against Trump, I haven't definitely made my mind up, but I wouldn't mind it being Nikki Haley as I said a few weeks ago.

[grb]

Kazinski : “….but I wouldn’t mind it being Nikki Haley as I said a few weeks ago…..”

The GOP has any number of alternate candidates who would probably beat Biden. Although don’t agree with their politics, many are actual real human beings. Some are as honest as any politician can possibly be running in that race.

Yet the top two in winger-popularity are sleazy huckster buffoons. Why? Because today’s Right sees politics as entertainment and Trump/DeSantis delivers more entertainment bang for their buck. Through several election cycles we’ve heard predictions the Right’s fever may finally break – the GOP might finally return to purposeful reasoned discourse. But I’m not seeing it. Not in ’24.

But perhaps one more embarrassing defeat will bump the GOP off the loony-toons carousel. It would be good for the country to have two sane parties again.

[Nige]

What are you on about? Why are you so desperate for Biden not to run?

Oh, yeah. Because of all his electoral victories.

[Frank Drackman]

"all" of "his" electoral victories??
OK, I'll give him 2020 ( like JFK in 1960, he stole it fair & square)
Don't really think 08 and 0-12 were "his" (His Massa Barry Hussein sure didn't)
and seriously, did you hear him mumbling like friggin Spider in Goodfellas today? I'm doubtful he'll make it back

Frank

[Kazinski]

I'm desperate for Biden not to run because I love my country.

And he's a crook.

[Nige]

If being crooked bothers you why'd you vote for Trump? If due process and the presumption of innoicence are important to you why are you declaring Biden guilty based on no evidence?

[David Nieporent]

Hunter Biden does appear to be one… but I don't think he's running.

[Moderation4ever]

Your comment supports the idea that people want a different choice in 2024. If it is a Trump v Biden again Biden will win, if Republicans chose an alternate candidate, they have a very good chance of winning. This polling is well before the first caucuses/primaries. I really wonder if when it come to actual voting if Republicans will give up the 2024 election to support Trump.

As for the Democrats, as long is Trump is the Republican front runner there is no need to second guess a Biden choice.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I really wonder if when it come to actual voting if Republicans will give up the 2024 election to support Trump.

In this circumstance, the prudent course would be to identify the prudent course . . . and disregard it, because Trump voters didn't get to be Trump voters with education, sound judgment, worthy character, or smarts.

[Frank Drackman]

I did (M.D., Passer of the Gas), my sister too (Air Traffic Controller), both daughters (One Marine Corpse/Delta Pilot, one Air Farce) Wife (ICU charge nurse) (I know I’m setting myself up, but have a great counterpunch at the ready) we’re not all Successes like you, although some might not consider being a disgraced convicted Sex Criminal and mediocre coach at a program that would be in the cellar of the SEC a “Success” Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are a disaffected, delusional, illiterate bigot. Have you been diagnosed as being on the spectrum?

[Drewski]

It really isn't healthy, pretending to be a doctor. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that you suffer from schizophrenia or a related disorder and likely picked up medical jargon while in inpatient care. Your diction, the fact that whenever you write something technical it turns out to be plagiarized, and the fact that you bring it up so much without prompting all point in the same direction.

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden's problem is that in 2020 he was running, not as Biden, but as a generic Democrat. It's quite normal for generic Democrats to beat Republicans in the polls, but normally they get replaced by the actual candidate in advance of the election.

The trick in 2020 was that by using Covid as an excuse to hide in his basement, Biden managed to remain a generic Democrat right up to the election.

Unfortunately for him, that's not a trick that could be kept up once he took office, though they sure as hell tried to. So whoever the Republicans nominate in 2024 is going to be running against Biden, not "Generic Democrat", and Biden really sucks.

[Martinned]

Biden really sucks

Does he though? For the first time since 2001 the US is not involved in any foreign wars and the economy is going like gangbusters. I've always been told that those two things drive presidential elections more than anything else.

[Martinned]

Which reminds me, here is a short thread by economics professor Justin Wolfers, of him getting irritated by the number of survey respondents who say the economy is doing badly: https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/status/1699901767935578227

[Joe_dallas]

economy going like gangbusters

Are you looking at the new job numbers every month or the downward revisions of the job numbers that always come out a few months later. Note that every month has seen large downward revisions.

[Martinned]

Are you arguing that lots of new jobs is somehow bad, or that it's all just a Biden conspiracy?

[Brett Bellmore]

If you tank the economy by literally ordering businesses to shut their doors, sure, when you relent you'll get something that looks like a boom compared to while you were deliberately tanking the economy.

It's like marketing "Stop hitting your head with a hammer" as a headache cure. Sure, it works, but only if you're hitting your head with a hammer.

In fact, yes, the unemployment rate has recovered almost to where it was before Covid measures drove it through the roof. So, why do so many people think the economy sucks?

Maybe it's because the median household income, which peaked in 2019, is still shrinking? And, why the hell would that be happening in a "boom" economy?

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, our economic numbers are well above just recovering from Covid.

From the past 12 months:

Real GDP: Up 2.5%
Inflation: CPI down from 8.4% to 3.3%
Jobs: Up 3 million
Stock Market: S&P 500 up 10%
Housing: Median home price down 7%

Not that all the metrics are 100%, but you are cherry picking to shit on Biden.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If real GDP is up, but real median household income is down, what does that mean....

Good times for the Liberal Brahmin class.

[M L]

Correct.

[bernard11]

Good times for the Liberal Brahmin class.

Nothing for Republican billionaires?

Does inequality only concern you if there are Democrats getting big incomes?

[Randal]

Maybe some crumbs will trickle down off my chin. Hold out your bowl (I mean red-state subsidies and earned-income tax credits) and try to catch them!

The supply-side now consists of elite wokesters. I can see why you're all suddenly so cognitively dissonant! How can you be pro-capitalist and own-the-libs? What's a right winger to do?

[Joe_dallas]

probably should check your numbers

labor participation rate in the last twelve months has gone from 61.8 % to 62.8% , which translates to approximately 1.2m-1.5m new jobs, not 3m. Still way below the shut downs that crashed large segments of the economy.

[Martinned]

True: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

So are you suggesting that Americans should elect the guy who "crashed large segments of the economy" in the first place? (Leaving to one side, for the moment, what would have happened to the economy absent Covid lockdowns.)

[Martinned]

But since I was at the FRED database, here is the info on total non-farm employment: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS

Up by more than 4m since February 2020.

[Nelson]

You have to forgive people like Joe and Jesse. They have no clue what the labor participation rate is, nor what it indicates.

[David Nieporent]

Why are you claiming that a stat that ends before Biden took office tells us that the economy is "still shrinking"?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm pretty sure Biden was in office in 2021....

[David Nieporent]

I'm pretty sure he was not in office on 1/1/2021, which is when that data series ends.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That represents calendar year 2021, not January 1st, 2021.

If you follow the links within the document to the sources, you would understand this.

"This report presents estimates on income, earnings, and inequality in the United States for calendar year 2021"

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.html#:~:text=Real%20median%20household%20income%20was,and%20Table%20A%2D1).

[Nige]

'So, why do so many people think the economy sucks?'

For reasons that Republicans do not and never have and never will give the slightest solitary fuck about and will do everything in their power to oppose solutions to, which everybody knows. So, there's that.

[Martinned]

why do so many people think the economy sucks?

Given that GOP voters are much, much more likely to be wrong about the state of the economy (see the Justin Wolfers tweets above), I can think of one or two reasons.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, as Sarcastro wisely pointed out, overall real GDP is up. It's just median real household GDP that's down.

What that implies is something like the bottom 80% of Americans getting a pay cut, while the top 20% are getting a massive pay hike...everything lost by the bottom 80% and more.

So, if you're lucky enough to be living in the rich areas, things are looking pretty good. And if you're an average American. It kinda sucks.

[Sarcastr0]

Right wing tool abandons suply side in order to cherry pick a stat that appears to capture Covid and nothing after that. As DMN pointed out, the timeline of what you linked is not great to attack Biden with.

Yes, partisan wankers like you doing hard work to lie with statistics is indeed why people say the economy is bad.

[Martinned]

Well, as Sarcastro wisely pointed out, overall real GDP is up. It’s just median real household GDP that’s down.

Sure, but if you ask people about specific things like inflation or GDP, you also get wildly different answers depending on – presumably – where people get their news.

If it was a question of personal experience vs. official statistics, you wouldn't get such a partisan split.

[Armchair Lawyer]

David can't properly read the sources of data to understand that it references the calendar year.

But if you need someone to pick up a typo, then David's your man.

[Kazinski]

The well off generally do better in high inflation than the working classes.

Assets inflate with the economy, but wages generally lag behind and are stickier.

[Sarcastr0]

I do expect the GOP is going to try and make the inflation of some months ago an issue a year from now. I'm not sure how successful they will be.

The usual suspects have a deep need to show that the economy to be doing badly because there's a Dem President.
In reality, the economy is pretty nonpartisan and independent of fiscal policy, especially in the short term.
Moreso lately now that both parties realize supply side is bullshit and countercyclical spending works.

Both sides try and make political hay out of the economy because it works politically. But the GOP is the champions in how hard they will twist statistics to tell everyone they should be miserable. That middle class income graph that ends in 2021 is just disingenuous as fuck to leave at Biden's feet. But that's the modern GOP - no ideas, just attack the Dems.

The economy is fine, good in most places, bad in some. And the fault of no single President or Congress or Fed.

[Kazinski]

“I do expect the GOP is going to try and make the inflation of some months ago an issue a year from now. I’m not sure how successful they will be.”

Would inflation be something that happens, but once it recedes no after effects remain. But the price increases are permanent and while today’s 3-4% inflation doesn’t seem so bad, it’s on top of last year’s 9% inflation. While at the same time the erosion of savings, and the lagging of household income that may take quite a while, if ever to catch up.

Working class families are reminded about the permanence of the price increases every time they go shopping for groceries, or buy gas.

[John F. Carr]

Reagan famously asked the public in 1980, "are you better off than you were four years ago?" How people feel drives elections more than quantitative leading macroeconomic indicators.

[Martinned]

For sure. But lots more people feel like they have a job than did in 2020.

[Kazinski]

Yes the inflation numbers certainly support that the economy is going like gangbusters.

Nothing says robust growth like 7.5% mortgage rates.

[Frank Drackman]

"For the first time since 2001 the US is not involved in any foreign wars (except for sending hundreds of bulllions to You-Crane) and the economy is going like gangbusters.
If by "Economy" you mean "inflation" I'll give you that one.

[Frank Drackman]

So what were the Marines/Sailors/Soldiers killed at Kabul International involved in if not a "Foreign War"?? an Encounter Session???

Frank

[Don Nico]

"first time since 2001 the US is not involved in any foreign wars"
When the US has spent $100B on combat support in Ukraine, it is hard to say that it is not involved in any foreign war.

[Martinned]

And yet I said it. The US sells/gifts weapons to all and sundry, including the Saudis who are busy committing war crimes in Yemen. What matters for electoral purposes is whether there are ordinary (non-special forces) boots on the ground.

[Don Nico]

"What matters for electoral purposes "
I disagree. What all our social ills in the US, any expenditure of $100B is an electoral issue.
If the amount were $1B, then I'd agree with you.
However, neither of us KNOW whether there are US paid "advisors/contractors" on the ground.

[Sarcastr0]

It's $100B sunk cost stuff we largely don't use anymore.

neither of us KNOW whether there are US paid “advisors/contractors” on the ground.
It would be irresponsible NOT to speculate!

[shawn_dude]

It’ll be fund to watch GOP candidates come out against the military spending in Ukraine in a way that doesn’t a) make them look like a Russian apologist*, and b) avoids pissing off the big military industrial donors who like big military expenditures.

*There is a significant wing of the GOP that is in love with Viktor Orban and the whole muscly Putinist approach to governance. They’re a large enough group to drive primaries their direction and drive conservative independents to other candidates.

[David Nieporent]

It’ll be fund to watch GOP candidates come out against the military spending in Ukraine in a way that doesn’t a) make them look like a Russian apologist*, and b) avoids pissing off the big military industrial donors who like big military expenditures.

My favorite is the "Why are we sending all this money to Ukraine¹ when we have all these problems at home?" species of Republican… that doesn't support spending money on those problems at home. (I'm not saying that either of those positions is wrong in isolation — just that the combo of them is frivolous.)
​​
​​
¹We're not. We're sending equipment and ammunition to Ukraine. I don't think tanks or HIMARS rockets are going to do the people of Maui a lot of good right now.

