Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Has Josh stopped posting Today in Supreme Court History?

[Martinned]

Has he stopped posting altogether?

[Mr. Bumble]

So far he has missed only yesterday and is late today.

[Martinned]

I meant that he hasn't been posting other things either.

[Mr. Bumble]

True. Maybe he got tired of all of the abuse he receives here, is on extended vacation or is ill?

[Michael P]

Perhaps we have reached, to coin a phrase, the end of (Supreme Court) history.

[Frank Drackman]

Well it became Capt Crisis's Porn Reviews some time ago

[Magister]

Blackman posted a few months ago that he is the parent of two young children; that could take up a lot of one's time which would no longer be available for making self-aggrandizing blog posts.

[not guilty]

If that is the case, it has not recently become so.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, managing those Nannies/AuPairs can be challenging, not to mention that California Campfire disaster of a hairstyle

[Frank Drackman]

I hope so

[Dan Schiavetta]

He's just posted on something else so I think he made an affirmative decision to stop the "Today in Supreme Court" posts.

For 514 days in a row now (by my count), I've put up comments as to what actually happened in SCOTUS on those dates. The ones since May 6, 2023 have been reruns of the previous years', but I've been adding last years' decisions this time around (if there have been any). I will miss doing this. I've learned a great deal by looking these things up (because almost always they were cases I'd never heard of before), and learned more from commenters like J.D. Carr and F.D. Wolf and Magister, etc., as they added or corrected information.

(I've been posting the same comments on my own web site, which nobody ever looks at.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe you should add porno reviews with links.

[Sarcastr0]

As I said in a previous open thread, I was impressed not only with your steady content production, but with the tone you set in those comments. Thanking people, not engaging the haters, etc.
Not only the effort you put in, but the effect it had was noticeable.

Not that I don't know you can mix it up when need be, but your self control on those was noted. I'm glad I've never set a test for myself to be so patient!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks much !

[ducksalad]

What's your website's URL? If it's not a secret....

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t feel comfortable posting the URL here but just google my screen name and you’ll find it.

I’ll continue to post Supreme Court “days” and invite anyone to join in. Like I said, I’ve learned a lot. Also invite comments on how to improve my web site because it’s pretty rudimentary. It's a one-person show.

[theobromophile]

Back in the day, we could link to our own websites via our usernames. Unfortunately, that doesn't exist anymore.

[Don Nico]

Wishful thinking!

[loki13]

It's like Beetlejuice; write JB's name three times, and a new post pops up.

[santamonica811]

Ha. My mind also went immediately to a Beetlejuice reference!!!

[Dilan Esper]

Josh giving this feature up makes October 2, 2023 a historic day in Supreme Court history.

[Drewski]

Probably got tired of being upstaged every day.

[Kazinski]

Should Rep Jamaal Bowman be charged with Obstructing an Official Proceeding and expelled from the House?

I don’t think there is any doubt someone other than a congressman that pulled a fire alarm to delay a crucial vote would be charged for that. I don’t see any excuse for Bowman not to be charged, and expelled. Pulling a fire alarm is neither speech or debate, or legislative fact finding.

Obviously it takes 2/3 of the House to expel him, but it only takes one prosecutor doing their job to charge him.

I heard that some consider avoiding a government shutdown crucial for the wellbeing of the nation, which would of course make it much more of an imperative to prosecute obstructing such important legislation.

[not guilty]

Not excusing what he did, but did Rep. Bowman act corruptly? If you claim that he did, what facts do you base that on?

[Kazinski]

As corruptly as any of the Jan 6th rioters.

But certainly yes: “the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.”

Delaying a congressional vote without a valid purpose without using proper parliamentary procedure is certainly an improper motive. And using a false fire alarm certainly is an aggravating factor and could be as dangerous as a riot if it was perceived as a real fire.

[not guilty]

"Delaying a congressional vote without a valid purpose without using proper parliamentary procedure is certainly an improper motive."

Think so? Sound to me like question begging. Cui bono?

And what authorit(ies) are you quoting for your definition of acting "corruptly"? Use of quotation marks without indicating the source of the quoted material is suspect.

[Kazinski]

Here is the link, its not hard to find.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1725-protection-government-processes-obstruction-pending-proceeding-18#:~:text=%C2%A7%201515%2C%20which%20defines%20the,information.%22%20False%20Statements%20Accountability%20Act

I think the improper motive is pretty clear, because there can't possibly be a proper motive to falsely pull a fire alarm to delay a vote to keep the government open.

[not guilty]

“I think the improper motive is pretty clear, because there can’t possibly be a proper motive to falsely pull a fire alarm to delay a vote to keep the government open.”

More question begging. Why am I unsurprised?

And your link references 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 1515. Obstruction of an official proceeding is prohibited by § 1512(c), a different statute.

The meaning of the word “corruptly” as used in § 1512(c) is currently before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case that was orally argued on May 11, 2023 and could be decided any day now. The trial court in that case defined “corruptly” as follows:

To act “corruptly,” the defendant must use unlawful means or act with an unlawful purpose, or both. The defendant must also act with “consciousness of wrongdoing.” “Consciousness of wrongdoing” means with an understanding or awareness that what the person is doing is wrong.

Not all attempts to obstruct or impede an official proceeding involve acting corruptly. For example, a witness in a court proceeding may refuse to testify by invoking his constitutional<br privilege against self-incrimination, thereby obstructing or impeding the proceeding, but he does not act corruptly. In contrast, an individual who obstructs or impedes a court proceeding by bribing a witness to refuse to testify in that proceeding, or by engaging in other independently unlawful conduct, does act corruptly.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.226905/gov.uscourts.dcd.226905.86.0_1.pdf pp. 12-13.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You think a person (an ex-high school principle) wouldn't know that falsely pulling a fire alarm was "wrong"?

[Michael P]

I think the theory is that falsely sounding a fire alarm isn't actually illegal when THEY do it.

[not guilty]

I regard a false fire alarm as a boneheaded move. But the suggestion that it is criminal requires probable cause to charge and proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element to convict. And that suggestion is simply ludicrous.

[Michael P]

https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/22-1319

It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to willfully or knowingly give a false alarm of fire within the District of Columbia, and any person or persons violating the provisions of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor[...].

The only thing that's ludicrous here is the leftist excuse-making.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael, the knowingly is in doubt.

Also, do you think everyone who pulls a fire alarm falsely is prosecuted?

This is moronic.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 30 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Michael, the knowingly is in doubt."

Sarcastro - the "knowingly" is not in doubt.
Everybody knows not to pull a fire alarm when there is no fire. - I

[Dr. Ed 2]

DC law doesn't apply, this is capitol hill.

[not guilty]

The discussion upthread was initiated with Kazinski's question about whether Rep Jamaal Bowman be charged with Obstructing an Official Proceeding and expelled from the House. That offense requires that the offender act corruptly.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah I guess we can believe that he is that stupid.

[Tom for equal rights]

Queen almathea 4 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“ Everybody knows not to pull a fire alarm when there is no fire.”

"The question then is whether he knew he was pulling a fire alarm."

Queen - quit being stupid

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

This place has descended so far into inanity that we now have individuals with college degrees arguing that a grown-ass man who used to be a high school principal might not have known that it was wrong to falsely engage a fire alarm (when there was no fire nor even a suspicion of a fire) in order to stop a democratic proceeding. It is now damned near indistinguishable from an average Facebook thread.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's grossly unfair to FaceBook threads.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Queen – quit being stupid

That's like asking water to stop being wet.

[Tom for equal rights]

WuzYoungOnceToo 10 mins ago
Queen – quit being stupid

"That’s like asking water to stop being wet."

Wuz - you said it best - college educated adults that cant figure out that pulling a fire alarm is wrong - yet they deem it appropriate to defend his behavior.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The question then is whether he knew he was pulling a fire alarm."

The old "I thought the red box on the wall with a handle that says "Fire" was a doorknob" defense, eh?

Between this and Biden, Trump's level of mendacity isn't seeming so unusual anymore.

[Brett Bellmore]

Aside from a certain degree of braggadocio, Trump isn't actually that much more dishonest than your average DC politician. He just stands out because the media highlight every lie, including the lies that weren't actually lies.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, let me translate: Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

I happen to disagree with Kazinski...I believe the Congressman actions (inadvertent or intentional - you be the judge, the video speaks for itself) are covered under speech & debate clause. I seem to recall reading about some case law on that question from before the Civil War.

In this case, all one can realistically do is show a Congressman display exceptionally childish behavior, and make it transparent. Ok, we knew about the childish behavior part already. What else is new?

[Michael P]

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Which part of that do you think covers falsely issuing a fire alarm? It's a felony, so he could be arrested during his attendance to the session. It's not speech or debate, so he can be questioned elsewhere over it.

[Commenter_XY]

...They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

I rest my case.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's clearly a breach of the peace, at least.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Point of order.

They're privileged from arrest "and in going to and returning from the same". That was designed so that the state couldn't go and a arrest a Congressman to stop them from voting. That's during the action.

They are not privileged from arrest for actions they did "in going to and returning from"

Let's say a Congressman, for example, is driving recklessly to get to a critical vote on time, and hits a pedestrian. They may be privileged from arrest in order to make that vote.

Afterwards however, they could be arrested for the crime.

[ReaderY]

In the 1970s a Congressman from North Carolina got out of a drunk driving conviction (a misdemeanor at the time) on grounds he was travelling to Washington.

I think that this behavior does meet the rather expansive definition of “corruptly” as a false fire alarm is illegal. It would be extremely unwise to expel an elected member of Congress over a stunt like this, but Congress would be within its rights to. And they could certainly take a lesser step like censuring or stripping committee assignments.

[Dr. Ed 2]

One of the Kennedys, high on Ambien, crashed into a barricade at 3AM and got out of it by saying he was going to a vote.

[mse326]

There is a difference between WHEN they are privliged and WHAT they are privliged for.

Your bold is when, not a what.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court has held that the speech or debate privilege should be read broadly, to include not only "words spoken in debate," but anything "generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it." United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 179 (1966), citing Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 204 (1880).

[Armchair Lawyer]

The case you cite is about speech.

Pulling a fire alarm is not speech.

[Michael P]

Your point is unclear. Are you asserting that pulling a fire alarm is somehow analogous to a case involving the application of this clause to a literal speech on the floor of the House of Representatives?

[Mr. Bumble]

As is often the case, not guilty is guilty of obfuscating and dissembling to make his point.

[Michael P]

He outright lied in a comment yesterday, and ran away when challenged over it. Sad.

[not guilty]

Uh, I didn't lie about anything. I did decline to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

[Michael P]

Quoting a case to support what you claim it says isn't a battle of wits, you moron.

[not guilty]

Uh, citing to relevant legal authorities is a significant part of what a real lawyer does, Michael P. It also shows respect for other readers on a legal blog, by enabling fact checking in real time (by those who have the chops to do so, at least).

And unlike you, I do not regard Otto Yourazz as reliable authority.

[Michael P]

That's funny, because the only support you had for your assertion yesterday was Yourazz.