[Moderation4ever]

As President Biden said in 2020 and will say in 2024, don't compare me with the Almighty, compare me to the alternative. Will Republicans provide a better alternative than they did in 2020?

As for hiding in the basement in 2020, in 2024 he can hide in the White House. A common strategy is for the President to be too busy running the country to campaign. Campaigning is the work of others. It has worked before, and it can work again for Biden.

[Krayt]

Normally a president skips some or all debates because that just makes the challenger look more presidential, which only helps the challenger.

With a rerun like Trump, that might backfire.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think President Biden will debate Trump. In the 2020 election Trump showed that he does not respect the debate format. There is no point in having a debate if it is just a free for all.

[Martinned]

I may well agree with the first sentence, but definitely not with the last one. The only way there is any point at all in having a debate is if someone ignores the typical rules that they tend to agree for those things. The debate rules are typically carefully negotiated to make sure the debate is no good for anyone.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Biden really sucks

That is certainly the disaffected, obsolete, superstitious, autistic, bigoted, antisocial, worthless, backwater perspective.

How many clingers will be left in America's electorate by late 2024?

[Nige]

'Hiding in his basement' has gone from the reason he was for sure going to lose to the reason he for sure won.

[BadLib]

Since we don't elect a President by popular vote, polls which don't take into account the EC (in particular, the "winner takes all" rule in all but Maine and Nebraska) are pretty meaningless.

What California voters, for example, think about Biden vs. Anyone is irrelevant. All their EC ballots will almost certainly go for Biden and, if they don't, it will have been a landslide for Anyone with the election being called by the networks seconds after polls close on the West Coast.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two legal ethics questions that the professors might enjoy;

1: If a social worker, duly licensed and practicing as such -- but neither a lawyer nor under the supervision of one -- gives significant legal advice to a client, does that constitute the unlicensed practice of law? And if the client suffers significant financial harm as a result of that, does the client have redress through the BBA?

2: if an attorney, employed by one party, exploits a childhood friendship and gives what he purports to be legal advice to a 90-year-old woman and lies to her about the consequences of her waiving her legal rights to the benefit of his client, beyond being sleazy, has the lawyer violated any BBA regs?

Just wondering...

[ducksalad]

Wait, if they were childhood friends, the sleazebag attorney must be in his mid 80's, at least. You have to admire someone who can still grift effectively at that age.

[Krayt]

Sounded more like he got into a scam with the friend to cheat grandma.

[theobromophile]

I am not clear why you would go through the Boston Bar Association instead of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers.

[not guilty]

What is the BBA?

[santamonica811]

NG,
Ed often rants and dissembles about Massachusetts and its various schools, politics, etc.. There is the Boston Bar Association, which I gather [wildly guess??] is what Ed's referring to. (What on earth the BBA actually has to do with this thread is, of course, (a) an utter mystery, and (b) par for the course, for Ed's incoherent ramblings and musings here on the VC.)

https://bostonbar.org/

[Michael P]

In this context, I think he clearly meant the Boston Bar Association, but should have instead asked about the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers or something similar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

BBO with a typo....

[Drewski]

The Bi-Partisan Budget Act of 2016? Or some other BBA?

[Martinned]

Those unlicenced practice of law rules are the biggest scam there is. If the courts don't want an unlicenced person wandering in pretending they're a lawyer, that's fair enough. But outside the courtroom anything beyond "don't call yourself an attorney if you aren't one" is shameless government-facilitated cartel.

[Kazinski]

Yes, we have lots of cartels like that.

In Florida you need a license to be an interior decorator.

In most states you need a license to be a barber, California for instance requires a 1000 hours of training in a licensed s hook to take the test and allow you to cut hair.

[Martinned]

Which is why I think the US would benefit from stronger dormant commerce clause jurisprudence. A lot of that nonsense went out the window in the EU because the courts struck it down as a measure having equivalent effect to an import levy, which is forbidden under the EU treaties unless justified and proportionate.

[Kazinski]

Yet the Supreme Court seems to be moving away from the dormant commerce clause as evidenced by upholding the California pork production regulations.

By the way that seems to have reduced pork prices in the states around California, since the producers can’t sell the pork in California at any price the supply is higher in states without the restrictions.

[Randal]

Which is why the court was right to uphold the regulations.

[David Nieporent]

I would find it rather surprising to learn that there isn't occupational licensing in the UK.

[Martinned]

There is, but much less so than the examples given. One of the reason for that is that, pre-Brexit, there was a strong push from Brussels towards not doing that and towards mutual recognition.

Here's a convenient list of professions where EU law allows a degree of restriction on the default rule. That includes lawyers. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/services/free-movement-professionals/recognition-professional-qualifications-practice/professions-falling-under-specific-legislation_en

[David Nieporent]

You seem to be conflating two entirely different concepts: the portability of occupational licensing vs. the existence of it.

[Martinned]

I'm not conflating them, I'm just relying on them being species of the same thing. Mutual recognition of occupational licensing is a half-way house between not having any occupational licensing at all and having occupational licensing that keeps out competition from outside the jurisdiction. Whether or not mutual recognition is viable hinges on many of the same policy considerations as whether there should be occupational licensing in the first place.

Which is why, in the EU, the effect of art. 45 and art. 56 TFEU, as well as the secondary legislation adopted by the Union legislature, has been both to reduce occupational licensing and to promote mutual recognition in areas where occupational licensing remains.

[David Nieporent]

Look, obviously if there are no occupational licensing laws at all, then portability is irrelevant, so they're linked in some way. But reciprocity of recognizing out-of-jurisdiction licenses is not even remotely halfway to not having licenses at all.

Your comment was "But outside the courtroom anything beyond 'don’t call yourself an attorney if you aren’t one' is shameless government-facilitated cartel." And that really has virtually nothing to do with portability. States are not primarily trying to protect against attorneys flying in from another state and dispensing legal advice without getting licensed in the existing state; they're trying to protect against randos off the street drawing up contracts and deeds and such.

[Davedave]

Portability pretty much negates the existence of stupid occupational licensing. Either because one of the many jurisdictions just doesn't have a stupid form of it, or because one of the many jurisdictions notes that it can raise revenue by licensing in a non-stupid way.

The other reason we don't have a lot of it in Europe is the same reason we generally have much looser employment-protection laws: if you have a decent social welfare program, such that losing your job does not mean losing medical care, or your home, or your family's food, then losing your job just doesn't matter as much. Obviously it's better for the economy to be able to fire people when necessary, so overall we're richer because of it.

[Martinned]

I don't think that observation holds up empirically. Europe has a stronger social welfare state *and* stronger laws against randomly firing people.

[Davedave]

"Europe has [...] stronger laws against randomly firing people."

Except it doesn't, on the whole.

[David Nieporent]

Whatchu talkin about, Willis? The U.S. has employment at will, with a few exceptions carved out. The EU doesn't even have the concept.

[Davedave]

Where do people come up with this sort of crazytalk? Something rather more than 'at will' is standard across Europe, for the most part. You don't need a reason to sack anyone as long as you aren't discriminating and comply with redundancy laws.

[David Nieporent]

Where do you come up with this sort of crazy talk? Your sentence is so confusingly worded that I'm not sure you know what at will employment is, but you are completely wrong about European employment law. None of the major European countries (perhaps the minor ones, too, but I am not familiar with all of them) recognize the concept of at will employment.

[Ben_]

And also a violation of first amendment rights.

[SRG2]

The British Bankers' Association would not normally get involved as the lawyer wasn't using rates fixed by them.,

[John F. Carr]

At one time members of the Massachusetts Bar contributed to a fund to compensate victims of members. Interest on money held in trust for clients went into that fund. There was some litigation over who the interest really belonged to. The fund might not exist now or might be funded differently.

[OtisAH]

Just file a complaint with the BBA. Da fuq you want us to do with this story you’ve told us almost nothing about?

[ducksalad]

Looking at those actions to keep an alleged insurrectionist off the primary ballot .... suppose one agreed that what happened was an insurrection, that the person in question was guilty of it, and that he should be barred from election.

Isn't it still a problem that no president is being elected in a primary? Delegates to a national convention are being selected, and they aren't even officers of the government. How does Section 3 apply to them at all? And even if by some stretch it did, isn't the question whether the candidates for delegate are themselves insurrectionists, rather than the person they are only weakly and conditionally pledged to support?

[Z Crazy]

Who cares?

Brandon aided and comforted the Taliban.

Kick him off the ballot!

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

You're a real loop-a-dupe.

[Martinned]

Yeah, that's a weird talking point. I've seen it mentioned a couple of times here on VC, but I wonder where it came from.

It's one of those "Trump does X" -> "Biden continues X" -> "Trumpists criticise Biden for doing X while insisting that Trump would never do X" kind of things.

[SRG2]

It's their SOP. E.g. when Trump said he was going to buy Greenland the Trumpsuckers criticised those of us who thought it was nuts first, for not realising that Trump was joking, and then for not realising that he was serious.

[Martinned]

It mostly came up around Covid rules.

[grb]

Z Crazy : “Brandon aided and comforted the Taliban”

As deflection for Trump, that’s pretty stupid:

(1) Trump signed a pact with the Taliban with no input from our allies in the Afghan government.

(2) Trump agreed to a total withdrawal of all U.S. forces in exchange for nothing from the Taliban except empty promises.

(3) Trump withdrew almost all U.S. forces. The Taliban did not even follow the meager requirements of the agreement.

And that’s the situation Biden inherited. Apparently Z Crazy is too ignorant to know even those basic facts about Afghanistan.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Taliban did not even follow the meager requirements of the agreement."

Then why did Biden?

[Martinned]

Because that's what he promised to do, presumably because he thought that was in America's best interest:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1548/end-wars-afghanistan-and-middle-east/

[Bob from Ohio]

They broke the agreement, then he ignored the breaches? Because he had made a campaign promise?

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : “Then why did Biden?”

Trump reduced the U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 13,000 to 2,500. In contrast to Z Crazy’s ignorant bullshit above, it was Trump’s pact that was a pure gift to the Taliban – a unilateral withdrawal with almost no measures demanded in return. Besides agreeing to pull-out every single U.S. serviceman in the country, Trump’s deal also committed to closing five military bases within 135 days and promised the end economic sanctions on the Taliban by August of 2020. Trump’s pact also limited the number of U.S. air strikes against the Taliban. Per his deal, US military aircraft could not attack Taliban groups waiting more than 500 meters away, giving the Taliban an key edge in targeting Afghan military units.

In return, the Taliban promised to conduct talks with the Afghan government, prevent al-Qaeda from operating in areas they controlled, and pledged not to attack the skeleton U.S. force left behind after Trump’s initial withdrawals. Of course the Afghan government – our allies – were completely excluded from the negotiations by Trump and no provisions were made for them. So:

In the 45 days after the agreement (between March 1 and April 15, 2020), the Taliban conducted more than 4,500 attacks in Afghanistan, an increase of more than 70% compared to the same period in the previous year. More than 900 Afghan security forces were killed in the period, up from about 520 in the same period a year earlier. Meanwhile, because of a significant reduction in the number of offensives and airstrikes by Afghan and US forces against the Taliban, Taliban casualties dropped to 610 in the period down from about 1,660 in the same period a year earlier.

So left a lightweight force of 2,500 soldiers, what should Biden have done with the situation he inherited? One thing’s for damn sure: If anyone “aided and comforted the Taliban” it was Trump. It’s almost like he was on the Taliban’s payroll, given how completely he screwed over our Afghan allies.

[bernard11]

But, grb.

It was Biden who made a mess, not Trump. Don't you read Breitbart?

[Moderation4ever]

If you accept this as a standard, would you not have too also immediately remove Trump? It was Trump who negotiated the American withdrawal and did it directly with the Taliban, bypassing the elected government of Afghanistan.

[Michael P]

Voters do not elect the delegates to a nominating convention, and those delegates are not thereby appointed to "any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State" -- the national parties are private organizations.

Unless Congress provides some statutory rule, the only time that really makes sense to reject a candidate is when Congress counts the electors' ballots.

[Brett Bellmore]

They'd obviously prefer to dump Trump prior to that point, because waiting until he's actually won the election to refuse to seat him is about the most politically explosive way they could keep him out of office short of ordering a Hellfire missile strike on Mar-a-Largo.

Their problem is that Section three never has been applied at any prior point in the process, until just the last year.

[Sarcastr0]

I really don’t think section 3 is going to go anywhere.

[Martinned]

Indeed. It's something to amuse law professors and cable news people when they're short on news. Maybe some politician in an ultra-Dem area will have a swing at it, on a no-harm-no-foul basis. But that is all.

[Mr. Bumble]

Been tried in FL and dismissed. Currently there is an attempt in CO.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there's going to be a serious effort to use Section 3, but it will heat up closer to the general election.

Right now you're getting Section 3 action from people who really want to play fair, for some value of "fair"; They want it litigated far enough in advance that the election can proceed normally if the Section 3 challenge fails.

Later you'll get the BAMN sorts, who just want Trump defeated, and never mind "fair". They'll want to strike close enough to the election that they can beat Trump even if he eventually prevails on a legal level.

[ducksalad]

General comment:

The 14th amendment is really poorly written; I suppose because the authors were thinking short term and the purpose was entirely to clamp down on bad behavior in the ex-Confederate states, which had a minority of the population. Union officials would be doing the interpreting and the enforcing, and knew quite clearly what they were trying to do.

Thus, how to define vague terms like “equal protection” and “privileges and immunities” – No problem, it will be enforced by a Union president or military governor and they’ll know it when they see it.

The oddly worded list of persons disqualified was mainly intended to prevent southern states from electing or appointing traitors to Congress, their own state legislators and governments, and the Electoral College. They neglected to explicitly call out POTUS and VPOTUS because at the time it was unimaginable that an unforgiven Confederate might win a majority in the EC – the South alone simply didn’t have the votes.

And therefore, they didn’t think about how Section 3 would be enforced in the case of POTUS and VPOTUS. Or if they thought about it at all, they reasoned they had it covered by excluding the ex-Confederates from the EC. They flat failed to consider that in the future, people not guilty of insurrection might support someone who was.

The birthright citizenship clause was intended to prevent southern states from making the claim that since freedmen were not descended from citizen parents, they were not citizens. To me, this is exactly the claim that the anti-birthright people are making today, and it’s just as bad now – children of illegal immigrants, like children of slaves, are here through no fault of their own. However, I have to concede that most congressmen probably weren’t even thinking about future immigrants when they voted on this.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have to remember that the Union started doing all the stuff the 14th amendment provided a legal basis for, before it was so much as written, let alone ratified. They just did it as an exercise of raw power over a defeated enemy.

The purpose of the 14th amendment was to legally paper over that, so that the courts, once they were again permitted to operate normally, wouldn’t undo a lot of it. From that perspective it makes sense that they didn’t build in a lot of detail and due process, because they hadn’t allowed any due process in the first instance, and if the 14th amendment had demanded that, the courts would have tried to enforce it retrospectively.

” They flat failed to consider that in the future, people not guilty of insurrection might support someone who was.”

What they failed to consider is that in the future, there might be a partisan disagreement about whether something WAS an insurrection, and that an attempt might be made to enforce Section 3 when less than half the country thought there even had been an insurrection.

“From the following list, please select the words that best describe the events that took place on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol? Select all that apply. Jan. 2023 Dec. 2021 Apr. 2021

Insurrection 41% 43% 48%

Riot 55% 55% 58%

Protest 49% 48% 43%

Coup 30% 28% 33%

Looting 28% 28% 29%

Revolution 14% 14% 15%

Rebellion 34% 32% 37%

Uprising 32% 29% 35%”

[Sarcastr0]

The purpose of the 14th amendment was to legally paper over that

There was plenty of floor debate showing otherwise, Brett. Where in the world did you get that nonsense?

[Randal]

Since you're apparently one of them, why don't you give the argument for why the term "insurrection" doesn't apply to Jan 6? It meets the dictionary definition.

And to prebut one terrible talking point: something can be a riot and an insurrection, in fact I think practically all insurrections are also riots (and protests!)... so the question isn't what else might you call it. The question is, what makes "insurrection" not apply?

[Drewski]

Huh. It sounds like you're suggesting that delegates can select a candidate that isn't qualified and install that person as President. Is that what you're saying? That a political party could bypass the Constitution and successfully make anyone, even Vladimir Putin, President of the United States?

[Michael P]

Nominating someone as a major party's presidential candidate does not "install that person as President". There are a few relevant steps that must go in between.

Unless you're suggesting that Joe Biden didn't actually win in 2020.

[Frank Drackman]

Joe Biden didn't actually win in 2020

[SRG2]

Joe Biden didn’t actually win in 2020

Quackman gets it wrong again

[Krayt]

Yes, that'll go down well. Let a guy hypothetically win the nomination, then the election, then tell the country on Jan. 20, just as he puts his hand on the Bible, that sorry, you can't be president because it technically only blocks this last step.

Cackle cackle cackle...

[jb]

Well, so is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

1) Not actually enforceable in any way,
2) Is enforceable post-election despite the fact the timing seems really bad, or
3) Is enforceable pre-election, such as through the suits currently underway?

(I don't think there are any other options, but happy to be corrected.)

[Randal]

4) Is not enforceable as to P and VP. And really, doesn't even seem to apply to them by its own terms. Maybe this is part of the reason?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Arguable, but I believe you are wrong.

[BadLib]

For the sake of argument let's concede that Trump engaged in an insurrection as defined in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment after having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and that the position of President can't be occupied by such a person.

However, Congress can free Trump of the disability by a two-thirds vote of both houses and if that happens before Jan 20, 2025, the insurrection issue is moot.

The courts can't predict if the current Congress, let alone the one whose term begins Jan 3, 2025 and reflects the result of the Nov 2024 election (100% of the House being up for election and about 33% of the Senate in Nov 2024), would vote for or against respecting the voter's wishes and freeing Trump of the disability.

Some Democrats in Congress might even vote to do so or, at least, abstain in order avoid having to answer to their constituents why they thought the voter's choice for President should be ignored.

I don't see, based on this argument alone, that the courts would uphold a Secretary of State's decision to not allow Trump's name on the ballot any more than they would uphold a decision of a SOS to omit Biden's name just because "I just don't like him".

This whole issue is reminiscent of the "Trillion Dollar Coin" nonsense.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

So in your view, no one can enforce section 3 because there's a chance Congress will remove the disability? That's a strange argument.

[BadLib]

No, that is not my stance.

Section 3 applies ONLY to holding an office subject to its restriction - not to running for such an office, not for campaigning for such an office, not for being considered for promotion to such an office in the military.

If an SOS were to refuse to put a candidate on the ballot because (in their own humble opinion) that person was "disqualified" to hold office, the burden of proof would be on them. And that burden could only be met if they could predict the future as the qualifications to hold office only apply to holding the office. This is an impossible burden to meet in general, but especially as a landslide sweep by the GOP in Nov 2024 could easily result in Trump, if the Republican candidate, being qualified to take office regardless of if someone successfully and convincingly asserted that he had engaged in an insurrection.

There are of course many other flaws on the scale of the "trillion dollar coin" with the whole notion of Section 3 being applied to keep Trump from office if elected.

It is alarming that some Democrats seem very, very fearful that they can't come up with a candidate strong enough to beat Trump in the general election. It's not a good look for the Democratic party that out of almost 50 million registered Democrats, probably at least half of which meet the requirements (age, birth, residency) to be President, some Democrats think that not one is able can beat Trump with a high degree of certainty.

I'm curious - also. The theory seems to be that anyone (since NO particular entity has clear authority to do so under Section 3) can enforce Section 3 by keeping a Presidential candidate off the ballot if, in their sole judgment, the candidate won't be qualified to take office on inauguration day. Suppose some poll workers think Biden knowingly and intentionally engaged in insurrection by violating the first few words of the Constitution ("All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States") and attempted to seize control from Congress via his failed unconstitutional student loan handout. Do those poll workers have the power to, using an Xacto knife, excise Biden's name from every ballot before presenting the ballot to the voter in November 2024?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

They have whatever powers are granted to them by the laws of their state. They also must follow the procedures laid out by state election laws.

Your distinction between holding office and running for office is negated by laws in most states (maybe all) requiring any candidate appearing on the ballot to be fully qualified for that office. As for burden of proof, that also depends on the laws in that state. For instance here in North Carolina, state law puts the burden of proof on the candidate, not the challenger or the deciding official.

[David Nieporent]

If an SOS were to refuse to put a candidate on the ballot because (in their own humble opinion) that person was “disqualified” to hold office, the burden of proof would be on them.

That is not the way ballot access laws generally work. If a candidate submits signed petitions to be on the ballot, the burden of proof is not on the SOS to show that there aren't enough valid signatures; the burden of proof is on the candidate to show that there are. The burden of proof is not on the SOS to show that the candidate doesn't live in his district,¹ the burden of proof is on the candidate to show that he does.
​
​
¹For clarification, that's a typical state law requirement; members of Congress are not required to live in their districts.

[Kazinski]

Wouldn't change anything, the states that barred Trump from the primary ballot would bar him from the general election ballot.

[Randal]

These are all questions of state law. Even the general election ballot is a function of state law.

So the question is, what federal constraints apply? Probably "equal protection" in some sort of bizarro Bush v Gore way. But as long as a state applies Section 3 "equally" that's probably fine.

I suspect that if a state purports to apply Section 3, especially via the courts, then SCOTUS probably can review and correct that application.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Could a state purport to apply other constitutional requirements, like the age rule or the two-term limit? Or is your position based on the Tillman-Blackman argument that the Presidency is not an office under the US, and for some reason the framers of 14A were perfectly fine with a Confederate officer becoming President.

[Randal]

I assume states do purport to apply the other constitutional requirements. When was the last time you saw a 20 year old presidential candidate on a ballot?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Exactly. So why are you treating section 3 requirements any differently? Why would a state applying section 3 requirements necessarily be corrected by SCOTUS?

[Randal]

I'm not treating them differently. If a state didn't let someone on the ballot because, like, they turn 35 between the election and the inauguration, for example, so the person sued, I suspect they could appeal that all the way to SCOTUS too.

[Michael P]

Police should have to personally bear the costs of civil rights suits like in https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/delaware-man-police-blocked-warning-speed-trap-wins-102868945

[Noscitur a sociis]

I imagine victims of civil rights abuses would be only slightly less unhappy about this rule (however implemented) than the police.

[jb]

Presumably the rule would be that the police officers are initially liable and then the government makes up whatever they can't pay themselves.

[Michael P]

What does it take to get a union decertified? https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-controversy-erupts-jefferson-county-teachers-union-educators-destroy-evidence-student-surveys-gender-identity/

[Drewski]

It takes the membership. Desertification isn't a punishment, it's just a process. If any random misconduct was all it took to dissolve associations, few churches and no political parties would exist for long.

[Krayt]

Churches aren't certified by government.

[JasonT20]

Tax exempt status is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I remember what I was taught in my Public Sector Union class correctly, it is a majority vote by the membership after a process similar to organizing the shop, and I also *think* that you cam go directly from union A to union B without an interim "no union."

I've seen it done, the UM clerical union went from AFSME to NEA because they weren't happy with AFSME.

What you are talking about is more the state yanking the professional license(s) of the individual teachers involved, sort of like attorney disbarment, and would be political (and unlikely). Tenure in K-12 is state law, which inevitably lays out grounds for termination, but you'd have to (a) read the state law and then (b) make some political calculations.

Heck, AGA -- After Georgia -- this might even be RICO (if *that* is....).

[not guilty]

In the Fulton County prosecution of Donald Trump and his codefendants, the State has filed a motion to restrict the dissemination of petit jurors’ identities. Specifically, the State requests the Court to:

1)

Prevent any Defendant, members of the press, or any other person from videotaping, photographing, drawing, or otherwise creating or publishing images of the jurors or prospective jurors inside or outside the courtroom; and

2)

Prevent any Defendant, members of the press, or any other person from publishing any verbal or written descriptions of any information that would assist persons in determining the identity of any jurors or prospective jurors, specifically physical descriptions, telephone numbers, addresses, employer names, and membership affiliations of all jurors or prospective jurors.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23941675/states-motion-to-restrict-jurors-identity.pdf

The State has a heavy lift here with its request for a prior restraint. Notably, the State’s motion fails to discuss Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976). Prior restraints by courts on First Amendment rights are permissible only when there is no less restrictive way to protect the right to a fair trial.

Justice Powell’s concurring opinion in Stuart has some helpful guidance as to when such a prior restraint may issue:

In my judgment, a prior restraint properly may issue only when it is shown to be necessary to prevent the dissemination of prejudicial publicity that otherwise poses a high likelihood of preventing, directly and irreparably, the impaneling of a jury meeting the Sixth Amendment requirement of impartiality. This requires a showing that (i) there is a clear threat to the fairness of trial, (ii) such a threat is posed by the actual publicity to be restrained, and (iii) no less restrictive alternatives are available. Notwithstanding such a showing, a restraint may not issue unless it also is shown that previous publicity or publicity from unrestrained sources will not render the restraint inefficacious. The threat to the fairness of the trial is to be evaluated in the context of Sixth Amendment law on impartiality, and any restraint must comply with the standards of specificity always required in the First Amendment context.