[not guilty]

Let's recap for the benefit of readers who may not have followed the comment thread that you refer to. I asserted that Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022), are merely different sides of the same coin, in that each empowers state governments to determine who does or does not reproduce. You asserted that Dobbs does no such thing, and you challenged me, saying "It does not allow the government to determine either who reproduced or who does not. Quote otherwise or admit that you are a liar." I declined to engage further in that I deemed further discussion to be unproductive -- "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself." (Proverbs 26:4 RSV.)

It is now time for the other side of that coin -- "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." (Proverbs 26:5 RSV.)

Dobbs overruled prior Supreme Court precedents which had secured to pregnant women a constitutional right to decide whether or not to carry to term. 142 S.Ct. at 2242. The Court opined that a law regulating abortion is entitled to a "strong presumption of validity" and must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. Id., at 2284.

Dobbs authorizes a state to criminalize abortion at all stages of pregnancy, on pain of criminal penalties. From the perspective of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, that is the government making the reproductive decision for her -- she will carry to term or go to prison. (Civil disobedience is theoretically an option, but not a realistic one.) Dobbs thereby empowers state governments to decide whether that woman does or does not reproduce.

But I suspect you knew that all along, Michael P.

[Michael P]

Yes, I knew all along that the only way you could defend your inane claim was by redefining the words you used.

[not guilty]

Au contraire, I didn't redefine anything. I merely explained how engaging with you can be a fool's errand.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, I am probably crazy, but the case I had in mind I think was back during Jackson's Presidency. It might have been during the BUS fight. The question was whether a congressman could even be detained en route to voting, and the outcome was nope, can't do that.

Even if he pulled the fire alarm deliberately, I think Congressman Bowman gets the constitutional get of of jail card free, because he cannot be detained in 'going to' or 'coming from' a vote while the House is in session.

[not guilty]

I'm not familiar with that case.

[Brett Bellmore]

The question isn't whether or not he can be detained, though. It's whether he can be subject to consequences.

They may have to wait until the House isn't in session, unless it's the House itself imposing them, but Congressional immunity to legal process is actually pretty shallow.

[gVOR08]

There appears to be evidence he didn’t pull a fire alarm. That he opened a door that is normally open but had been closed and alarmed. I.e. the alarm was unintentional.

[DaveM]

The security camera photo being circulated shows him reaching out his hand to pull the alarm at the moment when the alarm is triggered. He wasn't opening a door.

[Kazinski]

Lets see the evidence.

Here is he evidence he pulled the fire alarm intentionally.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/30/politics/jamaal-bowman-pulls-fire-alarm/index.html

[Michael P]

He admitted that he pulled it. The supposed former school principal's excuse was that he simply thought the fire alarm would open the door instead of sounding a fire alarm.

Apparently, we found someone shameless or gullible enough to carry that excuse even farther.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's just the cover story the media are going to endlessly repeat. It's got nothing to do with the actual truth.

[Nige]

Which is being cooked up in assorted right-wing fever-jungles as we speak.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, even photos and confessions are nothing, the party line is everything.

[Nige]

And honestly right wing party line could end up being anything. That he was a one-man Jan 6th is a funny one though - one Democrat = hundreds of Trump supporters. The idea that he mistakenly did something stupid can't possibly be allowed to stand.

[Nige]

Anyone who sets off a fire alarm intentionally without cause should be punished appropriately. Why he would want to delay a vote his side were set to win I leave to to the logic-shuffling convolutions of the conspiracy-minded.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They wanted more time to read it?

[Nige]

They don't have to move their lips and stop to look up the big words like you do, Ed.

[questioner7]

Charged, yes. Punished, yes (e.g. by stripping committee assignments). But an expulsion undoes voters' will, so the threshold for that must be quite high.

[Nige]

I'm not sure it's warranted in this case unless they can actually prove he did it deliberately with some sort of nefarious intent, but it seems to me if you can't or won't get rid of corrupt or disruptive elected officials outside of elections, you're just going to end up with corrupt and disruptive officials hanging around doing their worst.

[Tom for equal rights]

everyone knows not to pull a fire alarm. Cut the BS crap about denying intent.

[Nige]

Well now there's a motive for doing it that makes more sense, albeit still a stupid one, so...

[Dr. Ed 2]

If Margary Taylor Greene could have been stripped of her committee assignments merely for speculating about Jewish space lasers then this guy should loose his seat.

No one took MTG serious about the space lasers -- it became a joke amongst my Jewish friends (which is how I heard about it). But a FIRE ALARM -- that *IS* taken seriously, with 30 ton trucks racing through the city, likely to run over children and the rest. Fire is scary and fire alarms are not toys.

[Nige]

Why would anti-semitism in an elected official not be taken seriously?

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot cannot understand human prejudice

[Drewski]

Anti-Semite claims another anti-Semite's antisemitism is not serious. Film at 11.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll agree with that: He shouldn't be expelled. Just knocked down a few pegs and officially censured.

[Nige]

That's reasonable, but the right has all the Jan 6th convictions and the indicted Trump to balance against this one guy who pulled a fire alarm, they'll be demanding his public execution soon enough.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just because I think most of the January 6th defendants got hugely over-charged and over-sentenced doesn't mean I think payback in kind is a good idea. When I say "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.", I'm warning the gander to put down the ladle, not making a menu plan.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Thursday of last week you said the only proper course of action for Republicans is to go after every Democrat who has ever done anything illegal in their entire life.

But now you claim that payback in kind isn't a good idea?

You're a fucking liar, Bellmore.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah? If the Democrats drop this lawfare right now, I'd say it should end.

They're not going to until it bites them, too.

[Sarcastr0]

If the Democrats drop this lawfare right now, I’d say it should end.

Yeah, this is a threat.
Luckily you have no power, but this is mobster nonsense.

[Mr. Bumble]

,,,and Saturday detention for the rest of the term.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I much prefer having to wash police cars -- at 7 AM.

[Frank Drackman]

Good one Dr. Ed 2, but why not have him shine their boots also??

[Krayt]

Yes, presumably you'd have to convince his supporters he's so bad he needs to go, not just his opposition.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I doubt most (sane) Dems approve of pulling false fire alarms.

[Mr. Bumble]

There are sane Democrats?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Should he be?
Yes.

Will he be?
No.

Laws like this only seem to be enforced against non-Democrats in DC....

[Sarcastr0]

He released a statement indicating he do it intentionally and providing a pretty decent explanation.

There was no harm done.

Given those facts, Would you want the same huge punishment if it was a Republican?
This is impotent scalp seeking and will amount to nothing, given the facts as we currently know them. At which point some on here will compare this to J6 because this is a silly place sometimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he released a statement indicating he did it intentionally, and providing a stupid explanation that only a partisan looking for any excuse to pretend he was innocent would buy for a second.

[Sarcastr0]

He did not have a corrupt purpose. He made a mistake regarding a door that was usually open.

What do you think was going on? Do you think he had a master plan to shut down the government so the GOP would get the blame by pulling a fire alarm?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Uh huh... by pulling a fire alarm.

That's always my first thought when I get to a locked door. Maybe if I pull this fire alarm, that's how I should get through. Maybe that's what he taught his old students. If you get to a door that is locked, the proper response is to pull the fire alarm.

Or just maybe, he sought a political opportunity by delaying an official proceeding of Congress for a little bit.

[Sarcastr0]

There was a sign indicating such.

Appeal to incredulity remains a fallacy. 'He can't have done something stupid when he was in a hurry because I wouldn't have done that' is bad by itself.
It does not mix well with 'also I'm sure he thought pulling the fire alarm while on camera was a good plan to give the Dems a political advantage.'

Your speculation requires him to be at more dumb than the thing you can't believe that he says happened.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There was a sign indicating such.

1. The sign doesn’t indicate such.

2. As you can see, the sign wasn’t even up when he pulled the alarm.

https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/1708204455747846401

I’d say this sort of shameless partisan hackers is beneath you, but I, starting to have my doubts.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey now. I think you and I have established enough that you know I'm no hack.

I was going off the linked pic from AL.

What do you think happened? I think the guy's statement checks out, though I'm open to more info as the investigation continues.

[Life of Brian]

2. As you can see, the sign wasn’t even up when he pulled the alarm.

Um, I see very clearly a bright red sign in the lower right corner of the picture. Now, it's definitely further back than in the other pictures making the rounds, and the other two they apparently temporarily place on the handles over the weekend are gone, but that's all consistent with the notion that he childishly trashed the whole place before pulling the fire alarm because he was so mad he couldn't go where he wanted to when he wanted to.

If only there were video footage they could release to break the tie....

[Noscitur a sociis]

Um, I see very clearly a bright red sign in the lower right corner of the picture.

That’s a different sign, it says “EMERGENCY EXIT ONLY”.
https://twitter.com/bresreports/status/1708247334998454304

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I shouldn't have entered a discussion where you and Sarc were arguing about whether the sign "indicated such." Apparently I've misapprehended your point. Carry on.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The sign was there...but so were the 2 signs on BOTH doors clearly spelling out that they way to open the doors was to push on them and wait 3 seconds...not pull the alarm on the wall. So either Bowman is lying, blind as a bat or an illiterate moron...or some combination of the three.

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/10/NYPICHPDPICT000053277926-1.jpg

I’d say this sort of shameless partisan hackers is beneath you...

But then you'd have to pretend that you'd never read any of his years of consistent partisan bullshit before.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"The sign was there…but so were the 2 signs on BOTH doors clearly spelling out that they way to open the doors was to push on them and wait 3 seconds…not pull the alarm on the wall."

It would appear that you're the blind dipshit.

https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/1708204455747846401

[Brett Bellmore]

Exclusive — Capitol Sources: Jamaal Bowman Threw Signs Warning Door Was Emergency Only on Floor Before Pulling Fire Alarm

Ignore that it's from a source you don't like. Look at the damned pictures. See the emergency exit only sign, still there in the picture with the Congressman? Only the signs on the door are gone in that picture.

Or are they? Look in his hand...

[Sarcastr0]

I thought you hated anonymous sources, Brett?

Why so inconsistent?

Also, how is that inconsistent with the statement he put out?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Or are they? Look in his hand…

Yeah, the first time I saw that photo I missed the white square in his left hand because I was focused on the signs’ location on the doors.

[Don Nico]

he did it on purpose to be sure that there were enough D's in the chamber to pass the bill by a wide margin.
That was good for the country

[Sarcastr0]

There is zero evidence of that either. He says the opposite, in fact.

[Don Nico]

Then he is itching for serious punishment

[Dr. Ed 2]

In fairness, there are magnetic locks which release when the fire alarm is activated. These most common are hall doors in hospitals and such that are held open by magnets that release, and close. But there might -- I stress MIGHT -- be exterior doors that unlock when the alarm sounds. Maybe.

FAR more common is the independent door alarm that will release after 15 seconds of local alarm sounding.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In fact they are doors that unlock 3 seconds after you push on them, as clearly explained by the simple instructions posted in large letters on BOTH doors.

I’d say this sort of shameless partisan hackers is beneath you

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"I’d say this sort of shameless partisan hackers is beneath you"

...was supposed to be...