427 U.S. at 571-72.

[ducksalad]

There must have been cases (e.g. trials of Mafia figures) where the jurors themselves were under threat. What steps were taken then?

[Martinned]

They held the trial in a bunker and added alternate judges in case the presiding judge was murdered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxi_Trial#Defendants_and_trial

[Don Nico]

The sad fact is that Rudi Giuliani play a significant role in helping the Italian prosecutors. Wow, how the mighty have fallen!

[shawn_dude]

I am not a historian (IANAH) but I wonder if he was ever truly "mighty" or merely an adequate person in the right place at an unfortunate time when folks were looking for hope. What fell wasn't the real Rudy but "America's Mayor(TM)". Figureheads are fragile and susceptible to ridicule. (see: Four Seasons Total Landscaping)

[not guilty]

“There must have been cases (e.g. trials of Mafia figures) where the jurors themselves were under threat. What steps were taken then?”

In many cases jurors remained anonymous. Their names were not disclosed to the parties or to the public. Here is a law review article that is pretty informative: https://cornelllawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Mangat-note-final.pdf

I don’t know whether anonymous juries have or have not been empaneled in state courts in Georgia. Some research indicates that anonymous juries are more likely to return verdicts of guilt.

[BadLib]

or any other person from videotaping, photographing, drawing, or otherwise creating or publishing images of the jurors or prospective jurors inside or outside the courtroom; and

Juror's kids will wonder years later why dad never appeared in pictures of their second birthday celebration!

[Kazinski]

Under the self executing Section 3 theory did Trump cease being president on Jan 6th, or did he have to be removed by impeachment or the expiration of his term?

If he was still president on Jan 7th, and I haven't heard anyone claim otherwise, not even retrospectively, wouldn't it follow that Section 3 is not self executing?

[Martinned]

That is a truly excellent question.

On the text of the section, it seems that anyone who participates in an insurrection automatically loses their job. The amendment speaks of "shall be", not "shall be elected" or "shall be appointed". But I welcome other views.

[Don Nico]

I also am fascinated by this question and peoples' answers.

[John F. Carr]

Let's step one president back.

Is the natural born citizen clause self-enforcing?

As everybody who doesn't follow the mainstream media knows, the so-called president who took office in 2009 was not a natural born citizen and so not eligible to the office. Most of the country went on pretending he was president anyway. Under the common law that made him president anyway, at least de facto. If Congress was concerned that de jure he was an imposter Congress had to remove him.

Back to Trump. If Trump acted as president even though he had been fired (cue Seinfeld clip) then Congress had to remove him. Congress chose instead to let him serve out his term.

Because he finished his term, there is no remedy. All his official acts remain valid. The de facto officer doctrine, when it applies, says you can't collaterally attack actions by an official on the grounds that his claim to office was legally deficient. The courts have not consistently applied the doctrine to Appointment Clause challenges. The doctrine comes from the common law and judges decide when to use it. It has been used to uphold the actions of improperly appointed law enforcement officials.

[Martinned]

If Trump acted as president even though he had been fired (cue Seinfeld clip) then Congress had to remove him.

If you want to take that hypo to its logical conclusion, the proper solution would have been for the vice-president to take the oath of office and order the secret service to remove the former president from the premises.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"As everybody who doesn’t follow the mainstream media knows, the so-called president who took office in 2009 was not a natural born citizen and so not eligible to the office. "

We're just going to ignore this? I mean, I suppose we should, but, no, nobody "knows" what John Carr claims people know, including because all the relevant, unbiased evidence (including a contemporaneous birth announcement in Hawaii newspapers placing his place of birth in Hawaii) is that the President who took office in 2009 was born in Hawaii.

Being born in the United States to an American mother unequivocally makes Barack Obama a natural born citizen.

[David Nieporent]

I am pretty sure Carr was being sarcastic.

[John F. Carr]

You must get your news from the mainstream media instead of Breitbart. My point is the birthers lose on legal grounds even if they are right on factual grounds. There is no magic wand that makes the Obama years go away. Likewise, the last two weeks of Trump's presidency still happened.

[Sarcastr0]

A few threads down, someone made the distinction between self executing and self enforcing.

I think that's the distinction that gets us out of this absurd scenario.

[Bob from Ohio]

"self executing"

The idea that a treaty has domestic force without the need for further Congressional legislation.

Absurd to think it applies to a provision that has an undefined term "insurrection" as its linchpin.

[David Nieporent]

Um, separate from the 14th Amendment, Congress passed a law that did penalize insurrection, and that law didn't define insurrection either. Why do you think it's an esoteric word that needs special definition?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Kaz, I think you are just misunderstanding what self-executing means. Or more precisely, how Baude - Paulsen are using it.

[Martinned]

As England has been reminded this weekend, escape from prison is an offence at common law (R v Coughtrey [1997] 2 Cr. App. R.(S) 269, CA.)

But equally, it turns out that there are a number of countries where that isn't the case: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/xwqq4p/countries_in_europe_where_escaping_from_prison_is/

And I have to say, I have some sympathy for the idea that trying to escape should be fair game. (Though assaulting prison officers shouldn't be, obviously.)

[Martinned]

Although I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. In R. v. Coughtrey the defendant got 4 years for his escape, but it ran concurrently with his previous (life) sentence.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a938b3d60d03e5f6b82b92a

[apedad]

". . . trying to escape should be fair game."

???

It's illegal.

Are you saying it's fair game to try and steal a car too?

[Martinned]

That’s the question: should it be illegal?

Observing that it is (in the US and the UK) doesn’t really answer that question.

And I'm not sure how escaping from prison is comparable to stealing a car.

[Mr. Bumble]

"That’s the question: should it be illegal?"

Are you equating criminals confined to prison to prisoners of war, who have an obligation to try to escape?

[Martinned]

Not at all. I'm just saying that wanting to escape from prison is an understandable impulse, not something covered by the 10 commandments.

[Mr. Bumble]

Since when did the law become restricted to the 10 commandments?

[Martinned]

Since apedad mentioned stealing a car.

[Don Nico]

Bravo!!

[Martinned]

I mean, if you want we can also have a deep discussion about the question of whether escaping from prison is a malum in se or a malum prohibitus, but it didn't seem like we were headed in that direction. So I used the 10 commandments as a shorthand for things that are malum in se.

[Michael P]

Pro tip: “the ten commandments” is longer than “malum in se”, so it can’t be shorthand for it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Wanting to take something that doesn’t belong to you or hurt someone you don’t like is understandable too. That doesn’t mean it should be legal.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/to-understand-all-is-to-forgive-all/

[Martinned]

Sure, and where I started from wasn't a strong view that escaping from prison should be legal. I'm just struggling to articulate why not. The examples you give not only fail the 10 commandments, which Mr. Bumble doesn't think should be the basis of our laws, but also the golden rule and/or the basic rule of liberalism:

La loi n'a le droit de défendre que les actions nuisibles à la société.

But a rule that says "we've decided to lock you up, if you manage to escape without committing any further crimes, we're just going to track you down, put you back in your cell, and take away your eligibility for parole" seems like a fair compromise.

[Krayt]

Why not tag him for stealing an orange jump suit while you're at it?

I can see the defense now, "Your honor. Although he did leave the prison with it, he was actually using it for its intended purpose, the garish colors flagging him to the public as an escaped criminal!

"Using a thing for its intended purpose by the government cannot simultaneously be a theft."

[Martinned]

Because English prisoners don't wear orange jump suits. Typically they wear their own clothing.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/05/how-clothing-in-prison-identified-who-you-were-6647914/

[ducksalad]

So, after much erudite discussion, we come to the conclusion that attempting to escape is legal, but only if you are stark naked.

[Martinned]

So prosecute the prisoner for stealing a $1 jumpsuit, if you're going to insist on them wearing one.

[John F. Carr]

If wearing an orange jumpsuit prevents the crime of indecent exposure, the escapee should argue the necessity defense.

[Martinned]

That's a whole separate can of worms. Let's not go there.

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

[ducksalad]

Some time back you asserted that Europeans were more enlightened about this stuff, but it seems like this guy couldn't get a break even before Brexit.

[Martinned]

He went to the European Court for Human Rights, which has nothing to do with Brexit. (Although some people are certainly trying.) The EU has nothing to say about nudism.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why did Fani Willis hire private attorneys (to the tune of over $500,000 to date) to act as special prosecutors in the case against Trump?

[Martinned]

Because otherwise people like you would accuse her of prosecuting him for partisan reasons.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your reply makes no sense. Hiring outside attorneys did not change the nature of the prosecution.

[Martinned]

I didn't say it was ever likely to work. She would get accused of prosecuting for partisan reasons even if she got Jesus himself to act as the special prosecutor. But it seems like it's the likely motivation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hiring private attorneys for this purpose is actually typical of political prosecutions, since you're engaged in a prosecution the professional staff don't want any part of.

[Sarcastr0]

How would you have any idea if this is true?

[David Nieporent]

Like everything else Brett says, it's (a) based on his feels; and (b) completely wrong. The normal reason for hiring a private prosecutor is some conflict of interest. The second reason is because the existing members of the office don't have the bandwidth for the case.

[Martinned]

That's great! That way, if the DA hires outside counsel that's evidence that it's a political prosecution, and if they don't hire outside counsel that's also evidence that it's a political prosecution.

[Nige]

'typical of political prosecutions'

How typical?

[Kazinski]

Because she wants to get him.

Its also worth nothing that Bragg also brought in a ringer o help him get Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

...after the previous DA decline to move forward with the case.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I genuinely lacked an understanding of how disaffected malcontents -- the kind of antisocial cranks who retreat to an off-the-grid hermit shack, seethe against modernity, pine for illusory "good old days," and await a Rapture that will smite all of the better people -- saw the world before I began to visit the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Frank Drackman]

because the Fulton County Prosecutors are a bunch of incompetent (Redacted)

Frank

[OtisAH]

Why so sheepish today, Frank? I get that being so edgy all the time can be tiring work but if you’re not going to fully commit to the bit why bother at all?

[Frank Drackman]

just trying to be kinder/gentler you prick, oh wait, that wasn't kind or gentle, you sucker of pricks, better?????

Frank

[John F. Carr]

She has already been criticized for overlooking real crime to pursue an agenda. If she tried to prosecute such a long and complicated case with in-house attorneys she would drain her office's resources even more.

I expect her office to spend at least ten times that $500,000 figure on the case. Say, about 1% of the county's ~$850 million annual budget.

[Martinned]

Bargain at twice the price if it protects American democracy.

[John F. Carr]

The massive Georgia conspiracy case will not protect American democracy. The indictment includes some crimes that are cost effective to prosecute. The people who mailed the fake electoral votes should be convicted just in case total failure of the 2020 plan is not enough to discourage the losers in 2024. Witness intimidation is a nice simple standalone crime. Whatever went on with the voting machines can be another case.

[Martinned]

As long as Trump goes to prison for trying to overturn the 2020 election, you're welcome to whatever investigations you like.

[Frank Drackman]

Pass judgement before all the facts are in much? There's more evidence that Barry Hussein Osama is a Turd Burgling Poof than any of the bullshit charges against "45"

Frank

[darkknight9]

I still say that America deserves a better night of television on election night. How about some real drama?

(D) Biden
(R) Whomever
(ID) Sanders
(IR) Trump

Lets do our part to really test that electoral votes system of ours and see how late through the night the situation keeps newstypes awake. Buy stock in RedBull and Domino's before hand. 😀

[ducksalad]

That would make it exactly 200 years since the last time we had a president chosen by the House of Representatives, voting one state one vote.

We could make it bicentennial tradition.

[darkknight9]

The thought of making it a bicentennial tradition makes me giggle with glee. We could even have colored fireworks for each state as the single vote ballots were turned in! 🙂

[OtisAH]

Why is Sanders there?

[Davedave]

Because he's a Trump-like grifter?

[Sarcastr0]

Groff v. Dejoy
Topic: Statutory Interpretation/clarifying past precedent.
Background: Groff, an evangelical Christian, was disciplined after he refused to come to work on Sundays and he resigned in 2019. Federal law bars employers from firing workers for practicing their religion unless the employer can show that the worker’s religious practice cannot “reasonably” be accommodated without “undue hardship.”
Losing side: The 3rd Circuit, relying on a 1977 case, explained that giving Groff an exemption from working on Sunday “caused more than a de minimis cost” and so the firing was allowable.
Winning side: Groff urged the justices to jettison the de minimis test. The Biden administration agrees that the Supreme Court “can and should clarify" the de minimis rule.
Upshot: Remanded for further consideration in light of clarification that the de minimis standard is not applicable.
Court's reasoning: The question of when additional costs constitute an “undue hardship” is not always de minimis under past case, only when the accommodation impinges the seniority rights of more senior employees.

So how did this get to the Court but end up not being a close question: Everyone wanted the Court to clarify the extent of the past case. And the Court was unanimous that lower courts were taking that case beyond the scope of it's applicable facts. And I understand why lower courts got it wrong. And I also see how this is in keeping with the current trend of broader religious protections. Seems a good put.

[David Welker]

Nice post. Appreciate it.

[apedad]

The Wisconsin G.O.P.’s Looming Judicial Attack

The issue was central to (Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet), Protasiewicz’s campaign; at a candidate forum, she called the state’s district maps “rigged.” “They do not reflect people in this state,” she said. “I can’t tell you what I would do on a particular case, but I can tell you my values. And the maps are wrong.” She later said that she would “enjoy taking a fresh look at the gerrymandering question.” Protasiewicz won by eleven points, a landslide in Wisconsin.

But on August 11th, ten days after Protasiewicz was sworn in, Robin Vos, the Speaker of the Assembly, said, on a conservative talk-radio show, “You cannot have a judge who said, you know, the maps are rigged.” He went on, “Then she sits on that trial acting like she’s gonna listen and hear both sides fairly? That just can’t happen.”

Robert Yablon, a professor of law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has examined judicial impeachments across the country, has found no record of any judge in American history being impeached for failing to recuse herself owing to campaign activities, including statements made on the trail. He noted a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case, whose majority opinion was written by Antonin Scalia, that gives wide latitude to judicial candidates to speak on political issues. Nor has Yablon found a judge who has been removed before hearing a single case. “This is a very vivid illustration of the kind of minoritarian rule that a gerrymander can get you,” he said.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-wisconsin-gops-looming-judicial-attack

The GOP has the numbers to impeach and convict the Justice so it'll be interesting if they have the courage.

[Michael P]

Is it a foregone conclusion that she won't have the integrity to recuse from a case where she clearly established her prejudice?

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read the post? That would be an unprecedented move.

[Michael P]

There have not been so many precedents (fewer than a hundred, over all causes and including states that do not elect judges) as to make that argument interesting, much less compelling.

[Randal]

You think a hundred cases doesn't make for a compelling precedent?

What is wrong with you, anyway? Oh I remember: cult.

[Nige]

What prejudice?

[Mr. Bumble]

Tangential to your comment, but will gerrymandering ever be resolved?
I would love to see a test where AI was given the task of drawing apportionment maps without regard to race or party among the parameters.

[Martinned]

You don't need AI for that. All you need is agreement on the algorithm, which would presumably be some version of "shortest total border length". But subject to which conditions? (Keeping entire streets in the same district? Any other units or groups?)

[Mr. Bumble]

As a start I'd suggest:
Equal population, contiguous districts and where possible maintaining the borders of political subdivisions.

[Michael P]

What constraints beyond compactness? Equal population, or close to it. Alignment to other existing borders (town/city, county, rivers, or as you mention, streets). Under the US Voting Rights Act, racial composition.

Also, there are lots of compactness metrics besides border length. Inscribed or circumscribed circles (for example, ratio of the district's area to the smallest circle around it), population-weighted distance from centroid, driving times, etc.

However, https://macartan.github.io/assets/pdf/papers/2009_gerrymander.pdf claims (I have not checked it) that a gerrymander can still satisfy compactness requirements.

[Moderation4ever]

I would suggest that all you need to do is open the process. Contracts with companies assigned to draw the maps must be public and the maps generated must be public. In Wisconsin the process has been that only legislators of the majority party can see the draft maps. They must go into the map room with no phones and they cannot report on what they see.

[Martinned]

That would help, but you'd still need to agree on what to tell that company to do. And once you've agreed that, I'm not sure what the role of private enterprise really needs to be.

[Moderation4ever]

What I am suggesting is that if the contracts were public the company drawing the maps would be under pressure to draw fair maps. The contract would state the goal for the maps and the public could question if the resultant maps did not match the intended goals.

Private companies are always contracted to draw the maps. First it is a way for political parties to pay off supporters, using taxpayer money. Second the maps are now drawn using computers programed with big data to optimism the results for the party purchasing the service. Legislators are not drawing the maps, but rather approving maps drawn by a third party.

[Martinned]

Yes, "the goal". Which may or may not be fairness. More likely the company would be under pressure to draw maps that satisfy the people who are paying attention at any given stage of the game.

As for the proper role of private enterprise: If the state doesn't even know enough about itself to be able to draw a map of itself, state capacity is truly far gone.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gerrymandering can’t be resolved so long as it’s being mandated at the same time, through interpretation of the voting rights act; Any automated redistricting algorithm is going to fail to produce the mandated majority-minority districts, after all. At that point you’re forced to manually intervene, and racially gerrymander.

Here’s my own proposal: Use software of the sort that’s already been developed by people like Chen and Cottrell, to generate a large set of randomly seeded maps that satisfy equal population, compactness, and perhaps respecting geographic/lower level political boundaries, but which are generated without any racial or voting data.

Then take all n ballot qualified parties, and let each of them eliminate from the set 1/(n+1) of the generated maps, in a process similar to voir dire.

Finally, once all the maps the ballot qualified parties find most objectionable have been eliminated, chose one of the remaining maps publicly using a raffle drum.

[apedad]

I wonder if, instead of a raffle drum, the voters could decide.

The process would narrow the potential maps to three, which would then be put to a state-wide vote.

At worst, there would be one runoff to get a majority.

[Brett Bellmore]

The raffle drum would be enormously cheaper, and reducing the potential maps to just 3 would be problematic in terms of how you'd approach it; The old "90% of the job takes 10% of the work" problem.

Aside from that, why give the majority party in the state one last shot at biasing the process in their own favor?

But, hey, it would still be better than the current process.

[bernard11]

why give the majority party in the state one last shot at biasing the process in their own favor?

I agree that's a bad idea. The whole problem with gerrymandering is that it allows the majority party to entrench itself.

[JasonT20]

Gerrymandering can’t be resolved so long as it’s being mandated at the same time, through interpretation of the voting rights act...

Sure, if you want to ignore both history and the current reality of race and politics, you can insist on completely race-neutral maps. In a world where race (or anything else, for that matter) has no consistent statistical connection to people's voting and policy preferences, then maps that don't take any of that into consideration would be awesome. But you seem to forget that the reason to create majority Black districts under the VRA was because so many southern whites would never vote for a Black candidate or even a white candidate that would actually represent the interests of Black voters that wanted equality, resources invested in their (still de facto segregated) communities, and so on.

We still need to have seats where Black voters can elect Black candidates in many states because there are still white politicians that would get elected in those states by white voters that won't represent the interests of Black voters otherwise.

[Martinned]

the reason to create majority Black districts under the VRA was because so many southern whites would never vote for a Black candidate or even a white candidate that would actually represent the interests of Black voters that wanted equality, resources invested in their (still de facto segregated) communities, and so on.

So what? Democracy is majoritarian by design, and US-style first past the post is definitely majoritarian. What you're describing sounds like an excellent reason to bin first past the post, but as long as you're not going to do that it seems to me that the solution is in equal protection/non-discrimination law - most notably the equal protection clause - not gerrymandering.

[jb]

This is a pretty good approach*, although the VRA is the law so you'd have to cope with it somehow unless this was part of some federal voting reform legislation that simultaneously got rid of gerrymandering and the VRA.

* You might have to figure out how to prevent the incumbent parties from creating a bunch of fake parties to get extra chances to throw out maps.

[Moderation4ever]

It is also worth noting that the Republican controlled legislator will use millions of taxpayer dollars to defend their own maps. As has been noted in this column before, Republicans will not lose control of the legislator if fair maps are used, they will only loss the level of control they now exercise.

https://madison.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/redistricting-lawsuit-wisconsin/article_49f2860e-0c06-11ee-83e0-bf9213c40774.html

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Republicans will lose control -- there are fewer and fewer clingers in America every day, thank goodness -- but it will take longer if they can cling to partisan district lines.

[Frank Drackman]

What about the 1250 Afro-Amuricans Aborted every day? "Thank Goodness"??? for that too? If you aren't disgraced Penn State Defensive Coach and Cereal Rape-ist Jerry Sandusky you're doing a pretty good job of pretending to be, the TBI part anyway,

Frank

[Kazinski]

At this point it doesn't matter whether there is precedent for removing a judge for campaign speech that calls into question her impartiality.

Its going to be raw judicial power against raw legislative power, and hard to say who will win.

The same thing happened in NC, an activist liberal court pitted against a .conservative legislative supermajority or close to it. Finally the voters settled it, at least for a while.

[David Nieporent]

The GOP has the numbers to impeach and convict the Justice so it’ll be interesting if they have the courage.

I don't think they're going to convict her. From what I understand, under Wisconsin rules as soon as a judge is impeached the judge is suspended. If convicted, she would of course be removed from office, at which point Evers could appoint a replacement, and the GOP would be no better off (other than having bought themselves a few months). But if the state senate just sits on the impeachment and never holds a trial, then Evers can't replace her, so the GOP has effectively stolen a seat.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope better Americans remember these events when the culture war renders Republicans politically irrelevant in most of America. The case for magnanimity toward vanquished conservatives diminishes steadily.

[Kazinski]

Excellent.

[Sarcastr0]

Cheering on a stolen judgeship in order to keep the voters actual opinions from being heard.

Awesome patriotin’

[Kazinski]

In any confrontation between the legislative branches and either the judiciary or the executive, then a sufficiently united legislature will prevail.

That's the way the system is designed, both federal and state.

And its been that way since parliament executed Charles I.

[Randal]

Just like Garland aka Gorsuch.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a theft, not some conceptual separations of powers philosophy.

Your argument that gerrymandering begets unreviewable more gerrymandering is how the system is designed is not going to convince anyone not already so nihilistic they don’t care about implications.

[not guilty]

Following an evidentiary hearing, U. S. District Judge Steve Jones has declined to exercise federal jurisdiction and remanded the prosecution of Mark Meadows to state court in Fulton County. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23945268/meadowsord090823.pdf Meadows immediately filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.

[Mr. Bumble]

No matter the circuit decision, is the SC next?
How long will this take and will Trump's decision to seek removal be affected?

[not guilty]

If the charges against Mark Meadows are not for or related to color of his federal office, even though Meadows may have acted at Donald Trump’s behest, it is difficult to see how the conduct Trump is charged with is for or related to color of his federal office. Trump has until thirty days after arraignment in state court to file a notice of removal. Presumably the federal District Court would hold an evidentiary hearing within weeks of that filing.

The Court of Appeals may order briefing and argument on an expedited schedule. The District Court did not address whether Meadows had alleged colorable federal defenses. It is possible that the Eleventh Circuit could remand to the District Court for further consideration of that issue — to the extent that any issue turned on credibility or other factual determinations, the District Court had the benefit of hearing the witnesses live.

Whether SCOTUS will grant discretionary review is anyone’s guess.

[SRG2]

Whether SCOTUS will grant discretionary review is anyone’s guess.

Whether Thomalito would grant review is not a guess 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Takes more than two to tango.

[SRG2]

Difference between "will" and "would", of course.

[darkknight9]

Did you wake up late this mornin? Normally you post your stuff way earlier. 🙂

[Religion and Politics, my life]

When Biden sent DOJ into Missouri, I thoujght "now people will see what a lazy stupid man he is" --but today I see he has cancelled (with no authority at all) Alaska gas and oil leases. And New Mexico governor has suspended 2nd Amendment !
Are libertarians even alive to not be outraged at this.

[apedad]

"The Secretary of the Interior has the authority to cancel or suspend oil and gas leases issued in violation of a statute or regulation. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) released today by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) developed information supporting the Department’s determination that the 2021 lease sale was seriously flawed and based on a number of fundamental legal deficiencies, including: insufficient analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, including failure to adequately analyze a reasonable range of alternatives and properly quantify downstream greenhouse gas emissions; and failure to properly interpret the Tax Act. Accordingly, Secretary Haaland has determined that the leases issued by the previous administration in the Arctic Refuge shall be cancelled."

Somebody disagrees with you.

[Life of Brian]

OMG, they offered up a fig leaf!

That bit of silliness aside, zoom out and query what appetite oilcos will have to enter into and develop leases now faced with the prospect that any one of them can be retroactively canceled at will. Oh, wait a sec....