"I’d say this sort of shameless partisan hackers is beneath you

But then you'd have to pretend that you'd never ever read any of his bullshit before, which consists mostly of dishonest partisan hackery."

[David Nieporent]

In fact they are doors that unlock 3 seconds after you push on them, as clearly explained by the simple instructions posted in large letters on BOTH doors.

That's not what the signs said. They said to push for three seconds to activate the alarm, and then wait thirty seconds for the doors to open. Which… makes zero sense.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That’s not what the signs said. They said to push for three seconds to activate the alarm, and then wait thirty seconds for the doors to open. Which… makes zero sense.

Yeah, I meant to say that they would sound an alarm after 3 seconds (which is the indication that the timed door release mechanism has been activated). That said, your ignorance of the existence and purpose of delayed egress doors (which are incredibly common) doesn't mean that they make zero sense. It just demonstrates your topical ignorance.

https://www.gvlock.com/blog/delayed-egress-doors-purpose-installation/#:~:text=The%20purpose%20is%20to%20give,an%20airport%20between%20security%20checkpoints.

So he had the choice of waiting 30 seconds to leave the building without incident....or pulling a fire alarm. He chose the latter.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe ignorance is not exclusively associated with the Republican Party?

Seems right to me, so long as exclusively is emphasized.

[David Nieporent]

Read the thing right above that:

Enabling Emergency Egress

Preventing people from exiting a building poses a serious safety hazard. Even a delay of 15 or 30 seconds can cause an emergency situation to become life-threatening. For this reason, delayed egress doors automatically release the instant the fire detection system or emergency sprinkler system is activated. The doors will also unlock in case of a power outage.

This door is expressly identified as an emergency exit. (Though of course Bowman being in a hurry doesn't constitute an actual emergency.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Read the thing right above that

Uh, I did. So...what the hell is your point (assuming you actually have one, other than trying to deflect from your topical ignorance)? Yes, we know it was identified as an emergency exit...which is why you can still open it from the inside even though it is also a secured door, and why there are multiple large signs providing clear, easy-to-understand instructions for doing so, which a former school principle should have already understood.

[David Nieporent]

So…what the hell is your point

That there shouldn't have been a delay built into it opening. An ordinary external door can certainly have a delay for security reasons, but an emergency exit should not.

[Life of Brian]

They said to push for three seconds to activate the alarm, and then wait thirty seconds for the doors to open. Which… makes zero sense.

Only for someone who's lived in this world as long as you have but somehow are still unfamiliar with the drop-dead common deployment of delayed egress security doors. The short and sweet bottom line, describing a representative set of building code rules:

A sign must be applied to the door stating, “PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS. DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 SECONDS.” Letters must be 1 inch high by 1/8” stroke. The sign shall indicate 30 seconds where applicable.

If you're adventurous, feel free to take a gander at the signage requirements for DC's building code and I suspect they'll line up quite well with the wording on those signs.

[Life of Brian]

He made a mistake regarding a door that was usually open.

You know, I was about to ask you to say this again with a straight face, but it turns out that, in the greatest of stopped-clock traditions, occasionally the talking points you uncritically relay are actually correct.

So now we’re most likely back to him just being a clueless simpleton.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, that's a pretty dick way to say I'm right.

Credit for not being reflexively contrarian, I guess.

[Life of Brian]

Credit for not being reflexively contrarian, I guess.

That's the interesting thing, whether you're ready to hear this or not -- there's not a shred of reflexivity to it. I do basic due diligence on most if not all the baloney that you and others uncritically cut and paste from the headlines of whatever news feeds you subscribe to. Most of the time it's pitifully distorted and I say that; this time not so much and I said that.

Tell me you do anything resembling the same.

[Sarcastr0]

I believe that you think there is no reflexivity. But I've seen you defend some Blackman posts that can only be explained by brain-stem reflex with no cognitive engagement.

[Life of Brian]

But I’ve seen you defend some Blackman posts that can only be explained by brain-stem reflex with no cognitive engagement.

Nah, that's just you lacking enough nuance to understand the difference between defending the content of Blackman's posts and calling out the resident bullies who use every one of his posts -- regardless of content -- as an opportunity to attack the man personally. Gently suggesting that people who loudly and routinely trumpet themselves as his betters actually pretend to conduct themselves that way is orthogonal to content.

I do see how it might be confusing, though, particularly given your well-established propensity to poorly skim-read before responding.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does observing that Prof. Blackman has not arranged a job at a real law school constitute bullying and an attack, in your judgment?

[Life of Brian]

In your case, Artie, it just demonstrates (for that handful somehow not yet convinced) that you're a boorish prick.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh has objected to use of the term "boorish" at his blog, but I expect to learn he does not mind when it is used by a conservative against a mainstream commenter.

[Life of Brian]

Only in your fantasy world persecution complex would "boorish" be the problematic word in the phrase "boorish prick." LOL.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If I used the prick at this blog, I recall neither using it nor any response from Prof. Volokh.

I recall being cautioned about the term boorish, though, in the context of anti-abortion protesters who misappropriated my client's across-the-street property to facilitate their harassment of clinic visitors.

Other than that, great comment!

[Life of Brian]

I recall being cautioned

Memories can be tricky things, Artie. Particularly when you sit and obsess about the Exact. Same. Thing. for over a decade -- hard telling at the end of it what actually happened and what your addled brain progressively injected during the endless lather/rinse/repeat cycle.

But you do whatever you think is best -- I for one am cheerfully comfortable that you'll still be here posting your bilious spew another decade from now regardless of whether or not you listen to the superstitious voices in your head.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sacastro - the depths you will go to defend the indefensible. Your excuses are complete BS

[Sarcastr0]

Your 'everyone knows' indignant schtick is not actually an argument.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sacastro - your excuse remains BS - quit digging deeper.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm in good company with DMN etc.

People in a hurry sometiems don't think; easy excuse.

You can gin up whatever you want, but
1) you have no evidence, and 2) there is a conspicuous lack of alternate reasons he'd pull the alarm other than inchoate paranoia.

[Michael P]

I think one needs more than "clueless simpleton" to overcome the multiple clear signs that the door was an emergency exit only, even separate from the fire alarm clearly being labeled and the usual distinctive color and mechanism.

https://twitter.com/bresreports/status/1708247334998454304

[Life of Brian]

That still could be the case, but I think for better or for worse the normally-open-during-the-week angle edges him back into the envelope of plausible deniability.

I mean, this is the guy whose idea of debate is getting in his opponent’s face and literally screaming the same phrase over and over. It’s not all that difficult to envision someone with that poor of a level of impulse control racing up to the door he thought he was going to be able to get through and then melting down into a childish hissy fit where he tore all the warning signs off the door and pulled the lever in a braindead effort to somehow get even with whoever had done him wrong.

But as Rep. Meijer pointed out in the string I first linked, Bowman pulled the fire alarm in a different building than the one where the vote was happening. So if his goal really was delaying the vote, it was a drop-dead stupid way to try.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The problem is that both doors were labeled...on big-ol' red signs...with clear, easy-to-understand verbiage telling him to "PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS". And recall that he's a former school principal, an these are push-bar doors of the sort that nearly every school in the U.S. is equipped. The same is true of the fire alarm lever on the wall, so he had to be familiar with both sorts of mechanisms and their proper use already. And even if he wasn't, the signs were pretty clear...unless he's a complete moron.

[Bob from Ohio]

The defense to his crime is that he is incredibly stupid.

[Nige]

Seems to work for Trump. Outside of courts of law.

[Life of Brian]

And even if he wasn’t, the signs were pretty clear…unless he’s a complete moron.

Bingo. And that's why he's ultimately going to skate on this, regardless of what actually happened.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Someone has already summed up the issue with a slightly modified classic Larson cartoon.

https://blog.simplejustice.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Pull.jpg

[Life of Brian]

Damn, that's a good one. Always have loved the original.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An alarmed breaker bar is on the door itself and designed to open if someone is pushed into it. It has a local alarm, and maybe will trip a light on a security panel, but will NOT trip the building fire alarm.
A box alarm, which he pulled, is something different.

It's also push versus pull -- door alarms are always PUSH because it is presumed there is a press of people behind you, also pushing.

[Nige]

His statement says he didn't set of the fire alarm intentionally. Unless someone can come up with an actual credible motive for doing it intentionally, good for him for owning his stupidity, punish him appropriately.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There was political advantage to delaying the voting on the bill. One way to accomplish that was pulling the fire alarm.

[Sarcastr0]

Your cynicism isn’t evidence.

Also everyone knows there are cameras since J6.

Is a plan so dumb only you could think it was real.

[Nige]

Sounds a bit vague and tenuous.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There was political advantage to delaying the voting on the bill.

Are you sure?

[Nige]

Got a link? This I gotta see.

[Sarcastr0]

https://twitter.com/RepBowman/status/1708299648782262656?s=20

[Nige]

Thanks, but that says he DIDN'T do it intentionally, he thought the lever would open a locked door. Sounds dumb, but how dumb would depend on the lever itself, I suppose...

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I should not have bought into that framing.

According to the statement, he didn't even seem to intend the fire alarm go off, much less intend to delay the vote.

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, the sign that they showed for that door is utterly bizarre. If one was in a hurry and was stymied by a closed door that isn't normally closed, I could understand the confusion. Still think the normal thing to do would be to push the door open rather than pull the alarm, but whatever. And given that he manifestly did not do it to prevent a vote, I'll go with stupidity as the most likely explanation.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The thing is, the sign that they showed for that door is utterly bizarre. If one was in a hurry and was stymied by a closed door that isn’t normally closed, I could understand the confusion. Still think the normal thing to do would be to push the door open rather than pull the alarm

Especially when that’s exactly what the big red signs on each door quite clearly tell you to do. Add to that the fact that these doors and fire alarms are the same sorts of mechanisms that are installed at nearly every school in the U.S., and he is a former school principal in whom this information should be deeply instilled….

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/10/NYPICHPDPICT000053277926-1.jpg

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Especially when you're a fucking idiot who doesn't check primary sources, like I mentioned above.

I'll paste this here too, just in case you miss it.

https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/1708204455747846401

Idiot.

[Michael P]

It's not perjury to lie on Twitter, as the kids say these days.

[Sarcastr0]

Would you be satisfied if he said the same thing under oath?

I’m betting you’d still be after him.

The story fits the facts better then all these speculations he wanted to delay the vote and forgot about the cameras.

[Michael P]

Who would hypothetically be deciding whether he committed perjury in such testimony? As we’ve seen, DC juries aren’t trustworthy in cases like this.

Can we see some pictures of this fire alarm to evaluate for ourselves whether there’s reasonable confusion on what it is?

(Update: I ask, the New York Post provides. https://nypost.com/2023/10/01/new-pics-douse-jamaal-bowmans-excuses-for-house-fire-alarm-gaffe/)

[Sarcastr0]

Nice to see your persecution complex is unfalsifiable. Maybe the investigation will turn up something, but I doubt it.

I've interned in the House, I'm aware of the signs. I'm also aware that Congresspeople already get all sorts of special privileges when they are on their way to the Floor. The sign does appear to say push until alarm sounds to open.