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "New Mexico governor has suspended 2nd Amendment"
Prof. Volokh posted about this yesterday:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/10/challenge-to-n-m-governors-ban-on-public-gun-carry-in-albuquerque-and-surrounding-county/

[Krayt]

I was unaware that was due to open carry or ccw. I would have thought the gun violence emergency was due to crooks and drug action, who would not listen to her.

Huh.

[Kazinski]

Well good thing local law enforcement, sheriff, PD, DA, have all said they will not enforce her ban.

Only the State Police are directly under her orders, so of course they are not openly defying her, but I wonder if they will enforce it either. Their Union might figure its a little too legally risky for the officers to stick their necks out for the governor.

[Moderation4ever]

Last week the Reason site had article on President Biden's plan to raise salaries and on the possible government shut down. So, I was interested in an article in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, Sunday edition. The article reported on staffing challenges for government employees assigned to keep and report out records. These record custodians face the challenge of increasing numbers of record requests. These request for public records are made by people or groups from a broad swath of political spectrum. Providing the public records is an essential part of work government performs. Today with new technique to analyze big data, the request for these records can be huge. Search functions means that people requesting the data can scan large batches of records or document and so encourages large volume requests. Many of the records must be examined before release to insure that protected data is not accidently released. There is not enough staff to do all the work that record request generate. There is no doubt that government spending must be reduced, but this article points out that government is also under pressure to provide more which means more spending. I don't think that talk about government spending can be productive if we don't want to address the demands that government agencies are asked to meet.

[hobie]

Why not silo off sensitive/personal/military information and make ALL government records public?

[Martinned]

Given the army's habit of emailing secrets to Mali, and the general lack of privacy protection in the US, why even make those exceptions?

[Moderation4ever]

I think the answer here is that it just not that easy to silo off everything. Let me suggest an example, an employees work cell phone records are requested. This is a legitimate request. But say that employee had been talking last week with the HR department and gave them his SS number to checks some of his records. That SS information would have to be redacted. People are allowed broad access to government records including mail, email and cell phone records. Is it really possible to silo up all the information.

[hobie]

As it is with criminal case disclosure, work product is typically not discoverable. I happen to believe in that scheme too. I find it impractical, unnecessary and ridiculous to be able to publicly acquire notes, phone calls and emails from state individuals. If you really need that stuff then take them to court and procure it there under the wisdom and supervision of a judge.

[Moderation4ever]

But would this not require a repeal of the 1967 Freedom of Information Act? Is that likely to happen?

[hobie]

I'm advocating for the complete publicity of all records, data, meeting notes, etc. However, and I think this is the crux of your issue, communications between individuals...that seems a bridge too far for me. Let the courts deal with that, I think.

We're currently dealing with a situation where half of the Trump administration doesn't feel the need to turn over what they said to one another. That's how complex that issue is. It's taking multiple courts just to adjudicate that alone

[hobie]

I once had a client for whom I sent a FOIA to the DEA requesting data on how many other individuals similarly situated had been targeted over the years. I imagine that would have taken a lot of work on the DEA's part to amass the data for my request. But honor it they did because they had such data. Had all their records been public I would have amassed it myself.

Now then, should I have been allowed to ask for emails between agents targeting those similarly situated individuals? I would hope not even though it would have been great for my case. That kind of stuff is too granular. I also think privacy issues are at stake

[Moderation4ever]

I struck by your second to last sentences. Yes, many of the records are too granular. My point was that with current technology those granular records can be easily opened and searched. This means people will want the records and this increases the demand. My whole point is that advancements in technology create a weight on government that must be met and that increases the cost of government.

[Brett Bellmore]

Only if government WANTS to have it be costly, as a way of discouraging inquiries. They could just enter all the records into a public database as they're generated, after all.

[Sarcastr0]

That'd be super cheap, for sure.

[Brett Bellmore]

Since they'd be using the database themselves, they'd capture a lot of the benefits.

[Sarcastr0]

No, actually.

-Who would acquire the database? That'd be a huge buy. Heck, even generating the requirements would be a bear.
-Would one agency would be responsible, or are we making a new office?
How would we assure compliance across each agency and sub-office? Do we need a separate dedicated scraping program?
Who would be making sure it's not got PII in it? Or competition sensitive info?
Who would be querying the database when a FOIA request comes in.

[Mr. Bumble]

How much does privacy enter the picture with public employees in the course of their official duties?

[David Nieporent]

Some pundit — I want to say Yglesias, but I could be way off on that — suggested several years ago that emails should not be treated as FOIAable. His argument was that emails basically are the modern replacement for quick conversations/phone calls/voice mails. Instead of calling up Jim down the hall (or stopping by his office) and saying, "Hey, Bob called asking for a meeting to discuss that report on such-and-such. Is that a big deal? What should we do?" — something that would not be FOIAable, of course — we put it in an email. And as such the exact same discussion does become FOIAable, leading to increased burden on everyone.

The problem is that government workers haven't internalized that — or perhaps they don't care because they're not the ones who have to put in the work to actually respond to FOIA requests — and therefore the volume of material just keeps growing.

And (this is my part, not Yglesias's) because FOIA is used mainly by people with an agenda, they can weaponize any random email.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That seems a point worthy of consideration.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the only justification for quick conversations not being subject to FOIA, is that there isn't any record of them to respond with. It's a practicality argument, not an argument that government workers are entitled to ways to circumvent transparency.

Since emails DO leave records that could be responded with, they should be subject to FOIA, or else you're arguing against FOIA itself, not a particular application.

[David Nieporent]

No; the justification is that disclosing trivial interactions does not advance the purpose of FOIA.

[Brett Bellmore]

But private conversations are only contingently trivial interactions. They're perfectly capable of being highly consequential.

"Let's nail X to the wall, I hate his guts. Here are some ideas for infractions we could claim he's guilty of."

"I'm tired of the plebes knowing the basis for our decisions. I just got an email address, [e-mail]; The next time we're discussing enforcement actions, use that instead of my work address. Oh, have you seen the latest burner phones at Target? Time to get new ones."

They're perfectly capable of being something of that nature, and not just, "Hey, Bob; What do you think, the new taco joint for lunch?"

[Davedave]

You have that the wrong way up. You present a good case that in this day and age it is frankly ridiculous that government employees are not mic'd up to record every word they say while on the clock. The cost would be trivial.

Obviously the government employees would object, but that only proves the point further.

[Bob from Ohio]

Cell phone records just include phone numbers called and receive. No conversations.

[Kazinski]

FOIA may add up for individual department budgets, but as a percentage of government spending as a whole it will just be a rounding error.

If they run out of money for FOIA compliance they could always take it out of the DEI budget which is legally suspect anyway.

[apedad]

‘I won’t go quietly’: Man allegedly threatens the Bidens, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and law enforcement in series of violent posts

The defendant, Adam Ray Mouser, 39, is charged with threats against the president for his alleged statements about Joe Biden. He also faces a count of threats against former presidents and certain other persons protected by the United States Secret Service for threatening former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State and First Lady Hillary Clinton, and current First Lady Jill Biden. There is also a count of interstate communications with threat to injure.

The Secret Service claim they learned on Aug. 10 about Moser writing on X, the website formerly known as Twitter, that he wanted to “murder” President Biden with “my bare fucking hands” to shoot his “piece of shit wife” Jill Biden, and a Biden son, who Mouser did not name. The president’s son, Hunter Biden, is a bugbear among some conservatives.

“The Fed protects pedophiles and scum,” he allegedly wrote. “Hope u stay alive longer than I did.”

Mouser remains at the Sangamon County Detention Facility as of Friday morning, records show. His attorney did not immediately respond to a Law&Crime request for comment.

Hoppy! Is this you?!?

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/i-wont-go-quietly-man-allegedly-threatens-the-bidens-obama-hillary-clinton-and-law-enforcement-in-series-of-violent-posts/

[hoppy025]

Sounds like a nutcase, but I don't see a "true threat" in any of those statements.

[Moderation4ever]

Nutcases. Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley, Squeaky Fromme what do we have to fear from nutcases?

[not guilty]

hoppy025, did you review the criminal complaint? https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23945007/adam-ray-mouser-complaint.pdf

The accused definitely made true threats.

[hoppy025]

I read it. There is no true threat. A true threat requires that a reasonable person would perceive it as a threat. No one would reasonably read these and think he had the actual motivation or ability to carry any of it out. Hence, not a true threat.

[apedad]

Read the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871

It doesn't matter about motivation or ability.

Simply making a threat is good (bad?) enough.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What causes misfits like hoppy to figure they can determine how a reasonable person would think?

[Frank Drackman]

Well you're a convicted cereal Sex Offender and seem to have no problem ejaculating your opinions on everybody.

[hoppy025]

Let me ask you something. When you're about to unload into a little boy's backside, do you make sure he's taken PrEP first?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh forbids me to use terms such as "p_ssy." "sl_ck-j_wed," and "c_p succ_r," and has banned Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland for making fun of conservatives, but vile racial slurs and hoppy's constant vulgarity never seem to invoke Prof. Volokh's tone-policing.

How many vile racial slurs would I be required to use, Prof. Volokh, before I became eligible for the treatment hoppy gets? (That's a rhetorical question -- I wouldn't seek your blessing even if just one racial slur would satisfy you.)

Carry on, hypocritical, cowardly, antisocial clingers.

[hobie]

I find it amusing that Hoppy is so dumb that he's actually bought into Drackman's sophomoric pederast fantasy. The poor bastard can't think for himself

[Michael P]

So, this guy definitely deserves to be prosecuted, and probably whatever sentence he gets. But "and a Biden son, who Mouser did not name"? Does someone think he was threatening to dig up Beau to shoot him, or does Joe have a bastard?

[hoppy025]

No, he doesn't.

[Frank Drackman]

Hunter's got the Bastards in that family

[hoppy025]

Hunter is a criminal cokehead piece of shit. I hope he dies of cancer too.

[Kazinski]

I'd like some more information on the does Joe has a bastard speculation.

Gavin Newsome? Must have his mothers brains.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does anyone know the handle this Mouser uses when posting at the Volokh Conspiracy?

[Frank Drackman]

Jerry Sandusky

[not guilty]

This defendant looks like an appropriate candidate for pretrial detention.

[Mr. Bumble]

Twenty two years ago I was in a panic trying to determine if my son who was attending school in NYC was safe.
Here is fucktard captcrisis' take on that day.

captcrisis 59 mins ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User

“It was a new world we were living in. Never forget. Ever.”

Bullshit. And I say this as a New Yorker who was 8 years into being a lawyer, working in Manhattan. For nine months there was a haze that we had to breathe — which included molecules of dead bodies.

This should have been treated as a police matter. It was a crime committed by men who should have been tracked down and subjected to justice. Instead we got this “it’s a whole new world now” bullshit, this “War on Terror” bullshit, which inflicted more harm on others (at a cost of trillions of dollars) than we ever suffered on Sept. 11, 2001. We were tested as a nation and we flunked, badly.

[ducksalad]

The first year or so in Afghanistan was justified and necessary, conditions were such that the criminals could not be reached except by military action.

But the rest, yeah, BS.

[Nige]

The US responded in ways that were characteristic of the US, only magnified. In the end the solemnity and enormity of the crime was dwarfed and diminished by the unnecessary and cynical killing and destruction the US indulged in.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Little danger of forgetting. Realizing we were in a world capable of being [bleeped]-up and nasty - knowledge which is held by people across the globe. But also a world with firefighters and cops going into a deadly situation.

IIRC an antiterrorist command center was located in the towers (which, recall, had been targeted once before, in 1993). Who was the genius who put the command center there, and what happened to him, anyway?

[Mr. Bumble]

The command center was not in one of the tower but rather in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings in the complex. It was destroyed when the towers collapsed.
Yes, there was an attack in 1993. A truck bomb in the garage under the building. Per the Clinton administration that was treated as a "police matter" leading to the 2001 attack.

[Martinned]

Terrorist attacks should always be treated as police matters. Treating them as different from other crimes means giving the terrorists exactly what they want.

[Mr. Bumble]

Terrorist attacks in the nature of 2001 are acts of war. If committed by a government would the answer be to treat it as a police matter?

[Martinned]

I think you've just answered your own question. An armed attack by the government of one country against the territory of another is the very definition of an act of war.

[Kazinski]

Yet Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was as almost as much a part of the state as the Taliban was.

When a government turns over to terrorists, voluntarily, territory, effective control, and takes them into their internal councils, well then they are assuming responsibility too.

And don't forget, the first step of 9/11 was the All Qaeda assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance in order to make it harder to bring the Taliban/Al Qaeda coalition to justice.