Is it a stupid interpretation? Yes. But if in a hurry, used to accommodations as a Representative, and the door didn't usually have that stuff on it add up to not impossible.

Besides, the alternate theory isn't even well formed.

[David Nieporent]

The sign does appear to say push until alarm sounds to open.

The sign also says that it won't open for 30 seconds after you do that, which seems like it would violate anything resembling a fire code. ("In case of emergency, stand around and wait.")

[Dr. Ed 2]

15-30 second delays are common.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The sign also says that it won’t open for 30 seconds after you do that, which seems like it would violate anything resembling a fire code.

So his choices were wait 30 seconds to leave, or pull a fire alarm.

[Life of Brian]

The sign also says that it won’t open for 30 seconds after you do that, which seems like it would violate anything resembling a fire code.

I linked to an explainer in response to one of your other comments, but since you raised a new point of apparent confusion here I'll respond separately.

Barring a dogged determination just not to get it, it doesn't take much imagination at all to appreciate the fact that there's a balancing point between needing to get people out a normally-locked secure door in the event of a true emergency, and not wanting malicious actors to be able to sneak out such a door and be hopelessly far down the road before someone can respond to the alarm.

That balancing point is the 30 (or 15 in some jurisdictions) second delay. The alarm sounds early, giving security a chance to respond and see what's going on, and the door then unlocks soon enough to get people out to safety if that's needed.

[Don Nico]

He screwed up in an attempt to do the right thing for the country. Does he deserve a slap on the wrist given that false fire alarms are serious business? Yes.
And let it go at that. The so-called freedom caucus was prepared to do much worst to the country and very deliberately.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Taxonomy of political misbehavior under four rubrics, in descending order of gravity:

A. Hanky-Panky

Example:
Ballot box rigging.

More generally, any serious political crime short of treason, whether or not the crime is prosecuted or punished. The Federalist Society bribing Alito and Thomas would be hanky-panky.

B. Shenanigans

More generally, things which are not illegal, maybe ought to be illegal, but are never seriously punished.

Examples:
The name's the same game, and running a straw.

C. Antics

Misfeasance which is plainly not illegal, might be unfair, but is somewhat redeemed by originality and entertainment value.

Example:
Last day of the legislative session, midnight, the presiding member appears, and lays upon the table two stacks of papers.

Pointing to one stack he announces, "These are the bills which are going to pass."

Pointing to the other stack, "These are the bills which are not going to pass."

Then, "All those in favor of the bills which are going to pass signify by saying, "Aye."

Chorus of ayes. Gavel. Session ends.

D. Hi-jinks

Example:
Delegates to the state party convention leave shoes outside hotel room doors, to be shined overnight. Just prior to an early-morning vote on a key procedural issue, a confederate of the presiding convention member steals shoes from doorways of opposing delegates.

Which category provides a fit for Rep. Bowman's conduct is left as an exercise for the reader.

[David Nieporent]

But where does tomfoolery fit?

[David Nieporent]

Should Rep Jamaal Bowman be charged with Obstructing an Official Proceeding

If he had obstructed an official proceeding, perhaps.

pulled a fire alarm to delay a crucial vote

I'll take "Things that never happened" for $1,000, Alex. How do you think that pulling an alarm in an entirely different building would do that, exactly? And why would he want to delay a vote that the Democrats wanted?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trying to reason with the Volokh Conspiracy's collection of conservative commenters is a pointless, often counterproductive, endeavor.

[Idihax]

In a sane world, he or his ancestors would have been hanged from a tree. But absent that, expelling and prosecuting him seems reasonable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's "disturbing the peace" -- rather textbook example of it.

[Sarcastr0]

Good luck proving intent if that's the hurdle you want to jump.

[Nige]

I for one am glad we managed to clear that up.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Holy crap. Bowman's office put out a list of proposed talking points to be spread via social media to help distract from his stupidity, including an accusation about "Nazis"....I kid you not. The only thing missing is a claim that the Russians were involved somehow.

https://twitter.com/maxpcohen/status/1708896485444600117

[Randal]

Boy, you lot sure are desperate for any evidence of malfeasance on the left to try and distract from the total dumpster fire that the Republican party has become.

Seems pretty obvious that a) it didn't delay the vote, b) it couldn't have delayed the vote, c) he really was trying to get out that door. What are we even talking about this for?

Oh right, it somehow plays into your pathetic persecution complex.

[not guilty]

King Henry II in 1170 said of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Knights loyal to the King then murdered Becket.

Donald Trump has stated that General Mark Milley (a prospective witness against him in at least one criminal trial) has committed treason and is worthy of death. A bit less subtle than King Henry.

Judge Tanya Chutkan -- herself a target of death threats from Trump supporters -- has scheduled a hearing on the government's 57 Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings on October 16, 2023. It seems wise to me to enter such an order.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Its hard to imagine any criminal defendant getting away with what Trump has. Which is why criminal defense lawyers always tell their clients to zip it. Trump, though, won't listen to his.

[Nige]

If Trump says awful things about you that means you must be biased againt Trump.

[Don Nico]

"won’t listen to his"
that is not even a prediction. It is predestination.

[Michael P]

You realize that Milley is retired now, right? And that while he was in his most senior role, he declared treasonous intent, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Report: Gen. Milley secretly promised China he’d warn them before a US attack

And in case you think Woodward was making it up:

Milley admits he would tell Chinese general if US launched an attack

[Sarcastr0]

No vital intel. And Trump was drafting some odd shit about Afghanistan.

This is yet more evidence Trump was uniquely horrible - this wasn’t one guy off on a frolic, Trump spooked the DoD he’d try something irreversible.

[Michael P]

The question was treasonous intent, not “vital Intel”. And it was about China, not Afghanistan. And it was about Milley, not Trump. No new goalposts.

[Nige]

Apparently it's treasonous to reassure Chinese people the US isn't going to attack them? I'd have thought the alarming takeaway from this was that they thought the US WOULD attack them. That sounds like the sort of thing that needs to be defused sharpish.

[Magister]

Were they not satisfied with the classified information they bought at the Mar-a-Lago auction?

[Don Nico]

nonsense.

[Magister]

Yeah, I wouldn't trust anything I got from Donald Trump either.

[Frank Drackman]

He's also a fat fuck who doesn't meet the Army's weight standards that they discharge enlisted and company grade officers for.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Judge Tanya Chutkan — herself a target of death threats from Trump supporters — has scheduled a hearing on the government’s 57 Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings on October 16, 2023. It seems wise to me to enter such an order."

The judge would be writing her own death sentence with such an order --- remember Hinkley trying to impress Jodie Foster -- some nut will assassinate her trying to impress Trump. He has a cult like following and you'd get a suicidal loan wolf doing it for God & Country.

Further she can't control what his supporters say -- if "kill the pigs" is Constitutionally protected, then "kill the judge" would be too.

[Nige]

Then she's brave and you should applaud her courage.

[not guilty]

"The judge would be writing her own death sentence with such an order — remember Hinkley trying to impress Jodie Foster — some nut will assassinate her trying to impress Trump. He has a cult like following and you’d get a suicidal loan wolf [sic] doing it for God & Country."

Will no one rid Trump of this turbulent judge?

What do you think Trump has been trying to accomplish with his stochastic terrorism?

The judge can't control what Trump's supporters say, but she can damn sure modify the conditions of his pretrial release.

[Sarcastr0]

MAGA is pretty crazy, but it is not a legion of Hinkleys.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Still, it’s language we’ve never seen before.

[Frank Drackman]

Next they'll be chanting,
and marching with Roosh-un Flags
"Vlad, Vlad, Vlad Putin,
Rusha is going to win!"
"and 1, 2, 3, 4,
we don't want your fucking You-Crane War!!"

Frank

[John F. Carr]

If you called for killing of a specific pig you would be in more legal trouble than if you called for killing of pigs in general. A criminal defendant has less right than the public at large to inflame passions about participants in the case. Recall that Sam Bankman-Fried is sitting in jail for a relatively minor act.

I am certain that judge Chutkan already has extra security to deal with spontaneous acts by Trump supporters. If she locks up Trump she will get VIP grade protection.

[not guilty]

I expect that the October 16 hearing will result in an order detailing specific examples of what counsel and the parties cannot say so as to put them on notice of what is prohibited, along the lines of Rule 57.7 of the D.C. District Court Local Rules. https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/local_rules/Local%20Rules%20April_2023%282%29.pdf

The Government's motion asks that Trump be prohibited from saying what his defense attorneys (and the prosecutors) are prohibited from saying under Rule 57.7(b).

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, I suggest that attempts to discipline Trump need more care than they seem to get. He has an all-purpose go-to in response. Just up the ante, defy the authority of any would-be constrainer, and collect another cash and political dividend for yet another successful display of impunity.

Unless folks who think Trump needs legal constraint have the nerve to do what it takes to make it stick, mumbling about how awful he is just makes things worse. Authorities who want to constrain Trump legally must take actions which convince everyone they think Trump's conduct really requires legal constraint.

At a minimum, that would mean treating Trump like they would treat a common criminal who did the same things Trump has done. Does anyone suppose an ordinary person who repeatedly threatened the lives of witnesses or a judge would remain at large? Any such person would be closely confined to await trial. They would be privileged to communicate publicly only through lawyers who themselves were under legal discipline about what they could say.

But in Trump's case, even that would not work. Even without outside communication, his organization would take up his cause as if he were a political martyr, and raise money by renewing Trump-style attacks from every direction.

To constrain Trump would require discipline severe enough that he would become desperate to end it, and would use his lawyers to direct supporters to back off. Close monitoring and exemplary punishment of freelance threateners would then have to follow. Even that would likely fail to stop attempts to overwhelm the legal process with threats.

But it would offer the advantage that finally, everyone could see in action a commitment to justice proportionate to the threat. That threat will not be much diminished until almost everyone understands that Trump gets not even a thin slice of impunity that others cannot claim. To deliver that understanding is a necessary pre-condition of any trial for Trump.

[Kazinski]

Here's a good indication of what out net zero future holds: you better like where you live because you're going to be stuck there.

In a French poll 41% of the French say that there should be a lifetime quota on flying of 4 flights per your entire lifetime.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/01/great-travel-reset-poll-41-of-french-population-favors-restricting-everyone-to-only-4-airplane-flights-in-their-entire-life-to-fight-against-global-warming/

No wonder the conservatives in Britain are backing off their Net-zero timeline as not feasible.

[DaveM]

Yes, but they're French. Once you make it to France, of course you would never need to leave. Where else are you going to buy decent bread? America? UK? Pfft!

[Kazinski]

What if you want tacos?

[apedad]

Spain is right next door.

[Michael P]

Man, these Poe’s law tests are hard.

Have you ever seen what passes for a tortilla in Spain?

[ducksalad]

On a related note, sometimes people from Reynosa, Tamps (Pop. 1,000,000) drive over to McAllen, TX to eat Spanish food. Apparently they don’t have a single Spanish restaurant.