[Martinned]

"almost" in the sense of "they lived there and the Taliban didn't try to throw them in prison". But then, I'm not sure which Afghan laws Al Qaeda necessarily broke during this period.

[David Nieporent]

Treating them as different from other crimes means giving the terrorists exactly what they want.

It turns out that people who say that X response is "giving the terrorists exactly what they want" inevitably are people who are ascribing their own preferences about X to the terrorists. (Or, rather, anti-preferences.) "I don't like X. Therefore, we shouldn't do X because the terrorists want us to."

Why would the terrorists want us to treat terrorist attacks as acts of war?

[Martinned]

Because they want to scare us and cause us to overreact. Is that somehow news? It's right there in the name.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror

[David Nieporent]

The "scaring us" was accomplished by the attack, not the response. Why do you think they want us to overreact?

[Mr. Bumble]

To play the victim and give them an excuse to attack again.

[Absaroka]

Terrorists are almost always the weaker side of the conflict (if they were stronger, they'd just attack conventionally). Their limited strength means there may not be much damage from their actual attack, but if it results in a massive response, they have imposed the cost of that response for a small cost to themselves. One of their objectives is to create sort of an auto-immune response. For example, remember the shoe bomber? Zero actual damage, but millions of Americans get to shuffle shoeless through the TSA checkpoints.

Not especially apropos the current War on Terror, but in WWII, partisans throw a grenade into a German truck. Two Germans killed. The Germans go to the nearest village and execute a couple dozen random people. Over the next few days 50 new recruits filter into the guerilla camp. That happened repeatedly. In Vietnam, guerillas snipe a (French|American) patrol near a village. The patrol burns the village. You guessed it, that night new recruits arrive at the guerilla base. At the summer 2020 riots, you see people getting right in police officer's faces, screaming. Because if you can get one to lose his temper on camera, it's a big PR win.

Sending George Patton across the Rhine with enough force to stomp any opposition is a mostly about military force, with a thin slice of politics on the side. Guerilla war and terrorism are mostly political things, because the guerillas/terrorists just don't have access to much force.

[Sarcastr0]

The war on terror had to deal with a lot of apocalyptic types, whose motives were short term - to validate the evil of the other side by provoking them to be evil.

Not even PR, just an appeal to the supernatural.

[David Nieporent]

The Germans go to the nearest village and execute a couple dozen random people. Over the next few days 50 new recruits filter into the guerilla camp. That happened repeatedly.

I'm not sure it happened at all. Also, a couple dozen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice

[Absaroka]

"I’m not sure it happened at all."

???

"Also, a couple dozen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice"

Heydrich was a big cheese, so big reprisals. Not that the Germans were shy about body counts. That kind of reprisal was SOP for the Germans, in little villages all over the USSR, Eastern Europe, well pretty much anywhere the Germans went. I doubt there is a list, I'd guess hundreds at least. There was a big partisan war in the USSR that is only very lightly documented in the west. I've read of the reprisals generating recruits phenomenon in numerous bios, either native guerillas or SOE/OSS/etc folks operating with the guerillas.

Googling "german reprisals wwii" lists a bunch:

Ardeatine massacre (335)
Sant'Anna di Stazzema (560)
Marzabotto massacre (770)
Salussola massacre (20)
Oradour-sur-Glane (643)
Kalavryta (>500)

etc, etc, etc

[Martinned]

This was famously the strategy of the RAF (the German one): expose the true fascist nature of the German state by inducing it to overreact against its attacks.

Again, the RAF saw continuity between Nazi Germany and the FRG and believed that the FRG’s true nature - a fascist dictatorship - was hidden behind a mask of political and economic concessions. This view would lead the group to interpret many of the counterterrorism measures discussed below as signs that the mask was slipping and that the armed struggle had forced the FRG to show its true colours. Such policies, so the RAF believed, would only accelerate the downfall of the capitalist system. The RAF was convinced that the masses would rally around them to stand up against the state and the agents of repression.

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2957567/view

[Mr. Bumble]

This is how treating terrorist attacks as police matters has worked out:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/09/9-11-a-memorial-to-fbi-failure.php

[Martinned]

Nonsense. The US has been incredibly safe from terrorism throughout its history. It's a big country with lots of domestic and foreign terrorists who want to hurt it, and very few of them have ever been successful.

[Krayt]

It's been pointed out several trillion more dollars dumped into medical research would have saved a hell of a lot more lives than a few thousand.

[not guilty]

In Fulton County, the Defendant Kenneth Chesebro has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment as to him, on the basis that only one of the acts he is alleged to have committed occurred before December 8, 2020. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23937462/23sc188947-motion-6.pdf

There is no such thing as a frivolous criminal defense at trial. But there is such a thing as a batshit crazy pretrial motion, and this is decidedly one of those.

The motion misapprehends what is central to conspiracy, namely, that each actor in a conspiracy is responsible for the overt actions undertaken by all the other co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. There is no requirement in a RICO conspiracy case that the State prove that a defendant personally committed the underlying predicate offenses. Pasha v. State, 273 Ga. App. 788, 790, 616 S.E.2d 135 (2005).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Chesebro may be smart and sane enough to become increasingly desperate.

He got lathered and crossed lines, but he did not seem to express or conduct himself with the loony heedlessness exhibited by his co-conspirators as they devised and tried to implement their un-American plot.

By now, he probably remembers enough reality-based law to recognize that he is in severe trouble. He also is probably going to be quicker than most to understand that Trump will treat him like a fouled baby wipe. He doesn't seem like the type of loser willing to go to prison to vindicate white grievance, belligerent ignorance, backwardness, childish superstition, and right-wing partisanship.

I do not know whether Chesebro possesses evidence that could benefit prosecutors, but he seems a particularly strong candidate to try to trade cooperation for diminished punishment.

[Jimmy the Dane]

EV's are a scam promoted by leftists that can be so easily duped it really isn't funny.

[Moderation4ever]

Could this not be said of many things that we now take for granted?

[Jimmy the Dane]

"No one above rule of law" was also a scam perpetuated by stupid leftists.

[hoppy025]

"Rule of law" and "norms" and "civility" are for conservatives only. These degusting perverts don't see it as their obligation. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Leftists deserve to be gassed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

leftists that can be so easily duped it really isn’t funny

How was church on Sunday?

[Jimmy the Dane]

It is funny how you always post about "vile racial slurs" here but you have no problem hurling slurs and insults at religious people. What justifies your form of hate while you think you are free to condemn others?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"How was church on Sunday" is not a slur. It isn't a genuine insult.

People are entitled to believe as they wish. Competent adults, however, neither advance nor accept superstition-based argument or assertions in reasoned debate, especially with public affairs. When people drag their preference for superstition to reason and dogma to science into discussion among adults, their mistake should be noted and they should be criticized.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is some delusional reasoning to make yourself feel justified in hating on religious people.....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am quite justified in preferring reason to superstition and science to dogma.

I also am justified in disrespecting supernatural arguments advanced in reasoned debate -- and the gullible people who advance such arguments.

I do not believe that religion improves bigotry or transforms that bigotry into anything other than disgusting bigotry. I object to superstitious gay-bashing, for example, and think little of people low enough to engage in it.

I dislike endless special privilege for religious claimants, most of whom seem to be trying to carve out safe spaces for their revolting, obsolete bigotry.

I believe people are entitled to believe as they wish. If religion provides comfort to someone, or inclines someone to do something good, that is good. But I have observe no evidence that religion improves anyone or anything. If religious people genuinely believed what they claim to believe, they would act better, hoping to lead more people to salvation. But they don't. Much, if not most, of the vestigial bigotry remaining in America is tied to organized religion.

[Frank Drackman]

At least some of us have the opportunity to go to church on Sunday (or Saturday, we're not all Christ-ers here).
I mean, one that's not in a Correctional Facility like
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

Frank

[OtisAH]

Just more hat-on-a-hat stupidity from Jimmy.

[Ben_]

Depending on where you live, if you’re rich enough you can get solar panels and an EV and never pay for electricity and gas again. That’s worth doing if gas taxes and electric bills are high.

For any long distance driving, EVs are worse. In cold weather locations EVs are worse. If you rent your home EVs are very likely worse. But in specific situations they make sense.

Lots of stuff is like that. It arguably makes sense for someone, somewhere so leftists decide to mandate it for everyone everywhere. Leftists then name call anyone who complains about the resulting hardships. Often it has a let them eat cake vibe.

[Nige]

But you don't give a shit about peoples' hardships. Or rather you only care about imagimary ones, like these, not real ones.

EVs are no substitute for public transport. Plough up the roads and buld homes and parks on them.

[jb]

I'm missing the part where EVs were mandated?

[Ben_]

You should stop trolling

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/08/25/california-enacts-world-leading-plan-to-achieve-100-percent-zero-emission-vehicles-by-2035-cut-pollution/

[Kazinski]

Did you read rather amusing NPR article about Secretary of Energy Granholms EV road trip. They sent staffers ahead in gas powered cars to reserve and block chargers. A family in Georgia on a hot day with a baby in the car had to call police because a staffer was blocking the charger with a gas vehicle to keep it free for Granholms arrival.

They probably would have been OK driving Teslas, because Tesla has its own proprietary charging network, and other EV manufacturers are mostly dependent on government subsidized stations.

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/10/1187224861/electric-vehicles-evs-cars-chargers-charging-energy-secretary-jennifer-granholm

[Frank Drackman]

So when does this Governor in New May-He-Co get the boot for her flagrant violation of the Bill of Rights? I'm guessing if the Governor of Ali-bama ignored the 13th amendment there'd be a hullabaloo

Frank

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is not how it works. The left gets to ignore the law and use power completely unchecked. It is only the right that has to "play by the rules" and gets flack when they dare to push the envelope.

Remember when there were "no Obama judges" when Obama judges seemed to never be able to turn down an injunction against anything Trump? And then four years later there are MAGA Trump judges everywhere and the media has no problem publishing hit pieces on them which call into question the legitimacy of the third branch.

See how that works....

[Ed Grinberg]

The "mainstream" media are reliable watchdogs against Republican politicians / judges, and just as reliable guard-dogs for Democratic politicians / judges. But they claim to be nonpartisan! What a fucking joke...

[Krayt]

As opposed to that judge who ruled against Trump because he's a Mexican, wink.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

We appear to have reached the point at which the commenters whine as much as the Volokh Conspirators.

[OtisAH]

The Bill of Rights requires open carry of firearms in Albuquerque? Fascinating.

[Frank Drackman]

more fascinating that you're allowed out in pubic. Doesn't require it all, but certainly prohibits not allowing it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Otis, if you aren’t even vaguely familiar with the facts of a situation, you should probably keep your mouth shut.

The Governor has not only banned open carry, but suspended all laws regarding concealed carry in ABQ as well. The only people currently allowed to carry a firearm outside of the home are LEO and licensed security guards.

It is a flagrant violation of the 2A and multiple SCOTUS decisions reinforcing the scope of the 2A.

Maybe you should actually go read the fucking order yourself.

[Krayt]

On the other hand, who opened the abuse of "Emergency!!!1a!11"?

You were warned, and it's been used twice against you, now.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You have nothing substantive to say on the topic other than idiotic (and wrong) finger-pointing?

Kindly fuck off forever.

[Mr. Bumble]

Jason. AH is short for AssHat.

[Bob from Ohio]

Good news. After 55 years, Biden's asthma is not stopping him from visiting Vietnam.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, they needed him back home for the Navy football team

[Mr. Bumble]

Did he bring Hanoi Jane?

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't you hear? she's in the Hospice with Jimmuh Cartuh (most people get Stage 4 Cancer and Die, but Jimmuh Cartuh just gets stronger, like Godzilla,) got the Alzheimers or something, but she'll always be Barbarella to me
i t's a wonder, Wonder woman
You're so wild and wonderful
'Cause it seems whenever we're together
The planets all stand still
Barbarella psychadela
There's a kind of c***le-shell about you
(Barbarella Ba-ba-barbarella)
Dazzle me with rainbow colors
Fade away the duller shade of living

[not guilty]

I tried the Jane Fonda workout videos, but the only one I could get the hang of was Klute.

[Brett Bellmore]

I enjoyed Cat Ballou.

[Absaroka]

An FSU professor, Eric Stewart, has been fired for academic misconduct. I saw an article about that, and went looking for details. This is the best non-paywalled summary I could find.

The lesson here, I think, is that when you see a headline saying "New Study Says X", that doesn't mean "X is true with a probability of 100%". A better reaction might be "Interesting, I wonder if it will replicate". There are lots of reasons studies can be wrong, from mere statistical chance to misconduct. As the Gipper said, 'trust but verify'.