[Kazinski]

Tapas are a substitute good change of pace from tacos but surely you can see the difference.

[Nige]

A tiny percentage of the world's population actually ever flies anywhere. If you think it's the only way of getting around that's because you live in a country that has neglected public transport infrastructure in favour of bigger, stupider, more expensive and destructive forms of transport.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If it’s within 500 miles it’s faster and less of a bother to just drive there. Or, if there’s a direct line, take the train.

[Nige]

People do not want to know how cheap and relaxing a good train can be.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Long train rides are relaxing. Commuter rides, with people always getting on and off and announcements every two minutes, are not.

[Nige]

Better than commuting in heavy traffic any day.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not always. You can make phone calls in the car (in the train that’s rude, and people overhear) and in my job that’s important.

[Frank Drackman]

In the Future Robots will ride in Cars driven by Humans

[ducksalad]

Not if you have a self-driving car. Then it's like having your own commuter train without the other commuters.

[Nige]

Except for the self-jamming traffic jams.

[Brett Bellmore]

The last time I took a train ride, my wife got tennis elbow from being bounced around, the tracks were so bad. Our scenic ride was in a mountain valley during the promised Pacific sunset.

On the plus side, I'm an engineer, and found the slow passage past the backsides of that many factories somewhat interesting.

As for cheap? I later calculated we could have rented a nice sportscar, driven down the coast, stayed at excellent hotels along the way, and eaten at only the best restaurants, and beaten the train's time while saving money.

[Nige]

Underinvestment, I told you. There was more money to be made paving the country and obliging everyone to buy an expensive car that would have to be fueled and maintained and replaced and taxed and insured.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, they could have invested a metric ton of money on separate, improved tracks for the passenger lines, thus insuring that the tickets would be even pricier unless subject to an enormous subsidy.

But I took you to be asserting the merits of train travel in this timeline, not the alternate history where we went all in on trains instead of building a highway system.

[Nige]

If you've lots of trains and lots of passengers why would the ticket prices need to be prohibitive? More or less prohibitive than planes? Switch subsidies from fossil fuels to trains and metro systems, that'd help. I'm calling for massive public transport infrastructure investment in this timeline.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trains and metro systems are already subsidized.

[Brett Bellmore]

Related,

Renewable Energy Still Dominates Energy Subsidies in FY 2022

Bottom line: Most energy subsidies go to 'renewable' sources, not fossil fuels and nuclear, and on a per kwh basis the disparity is absolutely enormous; On a per kwh basis, solar is subsidized 76 times more than nuclear, and wind 17 times more.

Which I guess is why you see more solar panels than windmills...

[Nige]

Yes, because they're a public good.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to Nige:
SAVE THE WHALES!
Never mind.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, because they’re a public good.

They are rivalrous and excludable, which means by definition they are not.

[Nige]

They're good for the public?

'SAVE THE WHALES!'

Amen, brother.

[Sarcastr0]

The train from NY to DC is quite legit. Now that I have the $$ not to take the bus, it's my go-to.

[Brett Bellmore]

You might find it useful, but it actually costs a lot more than you're paying, it's highly subsidized relative to that bus.

[Sarcastr0]

A fait point.

Hard not to see public transportation as a public good. But as currently subsidized it's basically a convenience for the well-to-do.

Either subsidize harder or not at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do understand, don't you, that subsidies don't actually come out of nowhere, right? That they have costs? You divert money into less cost-effective ways of doing things, and we as a society become poorer.

Besides, it's highly unlikely you could subsidize mass transit to the point where it would actually displace cars, most places. It's simply not an effective substitute for them for the majority of people. You'd essentially have to penalize cars, instead, to the point where people simply couldn't afford them anymore, and were trapped into using public transport even if it was decidedly inferior for their purposes.

[Nige]

'That they have costs?'

No shit sherlock. The cost of cars is coming down the pike as we speak. Yes they will have to penalise cars. People have already been trapped into reliance on cars, even when inferior for their purposes, or more than they can afford.

[Sarcastr0]

You divert money into less cost-effective ways of doing things, and we as a society become poorer

Public goods are things the market will not naturally support, but which are still good.
Because maximizing GDP is a means to support the members of our society, not an end unto itself.

And, such market-based optimization is itself not effective, because markets are short term. An investment that allows more people to travel allows more labor to be efficiently distributed. Properly done, it'd pay for itself.

it’s highly unlikely you could subsidize mass transit to the point where it would actually displace cars, most places
Wrong.

Quicky Google:
"In 2016, District residents commuted by public transportation (36.8 percent), driving alone (33.7 percent), walking (13.3 percent), carpooling (5.4 percent), bicycling (4.3 percent), and taking taxis or motorcycles (1.3 percent)."

[Martinned]

So is the car you drive.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, if it's an EV it is.

[Martinned]

So is every other car that's driven. Who do you think pays for the construction and maintenance of all those roads? The road construction fairy?

[David Nieporent]

So is every other car that’s driven. Who do you think pays for the construction and maintenance of all those roads? The road construction fairy?

Drivers — or, more precisely, people who buy gas for their cars.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fuel taxes, mostly.

[ducksalad]

Martinned, in the US highways (other than maybe urban city streets) are mostly funded by taxes on vehicles and fuel. Average driver pays a couple hundred dollars a year in gas tax and vehicle fees to use the roads.

[Ridgeway]

"You might find it useful, but it actually costs a lot more than you’re paying, it’s highly subsidized relative to that bus."

Are you sure about that? At least pre-COVID, the Acela corridor (BOS-NYC-DC) was the only profitable portion of Amtrak. It, along with Uncle Sugar, subsidized the rest of the operations.

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately the tracks don't permit high speed and timeliness on the Acela is a joke

[Mr. Bumble]

A good train ride might be relaxing but is hardly cheap.

[Nige]

Depends where you're going.

[Mr. Bumble]

No shit, Capt Obvious. How about an example?
SarcastrO's NYC to DC; cheapest fare per Amtrack $82.00 one way.

[Magister]

It's 200+ miles from NYC to DC; I see varying estimates for the cost of a car per mile, but it must be over $0.50. It sounds like Amtrak is a cost effective choice and offers: more space than a car, not having to drive, and a lower fatality rate.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which id why everyone uses it and it's a real moneymaker.

[Magister]

The costs may go the other way if you also have passengers. And it's nice to have the car for local trips when you get there (well, maybe not in NYC or DC; I've never driven there). The last time I took a train over that sort of distance was because my car was unavailable. But it was a convenient and inexpensive means of travel when I was in graduate school and had no car, but it was just me traveling.

[Nige]

The question goes the other way, really.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've driven in DC, the only time it wasn't a nightmare was in 2008, when I arrived during a record blizzard. (Since I'd just moved down from Michigan at the time, I just enjoyed the lack of traffic.)

These days if I have to visit DC, I just stay at a hotel right over the river, and take the subway.

[Commenter_XY]

Just so I am clear: You do, or do not favor a lifetime flying quota (for everyone, someones)?

[Martinned]

Which is why France has banned (most) domestic short-haul flights: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65687665

[David Nieporent]

500 miles? No. Not even close. Maybe 300 miles. And above that, flying is a lot better than railroading.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree: Not even close.

[Nige]

Of course it is because society has been stupidly designed to be that way.

[ducksalad]

Maybe you live someplace where flights are frequent and you go places with lots of public transport.

My threshold is around 900 miles. Flying kills a day and is expensive, so any drive that's less than a day is worth it.

[Don Nico]

you mean 300 miles

[Kazinski]

Well a decent rail system is something beyond the competence level for blue states.

Just last week high speed rail service started between Miami and Orlando (236 miles) . Its a private rail system that started development in 2012.

In contrast the California High Speed rail system, once envisioned between LA and SF (347 miles), was abandoned as beyond the competence of California's high speed rail authority. And the drastically scaled back Bakersfield to Merced (164 miles) started construction in 2015, and is scheduled for completion in 2030, but is foundering.

[Nige]

The US has a serious 'building good infrastructure' problem. I expect there are fairly wealthy and influential pro-car pro-roads pro-gas interests in even the bluest of states who work hard to make such projects as difficult as they can manage.

[Nige]

Sunak's retreat from net-zero is so fantastically stupid and inept it can only be to please far right weridos who think less air travel means you can never leave your house.

[Martinned]

A fair few of his party colleagues agree. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/23/the-worst-kind-of-culture-war-tories-attack-rishi-sunaks-reversal-on-net-zero

(This week is Tory Party Conference, so I guess we'll see how popular these policies are.)

[Nige]

He's got the car industry and the environmentalists united in criticising him, which must be a first.

[Martinned]

Incumbents like regulation, and boards of incumbents who are trying to convince shareholders of the need to spend money on expensive new investments like it even more.

[Kazinski]

Well the car industry is upset because consumers won't transition to electric vehicles unless the government forces them to, and the car companies will have stranded investments if the government backs off on forcing the public to buy what they don't want.

[Nige]

The government's putting its finger on the scales either way, so the least it could do is be consistent and stick to its guns.

[Don Nico]

moreover 30% of autoworkers will lose their jobs, unless the government intervenes

[Kazinski]

Well in the end the only thing that matters is what the voters want.

And voters are souring on EV's and unreliable overpriced "sustainable" electricity.

[Martinned]

Sustainable electricity is cheaper than the polluting kind. Which is why it's taking off like gangbusters in the UK.

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/electricity-explained/electricity-and-me/great-britains-monthly-electricity-stats

[Tom for equal rights]

Renewable energy - wind and solar are more expensive, not less expensive. The LCOE computations from lazards only counts the direct cost of each single component of the energy source.

The important metric is the total cost of using all the components in the mix. Lazards LCOE doesnt include the additional costs required to use a high penetration of renewables.

there are a multitude of other errors in lazards computation, three of the most obvious are A) overestimating the capacity, wind for example is based on 43% capacity whereas the actual is closer to 20%, lazards capacity for gas is approx 80% when actual is closer to 70%, B) Lazard uses annual capacity in its computation when the critical metric is the capacity during winter and summer when wind capacity factor is at the lowest, while the spring and fall time frame, wind has a high capacity and which the times of the year when demand is at the lowest. C) lazard doesnt take into account the costs when wind and solar are not working such as the 36day of wind drought that just ended for germany and most of northern europe.

[Mr. Bumble]

For more on the subject, from DOE report:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-quietly-released-study-showing-green-energy-receives-far-more-subsidies-fossil-fuels

[Tom for equal rights]

5cents subsidy per KW for fossil fuel
vs
$11 subsidy per KW for renewables.

[Nige]

Renewables are barely gettng started. Isn't it weird that investing in something fairly new is expensive?

[Mr. Bumble]

The earliest "re-newables" are already obsolete and at the end of their useful life and as a bonus aren't recyclable.

[Nige]

Almost as if renewable technology is developing.

Everything's recyclable, however we're still at an 'obscene waste' stage of society.

[Mr. Bumble]

"... however we’re still at an ‘obscene waste’ stage of society."
You are so adept at saying nothing.

Yes theoretically everything is recyclable but in practice it is a waste of time, money and resources unless there id a market for the recycled material at a value higher than the cost of recycling.