[Martinned]

Why is why good science journalists, when reporting on a new study, get a quote from an academic who works in the same field but wasn't involved in the study. That usually helps provide a sense of reliability.

[Absaroka]

1)Good science journalism is pretty thin on the ground.
2)The quote should probably be "Interesting. Let's see if it replicates" 🙂

[Martinned]

Sure, but since replication can be pretty expensive and/or time consuming, the quote might also usefully be "here's how this result fits with a hundred other papers I've read".

[John F. Carr]

Headline in Axios last week: "Tim Scott isn't married – and that makes GOP donors wary"

[OtisAH]

Headline today says he’s going to introduce his girlfriend soon. I assume they’re just waiting on final contract signatures. Of course, nobody has ever asked to see Lindsey Graham’s girlfriend. Wonder what the difference is?

[Bob from Ohio]

Sneak peak, its Rosario Dawson.

"Wonder what the difference is?"

Oh, the race card.

difference: Graham never ran for President.

[David Nieporent]

difference: Graham never ran for President.

Narrator: in fact, Graham had run for president; Bob from Ohio was wrong yet again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham_2016_presidential_campaign

[not guilty]

"Graham never ran for President."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Bob?

[Bob from Ohio]

I forgot. Sue me.

[OtisAH]

Hilarious.

[Michael P]

Lindsey Graham's girlfriend lives in Canada?

[shawn_dude]

I'm old enough, and queer enough, to remember when that was called a "beard."

[Ben_]

Because there are Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford types out there.

Expect liars to come forward with false accusations against Scott if he ever becomes a serious contender.

[Nige]

You're pre-emptively accusing him of rape? You really need better quality candidates.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, disaffected
conservative blog has
operated for no more than

TWENTY-FOUR (24)

days without publishing
a vile racial slur; it has
published racial slurs
on at least

TWENTY-SEVEN (27)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
27 different discussions,
not 27 racial slurs; many
of those discussions
featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the incessant, disgusting stream of
gay-bashing, misogynist, antisemitic,
Islamophobic, and immigrant-hating
slurs and other bigoted content
presented daily at this conservative
blog, which is presented by
culture war losers from
the Federalist Society for
Law and Public Policy Studies.

(Twenty-four days! It has been quite some time since the number of consecutive slur-free days has exceeded the number of slur-publishing days at the Volokh Conspiracy, but we are getting close. Has the proprietor recognized the shitty nature of his conduct and begun to try to improve his performance? Did John Eastman's indictment incline some introspection and attempted self-betterment? Might we observe genuine, long-term improvement from Prof. Volokh and this bigot-hugging blog?)

With hope this is a legitimate turn away from ugly right-wing intolerance and stale conservative thinking, here are a couple of inspirational tunes that might help the Volokh Conspiracy hold a better course.

Keep up the better work, Volokh Conspirators!

[Life of Brian]

On the other hand, Artie -- and at considerable risk of stating the obvious -- it has been precisely zero (0) days since YOUR last missive chock-full of slurs and invective against your particular "others."

If it weren't for double standards, you'd have none at all.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Calling a racist a racist, describing an uninformed delusion as an uninformed delusion, referring to superstitious gay-bashing as superstitious gay-bashing, and the like do not constitute the use of slurs.

I am highly critical of conservative bigots, delusional misfits, uniformed dumbasses, and worthless culture war casualties. If that bothers you, you may call it invective and take it up with the proprietor. How you wish to spend the time you have remaining before replacement is your choice.

[Life of Brian]

How you wish to spend the time you have remaining before replacement is your choice.

LOL, tough guy pseudonymous internet commentator. Try this sort of crap in real life and the only thing needing "replacement" would be your soiled undergarments.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would gladly call you a bigot under any circumstances. I have spent countless hours litigating against Republican bigots, obtaining court orders against right-wing vote suppressors in election court, opposing conservative legislation, reporting on Republican bigotry and backwardness, etc. What have you done, other than whimper at your keyboard about how your betters aren’t being nice enough to racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic clingers? About how much you hate modern America and all of this damned progress?

Getting stomped in the culture war through your life has made you cranky and whiny. Great!

[Life of Brian]

Artie, if you were anyone of any consequence at all, you wouldn't waste huge segments of your life with these plaintive, pathetic self-cheerleading missives. Full stop. You're not fooling anyone but yourself -- and I sort of doubt you're even doing that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I believe bigots should be known as bigots. I also believe in the no free swings approach at the marketplace of ideas. I like mocking clingers. I also am semi-retired and can type exceptionally fast. Responding to the predictable, repetitive dumbassery of the Volokh Conspirators and their fans doesn’t take much time.

Do you fault Prof. Volokh for devoting so much time to operating a shitty, bigot-flattering blog in general or to covering the transgender parenting-white grievance-lesbian-transgender sorority drama-drag queen-Black crime-Muslim-transgender rest room-racial slur beat in particular?

I will reflect on your comments as I celebrate victory over assholes like you and this blog’s deplorable fans in the magnificent American culture war. I figure you’re angry mostly because Prof. Volokh has been woke enough not to use a racial slur for a few weeks.

[Life of Brian]

I also am semi-retired and can type exceptionally fast.

Yes, yes, Artie -- and I'm sure you also can read with your eyes shut.

Whatever semi-defensive attempts you may dredge up to try to buff up the situation around the edges, you can't get away from the simple fact that your time/reach ratio here is minuscule. That you're spending a substantial portion of your retirement in such an environment grinding out your tree-falling-in-a-forest screeds just reinforces how sad your life must actually be.

[Randal]

Posturing via threats of violence, how very 80s!

I guess every conservative has their historical fantasy era of preference.

[Life of Brian]

May well have been the 80s for conservatives — libs on the other hand are keeping up with the times.

Also, lighten up. Artie is a sad joke — it’s fun to yank his chain every now and again.

[Randal]

You're just sad he's right. Repetitive, but right.

You might as well call yourself Life of Archie Bunker But 50 Years Later Making it Especially Pathetic.

[Life of Brian]

You’re just sad he’s right.

That's an impressively high falsehood-to-word ratio, my friend -- he's not right, and I'm not sad. Extremely bemused, more like. At you as well, who for reasons unknown seem bound and determined to play the role of Artie's yappy little lap dog. Perhaps you enjoy the challenge of defending the indefensible.

[Randal]

I don't mind sticking up for the downtrodden.

[John F. Carr]

A police officer pleaded guilty to violating civil rights by stomping on the face of a helpless man he was arresting. The indictment charged use of a dangerous weapon and bodily injury. The sentence was a year and a day. The defendant didn't have a criminal record, the judge explained, although lack of a criminal record is already accounted for in the sentencing guidelines.

This caught my eye because some January 6 defendants got much harsher sentences for doing less. Under the sentencing guidelines assault on a police officer is much worse than assault by a police officer.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/08/indianapolis-officer-who-kicked-man-in-face-sent-to-federal-prison/70798363007/

[Martinned]

Someone should really do something about police unions!

[Mr. Bumble]

Somebody should do something about all public sector unions; like do away with them.

[OtisAH]

Harsh sentences for assaults on police are proper and necessary. Harsher penalties for police assaults on citizens are correct and necessary, too, but we just can’t seem to get ourselves to take them seriously.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The difference is the January 6th political prisoners "deserve" anything coming to them. The same people that decry police brutality seem to get all giddy when it comes to doing anything and everything to a January 6th political prisoner including advocating prison rape.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The difference is the January 6th political prisoners “deserve” anything coming to them.

Those un-American losers deserve every day of the terms of incarceration that have been imposed upon them. Many have been the beneficiaries of undeserved leniency.

Let's hope they use the time in a cell for introspection and improvement. Some of them may even become decent Americans.

[Randal]

Oh my god, advocating the rape of criminals in prison is so common it's a fucking trope.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PrisonRape

Yet another right-winger demonstrates abject ignorance about the horrific treatment of criminals in this country until he has political sympathies with one.

[Ben_]

Political crimes vs. actual crimes.

[shawn_dude]

What's really amazing here is that the officer pled guilty and got actual time for the crime. That rarely happens. It's so common for criminal police action to result in, at most, an option to resign without consequences that when police do get any sort of punishment for violating civil rights it's huge news. If not for this, BLM wouldn't exist.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Coming sometime in 2024: it will be revealed that the gun-manufacturers have been implanting micro-chips in the guns, at the government’s behest. The government will be able to disable your guns remotely, by sending out a special satellite signal. Or, to set your gun to blow up in your face when you fire it.

And if you think that the parts you buy for “ghost guns” are really anonymous, and cannot be identified and tracked, you’re in for a rude awakening. Identifying marks – serial numbers – can be imprinted on the insides of the parts/components of today’s guns, and they can be made so small that you need a highly-specialized microscope to see them at all. They can even be coded on the molecular level. Non-natural combinatorial polymers (information-storage polymers with a vocabulary of different sub-units linked front-to-back in linear fashion like letters making words on a page) similar to DNA but stable, high-tensile, non-fragile, able to withstand the force of being fired from a gun) are a high-growth specialty in synthetic inorganic chemistry right now. The bullets and shells you buy today are readily identifiable, too.

There are no “ghost guns”. There are no “untraceable bullets”. There are only guns (and bullets and shells) whose serial numbers you cannot see.

A year from now this will be common knowledge. The only guns you will be able to trust will be guns whose parts you make yourself, starting with pieces of raw iron.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Is this a satirical post, or are you actually this dumb?

[Krayt]

I would think any molecule that could survive room temperature for a few moments would survive being shot out of a gun, especially if encased in lead, said molten lead molding also far more energetic than a piddly whonk.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

It would also depend on how many copies of the combinatorial polymer were present.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd think parody, but he has written some pretty crazy stuff lately.

[Randal]

I assume he's trying come up with something so crazy-stupid that you'd believe it, Brett.

It's harder than it seems!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, he's ventured into engineering matters, and I AM an engineer, after all.

[shawn_dude]

Government invents infinite battery and tiny, super-accurate satellite antenna and uses it to boobytrap handguns rather than solve real issues. ... Next on OANN!

[Michael P]

I look forward to the prosecutions for insurrection from this rowdy protest: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2023/09/11/insurrection-activists-occupy-speaker-mccarthys-office-n1726095

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're really desperate for attention today, eh?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's perfectly reasonable of him: They broke into the Speaker's office in an effort to derail the operation of government and force a legislative decision. Even took selfies!

It's insurrection. Get used to it, you can't lower the bar just for Trump, and not for people you like, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, your forced lack or perspective remains ridiculous. No, an unlawful protest is not the same as what happened on January 06.

You know this, that’s why you call J6 a riot. Even by your own way lowered standards of J6 you're wrong. And yet, here you are, playing the clown once again.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your problem is that you're welded to just one perspective, your own: You can't reason about how people who disagree with you would apply the principles you're relying on.

"That's different!", you'll say. But whether it's different is exactly what they disagree with you about!

I know you think "That's different!". I don't. A hell of a lot of people don't think "that's different", and what the hell makes you think that people who disagree with you about that are never going to be in a position to put THEIR opinion, instead of yours, into action?

When you propose rules, you'd better consider how you'd fare under them if somebody else was enforcing them, not you.

[Sarcastr0]

My problem is that the burden is on you to establish an equivalence, and all you do is insist that there is an equivalence and then go on from there.

[David Nieporent]

I know you think “That’s different!”. I don’t.

Seems weird to admit that you're clueless and irrational. But you're objectively wrong.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has now filed a motion seeking recusal of U. S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in the District of Columbia proceedings. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.50.0_6.pdf The ostensible basis for the motion is remarks that Judge Chutkan made in sentencing two participants in the January 6, 2021 breach of the Capitol. That is remarkably weak sauce.

As SCOTUS has opined, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. Opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Thus, judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

[David Nieporent]

As SCOTUS has opined, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.

If some street dealer had been arrested for the sale of narcotics, and Chutkan gratuitously said, "I don't see why this guy should go to prison when Trump's roaming free," that could be a sign of bias. But that's not remotely the context of the comments that Trump is trying to rely on in this desperate motion; the J6 defendants themselves pointed a finger at Trump, so she was responding to those arguments.

[Ben_]

On the anniversary of 9/11, Biden chose to lie to everyone and say he was at ground zero on 9/12.

And then, just to twist the knife on Americans, he announced he was giving $6 Billion to his and Obama’s ayatollah friends in Iran.

[Commenter_XY]

And no final resolution to the case of Robert Levinson. One would think 6B would do it. Apparently not.