As a side note, the photovoltaic effect was discovered in 1839 not put to a practical use until used to power satellites in the 1960s and still not efficient and practical enough to depend on.

[Nige]

It's only a 'waste' because of perverse incentives, short-term thinking, externalised costs and wildly dysfunctional priorities.

[Don Nico]

And LCOE does not account for full lifecycle costs including all environmental effects for materials and disposal

[Joe_dallas]

Nico - concur - the LCOE computations have numerous logic errors which results in many erroneous conclusions.
One of the biggest logic errors is the use of average capacity factors for computing costs per kw. Wind has its highest capacity factor in the spring and fall when the electric demand is at its lowest. Using summer capacity factors and winter capacity factors shows the LCOE during the winter and summer is much higher the gas peaker costs - that is without regard to the other costs needed to allow wind and solar to function on the grid without collapsing the grid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Could you point out the part of that which actually says the 'sustainable' electricity is cheaper? Taking off, sure, that's what happens when you set out to outlaw any alternatives, and subsidize the heck out of them.

Monthly average electricity prices based on day-ahead baseload contracts in Great Britain from January 2013 to July 2023

I mean, suppose it's theoretically possible that starting tomorrow the costs will drop off a cliff, and end up lower than what prevailed in Great Britain before they started pushing up 'sustainable' sources. But I don't see any reason to expect it, especially if you correct for massive subsidies.

[Tom for equal rights]

Brett - you would think the advocates would notice total electric costs goes up as renewables increase penetration.

[Nige]

Have you noticed some people will say anything to protect fossil fuels, which are literally causing the earth to alternately burn up and wash away? And don't factor that into the costs? Or the trillions of subsidies to fossil fuels every year worldwide?

[Mr. Bumble]

"...which are literally causing the earth to alternately burn up and wash away?'
As I mentioned before; supercilious fop.

[Nige]

Did you just learn those words? But not the meanings?

[Mr. Bumble]

supercilious
soo͞″pər-sĭl′ē-əs
adjective

1.Feeling or showing haughty disdain. synonym: arrogant.
2.Lofty with pride; haughty; dictatorial; overbearing; arrogant.
3.Arrogantly superior; showing contemptuous indifference; haughty.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
See #2.
fop
fŏp
noun

1.A man who is preoccupied with and often vain about his clothes and manners; a dandy.
2.A fool; a shallow pretender; an ostentations dunce.
3.A man who is ostentatiously nice in manner and appearance; one who invites admiration by conspicuous dress and affectations; a coxcomb; a dandy.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

[Nige]

There. You learned something.

[Nige]

Not sure the UK is a good example for the management of anything at the moment.

[Zarniwoop]

My partner has a 2023 Model Y, and it’s one of the best cars I’ve even had the pleasure to drive. It’s cheaper to “fuel” on a mile-traveled basis than comparable gas vehicles, especially when it’s plugged in to her home's solar panels. The cost is roughly comparable when we take 1000+ mile trips and charge at higher-cost superchargers.

Nah, not souring on EVs (or solar/wind power here in the Midwest) at-frackin’-all.

[Mr. Bumble]

If it works for you, well great. However, have you factored in the higher cost of the vehicle?

[Zarniwoop]

about mid $50K (before rebate!), pretty reasonable for the size, quality, and features of the car compared to an ICE vehicle. She did manage (with a fair helping of luck) to put in her order at the absolute min price Tesla asked – they lowered a couple times before she ordered, then they raised the price by a few hundred $$ shortly after.

But purchase price is only one factor in Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). EVs are mechanically simpler than ICE vehicles. As they get more common, this will result in lowering purchase costs of EVs over time and lower maintenance, in addition to lower “fuel” costs. Looking at the long game, it’s hard to believe ICE vehicle will win out on TCO.

[Mr. Bumble]

I’m driving a 28 year old vehicle. If your EV were to last that long, how many battery packs will it have gone through (assuming they would still be available)?

[Mr. Bumble]

Two other considerations are:
1.EVs because of their greater weight go through tires faster than most ICE vehicles and because of their larger size are generally more expensive.
2. How long will the software necessary in an EV be supported?

[Nelson]

I had a Prius for 11 years before I got rear-ended at a red light. I had no drop-off in the battery at all. My neighbor had his for 15 years with no drop-off. I know four other people who had theirs at least a decade and they had the same experience.

The whole "the battery is going to fail and then what will it cost" thing is a red herring. Long before the battery fails, the vast majority of people will have replaced their car for one reason or another.

"The battery is dangerous" is pure bullshit as well. You're far more likely to be engulfed in flames from an ICE's gas tank than a battery fire.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(before rebate!)"

You mean the tax credit?

[Brett Bellmore]

"especially when it’s plugged in to her home’s solar panels."

You mean the her home's heavily subsidized solar panels?

You know, I'm gradually coming around on EV's, as the technology improves. I don't think they're quite there yet, and they desperately need some entry level vehicles that don't cost as much as a cheap house, but they're starting to move out of luxury hobby territory.

That said, though, the electric grid would require MAJOR upgrades before they can safely achieve more than a few percent market penetration. And the grid is actually getting worse!

And the only reason they're starting to look reasonable compared to ICE vehicles is that the cost of the latter is being driven sky high by regulators, in a scarcely disguised effort to force people into electric cars.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
Buy a Bolt. It is wired so that it will supply power to your house when the electric company doesn't.
The cost per kW-hr is cheaper than installed stand alone batteries and you get a car (of sorts) basically for free

[Mr. Bumble]

...and assuming that it is fully charge, how long will it supply power? Also, do you need to have a second one to travel?

[Nige]

No they aren't.

[Mr. Bumble]

This far down thread it would help to indicate to whom you are responding.

[Michael P]

Environmental protesters witlessly causing severe damage because of their choice of chemicals is peak 2020s.

https://apnews.com/article/germany-brandenburg-gate-climate-protest-cleaning-eb30718992d2c573ada9d91940e70ea2

[Brett Bellmore]

While they're nitwits, I seriously doubt the damage was unintentional. They plan to just keep escalating until society throws up its hands and gives in to their demands.

[Nige]

'I seriously doubt the damage was unintentional.'

The great mind-reader strikes again.

[Brett Bellmore]

I repeat what I said before: Actually doing something is conventionally evidence that you intended to do it. Rebuttable, to be sure, but evidence.

You don't need mind reading to decide that somebody means to vandalize a monument when they hit it with spray paint, and that spray paint is really, really difficult to get off marble is no secret at this point.

[Nige]

Weird that ths principle never applies to Trump.

So is all the damage done to people and property by air pollution, to pick just one form of pollution, orders of magnitude more deadly and damaging and expensive to repair than some spray paint, intentional? Because doing it is evidence of intentionality?

[Mr. Bumble]

What does Trump have to do with air pollution?

[Nige]

It's an aside. Try to work it out.

(Although he was big on trying to revive coal if you want a direct connection.)

[Mr. Bumble]

So, nothing.
You are such a supercilious fop.

[Nige]

Well obviously this is very very important to you. But I’m still not going to explain, work it out from context as a little challenge to yourself. (Hint, see David Nieporent's comment below.)

[David Nieporent]

I repeat what I said before: Actually doing something is conventionally evidence that you intended to do it. Rebuttable, to be sure, but evidence.

And I'll repeat how I responded: you never apply this to Donald Trump.

Also, you're being misleading. We're not talking about intent to do a particular act, but intent to cause a particular outcome. If I call 911 because someone is breaking into my house, that's of course evidence I want the police to come and save me/arrest him. But if the police respond to my call and shoot the intruder, that is not very good evidence that I wanted the guy to be killed.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not so much that I don't apply it to Trump, as it is that I don't apply to Trump a presumption that what he intended to do was criminal.

I mean, Trump holds a rally on the Mall, clearly he intended to hold a rally on the Mall. At about the same time other people start a pre-planned riot at the Capitol.

The fact that Trump organized the rally doesn't mean he planned the riot. Not to people who don't start with the assumption that he's up to no good even when the "no good" actually hurts his efforts to do something.

Now, if somebody attacks a monument with spray paint, you know damned well that they intended to vandalize it, because they DID vandalize it. You're not inferring it on the basis that somebody else vandalized it while they were in the area, and a presumption that they wanted it vandalized.

[Nige]

'as it is that I don’t apply to Trump a presumption that what he intended to do was criminal.'

I get that you buy into the Jan 6th plausible deniability because you adopt the persona of a newborn calf in relation to that subject. The multiple cases of fraud, the sexual assault and theft of government documents, including classified, not sure what the excuse is there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think Trump's denial that he planned the break in is entirely plausible. It put an end to his legal/political challenges and forced him to concede, and that it would do so was entirely predictable. It would have made no sense for him to have planned it, it actually made more sense as a Reichstag fire than a coup attempt.

Cue the usual "Just because it was a stupid attempt at a coup doesn't mean it wasn't a coup." raving. It wasn't a stupid attempt at a coup at all, not by Trump, because you've yet to produce any evidence he was behind it.

[Nige]

He sat back and let it happen waiting to see if it would work. That should be enough for anyone who once claimed to value patriotism and/or democracy.

[Sarcastr0]

Read the indictments Brett, they lay out a case for at the very least recklessness, but based on his refusal to act once his recklessness bore violent fruit that tips over into intent.

And your Reichstag fire shit is a sign you *know* this is bad. That's why you're digging deep into conspiracyville to make it not the GOP's fault.

[Commenter_XY]

Buck v Bell - This is still good case law. This was forced sterilization of a human being against their expressed will, and allowable. It was cited in a number of cases during the pandemic, relating to the limits of state power.

My question is where is the actual limit of state power?

I am also thinking about that gender dysphoria case from the 6th circuit, and wondering what other procedures Buck could ostensibly uphold, if conducted by the state?

[Sarcastr0]

This question needs some fleshing out.

Which state's power?
Power to do what kinds of things?

Do you mean
what's the current state of play,
what should be the state of play, or
how will SCOTUS rule when question come up?

[Commenter_XY]

Fair comment.

An individual state
Well, that is what I am wondering about

Yes
No
Not sure anyone can prognosticate w/o a specific case

[Sarcastr0]

The current state of play precedentially given: state action limits regarding bodily autonomy seems largely political not Constitutional, given Dobbs.
But see the recent rise of faith-based exceptions in the area. That's already a sufficient framework for state courts to find Constitutional limits should they be so inclined. But also it is not so clearly established as to command them to do so.

Also note that not many think Buck v. Bell would be endorsed by the Supreme Court were that to come up again. So there are limits, it's just that the states have not been really testing those limits by trying stuff.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

The political and the constitutional aren't that separate.

The Bill of Rights is largely just a description of things any government, anywhere shouldn't be doing. And legislators are supposed to think for themselves about whether something is within their authority, and a proper use of that authority.

Judicial review is just a backup.

[Ed Grinberg]

where is the actual limit of state power?

(I’ll let others provide legal analysis of Buck v. Bell and the numerous court decisions upholding the various COVID-related measures. But if you’re looking for a philosophical discussion, see below.)
After I pointed out (in an online discussion) that both ObamaCare and the policies of the Khmer Rouge involved social engineering, someone replied: “Laws against murder, rape, and littering are all social engineering as well.” My response:
You could argue that these criminal laws qualify as social engineering (if you define it as “the practice of making laws to solve social problems”). But while the “social problem” of raping or killing people clearly warrants criminal punishment, that of choosing not to buy health insurance does not. (The “social problem” the Khmer Rouge were trying to solve was the “decadent” culture of the cities. They solved it by forcing the entire population out of the cities and into subsistence farming.) For leftist / “liberal” / “progressive” social engineers, no “social problem” is too minor to warrant state interference. (Remember the Kagan/Coburn exchange on whether the government can make you eat vegetables?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo) And once a “social problem” is identified, they see no limit to the extent to which the state should be allowed to interfere with the individual in order to correct it.

[apedad]

"And once a 'social problem' is identified, they see no limit to the extent to which the state should be allowed to interfere with the individual in order to correct it."

And the Pro-Lifers raise their hands in the air and shout, "Hallelujah!"

[Michael P]

It turns out that when the NYT said they got Trump's tax returns from someone who was legally authorized to have them, they were probably wrong. And, as is often the case, the error was probably intentional.

https://apnews.com/article/leak-tax-return-irs-charges-213909430bcaf8b50600d67bfe45f89a

[Longtobefree]

They weren't 'probably wrong'; they were deliberately lying.

[Krayt]

Aren't politicians the same people who want you to go to jail for hacking or whatever, when misusing computer resources you have legitimate access to? As opposed to some creep in a dank room poking at a keyboard as a traditional hacker?

What difference does "legally had access to it" make if they did something illegal with it? (And, as predicted, the itens were subpoena'd for the purpose of leaking.)

[David Nieporent]

What difference does “legally had access to it” make if they did something illegal with it?

If the person is an IRS agent, it doesn't make a difference. If the person legally had access to it in another way, it may not be "something illegal" at all. For example, if Donald Trump Jr. went into his father's office and pulled the document from a filing cabinet and mailed it to the NYT, there's nothing illegal about that.

[apedad]

But the link says it was an IRS contractor - who WAS legally authorized to have access to them.

Obviously not authorized to release them though.

[Zarniwoop]

Hm, I'm not sure that merely being an IRS contractor authorizes a person to access any tax return without a valid reason.

I'm fairly sure that it is a fireable offense for IRS employees to look at returns without a valid reason, and that there are procedures in place to detect unauthorized snooping of famous people's returns, whether for illegal release or mere curiosity. Not sure how that general proposition interplays with the "contractor" aspect here, though.

[Martinned]

As of today, Dame Sue Carr is the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, the 98th person to hold that office in the 755 years that it's existed.

Here she is in full regalia: https://twitter.com/JudiciaryUK/status/1708755438152372613

[Martinned]

And here is the footage of the swearing in ceremony (all 45 minutes of it). A must-see for every wig aficionado!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNRNrbJe_qQ

[Mr. Bumble]

Do they celebrate Halloween early in the UK?

[Martinned]

No, we leave that to the Americans.

[Mr. Bumble]

No red robes, but, here come de judge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGqTZUcemrU

[Martinned]

British judges, on the other hand, don't have gavels.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in Congressional news:
Gavin Newsome appoints DIFI's replacement. A black lesbian who lives and is registered to vote in Maryland; Laphonza Butler.

[Sarcastr0]

young gay black lady with progressive bona fides but who’s also proven she can run in elite business circles. Decent kingmaker move by Newsome to consolidate his power in CA.

Butler began her career as a union organizer for nurses in Baltimore and Milwaukee, janitors in Philadelphia and hospital workers in New Haven, Connecticut. In 2009, she moved to California, organizing in home caregivers and nurses, and served as President of SEIU United Long Term Care Workers, SEIU Local 2015.

Butler was elected President of the California SEIU State Council in 2013. She undertook efforts to boost California’s minimum wage and raise income taxes on the wealthiest Californians. As President of SEIU Local 2015, Butler endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.

In 2015, Butler was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to a 12-year term as a regent of the University of California. She resigned from her role as regent in 2021.

Butler joined SCRB Strategies as a partner in 2018. At SCRB, she played a central role in Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign. Butler was known as a political ally of Harris since her first run for California Attorney General in 2010, when she helped Harris negotiate a shared SEIU endorsement in the race.

It does tick off all the Democratic constituencies in CA – there were

[Michael P]

Except for that whole "inhabitant of the state they represent" bit, but only MAGA Republicans care about the spirit of the Constitution these days.

[Mr. Bumble]

...well, she used to live in California.

[Magister]

They didn't care about whether Dr. Oz lived in Pennsylvania. MAGA Republicans are not known for principled stances.

[OtisAH]

Tuberville lives in Florida. Oz and the guy he beat, and who is expected to try again, both live out of state. And there are a couple others I cannot recall off the top of my head. So are you lying or stupid?

[Michael P]

Which are you?

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

[OtisAH]

Stupid it is then. Thanks for playing.

[Martinned]

There you go: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/02/is-sen-to-be-butler-eligible-to-represent-california/

It's a close question, which means that presumably she'll be seated.

[Martinned]

It looks like at least part of the problem is that US Constitutional Amendments don't explain exactly what it is they're amending.

(And they other problem is that the domicile requirement is ridiculous in the context of a legislature that is sitting all year around. None of the members of Congress realistically live anywhere other than Washington DC and environs.)

[Kazinski]

She only has to live there one day.

[Moderation4ever]

And as a bonus Govenor Newsome does not step into the Democratic Senate primary race by picking a declared candidate.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah I got cut off at the end there but that is my take as well.

[Bob from Ohio]

"declared candidate."

Filing deadline has not yet passed. Maybe she'll like that sweet Senate gig.

[Zarniwoop]

Indeed, the NYTimes reports:

Mr. Newsom’s chief spokesman, Anthony York, indicated on Sunday that the governor would not demand that his appointee stay out of the 2024 Senate race. In a post on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter, Mr. York agreed with Representative Cori Bush, Democrat of Missouri, who said “there shouldn’t be any strings attached” to the appointment.

That leaves open the possibility that Ms. Butler, a prolific fund-raiser at Emily’s List, could still enter the primary for the permanent Senate seat.

I have no information or opinion on whether she actually will run for a full term. If forced to bet, I'd guess she won't.

But if she does, with the currently in-vogue focus on the age of candidates, I would speculate - purely out of my posterior orifice - that the 44yo Ms. Butler might be more attractive to some voters than the 77yo Ms. Lee, while that factor is less persuasive as to 63yo Mr. Schiff and 49yo Ms. Porter.

Between all of them (including Ms. Butler), I'd put my money on Mr. Schiff.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, what if a Senator challenges seating her, because she is not a resident of CA. Truthfully, I would expect that to happen.

[Sarcastr0]

Then the courts would have a fun formalist versus functionalist fight.

But given her bio and all the Cali all over it, my functionalist self knows who I'm rooting for.

[Magister]

I would think the Senate would decide the matter.

[Don Nico]

"young gay black lady"
That does seem to be the fixation of the progressive left
What is wrong with black men?
Or do progressives consider them only good for pro sports?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Heads up: We are beginning to phase in a number of changes to the commenting system at Reason.com. Registered users can now see an enhanced profile page - accessible from the link near the top right of any page - which allows you to manage your muted commenter list and to see a complete listing of comments. Also, commenters are now able to edit comments during the first 5 minutes after posting. These initial changes also include new registration and password recovery forms. Stay tuned for bigger and better changes coming soon! Please send any trouble reports to [e-mail] and submit any feedback through our site feedback form. "
With the exception of the edit feature, has any of this happened?

[Michael P]

At least on the mobile site, the comment history and muted users list are together on your "account profile" page (under the person outline at the very top right of the page). When I went looking on the desktop site, it was in a similar spot.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm on a laptop and while I used to be able to access comments and muted users it disappeared around the time the edit feature was added.
Just tried it again with ad blockers disabled and still not working.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can see the muted users list, but nothing comes up under comment history.

Be funny if that were an unintended consequence of making the comments unindexable.

[BrianL.]

Same here: muted users but no comment history. I have a lot of muted users, and the only users I mute are ones that look like bots.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have muted a handful of people I don't think are bots, but only with severe reluctance. Most of them were obvious spamers.

[Sarcastr0]

Good move by McCarthy.

His only challenger is Gaetz, who has managed to alienate almost the entire GOP caucus just by his manner. He's still pretty secure in his seat, and didn't blow up his party.

Not a job I'd take, but he's making the best of a pretty bad bed he didn't make.

[Moderation4ever]

My only problem is that the House has 47 days to work and how much time will be taken up with this matter. There should be a rule that if the country is working under a CR the Congress can only work on budget matters. All other matter are set aside until the budget is completed.

[Mr. Bumble]

When was the last time we actually had regular order with the budget?

[Moderation4ever]

Too long. This is why I suggest that the rules need to change so that no frivolous work can be done before the budget is passed.

[Nige]

The whole thing's a shambling stupid wasteful mess, 'good' is relative. It'd make anyone want to pull the fire alarm.

[OtisAH]

???

He built the bed and bought the bedding.

[Sarcastr0]

He took the job, and plays footise with some of the most truly awful people in politics in order to keep it.

But this bed is Trump's bed. The Freedom Caucus's bunch of dumbasses who care more about owning the libs on twitter then governing is not of McCarthy's making.

I do not admire the man, at all. He's not very clever, he's not good at leading, his wisdom in taking this job is incredibly suspect, and he enables awful people trying to do awful things.

But he is more secure than I thought after the shitshow of his nomination, and he managed to get us 45 more days by opening the vote up to the Dems.

After that, who knows? Seems he can probably pull the same thing again in November.

[Krayt]

45 days...47 days from another commenter, so 45 days +/- 2(0 years)

[OtisAH]

McCarthy is as much a Turnip loyalist as any of them. He’s in this situation because of his ambition to he speaker, which is his entire raisin d’etre. He’s not there to legislate or lead the house, he’s there to be speaker. And he made a lot of shitty deals to get and hold it. He’s only bold-ish now because he finally realized Gaetz is mostly bluffing a week or two ago.

[Sarcastr0]

I do not disagree with anything you say.

Except to note how transactional Trump loyalty is with most of the GOP electeds.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He’s not there to legislate or lead the house, he’s there to be speaker. "

Mind reading is good when we do it!

[Sarcastr0]

If he's there to legislate or lead the house, he's doing a truly awful nonfeasance of both.

He's a smart guy, he knows what the lay of the land is. Being speaker is about all he can do.

[Bob from Ohio]

He has a slim paper majority with an active rebellious subgroup and a Dem Senate. There was never going to be any legislation.

[Nige]

Because he's shit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Is Joe Biden using the power of the state to go after Elon Musk?

It's starting to look like it. This is what fascism starts as...

https://nypost.com/2023/10/01/joe-lies-in-wait-with-his-musk-et/

[OtisAH]

I’m sure Homeland Security has some concerns over a man who has publicly waded into national and international politics, including coming down on the side of Putin in Ukraine, and who is increasingly pushing white supremacist ideology, sure. Shouldn’t they be concerned?

[Michael P]

They should be concerned if they are following the model of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, sure

[OtisAH]

Moron.

[Martinned]

He's not wrong. "Homeland Security" is a pretty Orwellian name for a government department.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, Motherland and Fatherland were already taken...

[Brett Bellmore]

"Let's call off this stupid idea" wasn't, though.

[Nige]

At the time, the mere suggestion would have been anti-American.

[Idihax]

What leftists call "white supremacist ideology" is "criticism of non-whites."

[Nelson]

And what right-wing extremists call "criticism of non-whites" is "white supremacy ideology". It's almost like we should ignore the 10% of idiots on each fringe and play to the center.

But that would result in competent governance by a smaller government. And can you imagine how boring that would be?

[Ed Grinberg]

Here's how Ann Coulter describes Southern Poverty Law Center's criteria for calling someone a “white supremacist”: “anyone we don’t like and can’t refute.”

[Nelson]

Which is why no one takes Ann Coulter seriously.

[Frank Drackman]

Just another example of the man keeping an African Amurican down.

[SRG2]

This is what fascism starts as…

Pearl-clutcher.

[Ed Grinberg]

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

[SRG2]

Did you or your lot speak out about Trump's threats against Hillary, or didn't that count as the beginning of fascism? Or do you only disapprove of what you call fascism when it's not your guy?

[Ed Grinberg]

Well, let's see:
Mrs. Clinton, allegedly, broke the law by using a private server while she was Secretary of State.
As far as I know, Mr. Musk has not broken the law in any way.
I hope that answered your question.

[David Nieporent]

Well, let’s see:
Mrs. Clinton, allegedly, broke the law by using a private server while she was Secretary of State.

In fact, no law prohibited that.

[SRG2]

Ah yes, but she was Hillary Clinton, so she must have been guilty of something and so it was only reasonable that Trump kept promising he'd lock her up, plus "the king can do no wrong".

[Commenter_XY]

No law prohibits classified docs on a private server?

[Sarcastr0]

That is not what Grinberg said.

The sloppiness over the specifics is continual on this issue. And a lot of the other kinda weedy Clinton stuff from days of yore. Neither side wants to nail it down, seems like.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, technically it was a regulation promulgated pursuant to a law, not a law. Which has certainly never kept anybody out of prison for being careless with classified documents before, but I guess any port in a storm.

[Nelson]

If I recall correctly, Hillary Clinton never sent any classified documents, nor saved any, on her server. Some documents sent to her were made classified after she received them, but I believe that the findings were that there were no classified materials in any of the messages sent to or from the server at the time those messages were sent. And since classified documents come from government accounts, they found emails she sent and received from the sending (or receiving) accounts as well as her account.

That is in no way intended to say that Hillary Clinton wasn't sketchy as hell. She was a terrible choice for President. She fake, transactional, inauthentic, and more bought-and-paid-for than any Presidential candidate in my lifetime. If she had run against any other Republican I believe she would have lost by a much larger margin. I could have seen her losing to sineone like Mitt Romney by a couple hundred electoral votes. She was awful. Still is, since she hasn't died yet.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus Brett. How many times has DMN schooled you on the facts of this? Nothing was classified until *well afterwards*

[David Nieporent]

No law prohibits classified docs on a private server?

That's not what Ed Grinberg said — he said "using a private server" — and that's not what Hillary did. She didn't put any classified docs on the server.

Once again: people who deal with classified info have two separate government email accounts. One is an ordinary email account on a government server - [e-mail] (or whatever). Anyone on the planet can send an email to that account, and it is used for ordinary business. One is an account on a private internal government network that is designated for classified material.

Hillary used her private server (as did past SoS, incidentally) as a substitute for that first account, not for the classified account. That is legal, and not a violation of any regulation either. It would have violated laws relating to the handling of classified material if she had sent classified emails via that account or via her ordinary state department account. (The "private" aspect of the server has no legal significance in that context.) It would also have violated laws relating to the handling of classified material if someone else had sent classified emails to that account or to her ordinary state department account — but it would be the person sending the email, not the person receiving it, that broke the rules in such a case.

(Punishing people who do that is complicated by the fact that things are sometimes up-classified after they are created/sent.)

[Nige]

He's making plenty of threats they could speak out about RIGHT NOW.

[Nelson]

Jesus, Nige. If you aren't a 20-something hard-left activist, you sure sound like it.

Trump is a blowhard who says awful things, but none of them actually rise to the level of threats that are deserving of criminal charges. I could be wrong, since IANAL, but the overwrought Chicken Little reaction to everything that jackass says makes me roll my eyes every time.

Get back to me when things get to a point of actual substance, like the Georgia election case. Otherwise, words are just words and the First Amendment protects almost all of them, no matter how hateful or cruel they are. As it should.

[Nige]

It really is amazing the leeway Trump is granted, so long as the awful things he says aren't 'criminal' he's fine, while his supporters make the stupidest claims about Biden, whose mildest criticism of his political opponents is proof that he's a tyrant king.

[Nelson]

Pro tip: whataboutism is a sign of bias and a lack of valid arguments.

Unless Trump says something that is criminal (and there are, correctly, very few exceptions to First Amendment protections), he isn't getting "leeway". He is being protected by the First Amendment, which is a good thing regardless (or even because) of how awful he is.

[Nige]

Pro tip: don’t mix up comments about criticism and political support with comments about criminal matters.

Trump and Biden are most likely candidates for the next election, comparing them, and the things being said about them and their truth and accuracy and fairness, is not just ok, it’s kind of necessary.

[Frank Drackman]

Ask your wife about the Pearl Necklace I gave her

[SRG2]

Fuck off, Quackman. (Nor am I married.)

[Frank Drackman]

No wonder

[Sarcastr0]

AL has been saying 'This is what fascism starts as' every time Dems say boo since at least the Trump admin.

And often linking to the NY post for proof, lol.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Whether this is good or bad it’s not how fascism “starts” because it has nothing to do with a palingenetic ultra-nationalist movement.

[M L]

Disgusting and awful, but not surprising. The downward slide continues.

[Nige]

It's particularly funny when the Murdoch-owned NYPost complains about lies and billionaires.

[Moderation4ever]

Last week my local newspaper, Wisconsin State Journal, published an article in the rise in bicycle theft in Madison. Most of the problem is in the central city near the UW Campus and in apartments rented by young professionals. Most of the thief is at night from bicycle racks. Now when I was a student bike theft occurred, usually for a student to get a bike for themselves. Most bikes then and now are not registered. What is different now is that bike values have increased. Especially electric assist bikes which now start at about $1.5K and go up from there. Also different is the market which now includes a number of internet sales sites allowing thieves a market place to sell stolen bikes.

There is not a real government solution here. Owner needs to lock up their bikes inside. Landlords need to provide space for the bikes inside. Owners also need to register their bikes so if on the off chance they are found they can be returned. Hopefully those purchasing bikes on the internet will request some authentication of ownership.

For the record, my bikes are old, look it, and well maintained. Their age generally protects them from theft.

[StonewallDeSoto]

The government solution to theft is surveillance, dogged investigation, and extremely harsh punishment.

[Ed Grinberg]

Investigation / prosecution of crimes -- real crimes that is -- is the one area where "liberals" / "progressives" don't want the government to be active. Hence: "There is not a real government solution here."

[Nelson]

Did you really use the "liberals want crime" trope?

OK, who had that on their "Trope Bingo" card? I'll bet you thought no one was stupid enough to try it!

[Randal]

The government solution to theft is surveillance, dogged investigation, and extremely harsh punishment.

And I bet you also want lower taxes too.

Owners need to put in some effort to protect their property. Showering the police with money to investigate petty thefts is a waste, and really a subsidy to property owners if you think about it.

Maybe the police should charge an investigation and property recovery fee? We can be just like Brazil!

[Frank Drackman]

I used to ride a bike to school
Then I grad-jew-ma-cated to 4th grade.

[PaulS]

Many fire departments advise against storing ebikes in the house (or even in the garage) - Seems like the states should file suit against bike manufacturers for making them so easy to steal

[John F. Carr]

The last surviving member of the group that killed Tupac Shakur in 1996 has been arrested. Duane Davis was a suspect from early on. He even confessed to police long ago during investigation of a different case. He had use immunity during that interview and police couldn't charge him based on his confession. Prosecutors were only able to build a proper case against him when he started talking too freely.

Davis is not charged with pulling the trigger. I mention this because I first read about the charges in a French news source which reminded readers that under American law not only the murderer is liable for the crime of murder. One can also be liable for driving the car (it was a drive-by shooting) or giving the order.

[Sarcastr0]

I had literally this week finished the Slow Burn podcast on the Biggie-Tupac thing.

It's a dirty business. Lots of high-school drama but backed up with guns.

[Martinned]

I'm sure Tupac will be pleased about how free he is, about how the militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and all that.

[Idihax]

The militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The fact that descendants of freed slaves don't have the intelligence or self control doesn't change that fact.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, there's a decent argument that his craft and art was utterly tied up in gun and gang culture.

If there was no easy access to guns, hard to see the rise of any of these folks.

Not saying it's good, just saying the counterfactual is radically different.

[Martinned]

Because the UK and France famously don't have hip hop?

[Sarcastr0]

Not at the time - it was 'Gangster Rap', and the level of popularity at that time was also extraordinary. The genre has spread out a lot since then.

It's a reckless deadly culture, but the storytelling about it was compelling to many.

[Ed Grinberg]

If you don't like it, go to Russia (or wherever it is you come from).

[Nelson]

Damn, Ed's on a roll! Who had "go back to where you came from" on their "Trope Bingo" card?

Keep 'em coming, Ed. You're a bubbling font of decades-old narratives!

[Kazinski]

Tupac was hardly the "well regulated" type, his gun which he had been seen brandishing was used to shoot to shoot and kill a 6 year old in Marin City in 1992.

"A fight broke out. Then shots. A bullet struck Qa'id in the forehead, killing him and sending shock waves rippling across the tightly knit community, which had been celebrating its 50th anniversary with an annual festival that August day.

Shakur and his friends were arrested and released, and no one was ever charged with Qa'id's death.

A Marin County Superior Court jury is expected to be seated today in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Qa'id's parents against Shakur and his half-brother Maurice Harding.

The suit contends that Shakur pulled a gun during the fight, brandished it, then dropped it when he was punched by someone in the crowd. It alleges Shakur then told Harding to pick up the gun and shoot."

He was never charged, because "no snitching", but it was established that Tupac's gun was the weapon that killed 6 year old.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/page-one-marin-city-haunted-by-boy-s-shooting-3021515.php

[David Nieporent]

The last surviving member of the group that killed Tupac Shakur in 1996 has been arrested.

Does Hillary have an alibi?

[Idihax]

https://nordot.app/1081360979154568125?c=592622757532812385

A good faith judicial opinion by an Obama judge. Mark the calendar folks!

[Tom for equal rights]

Congratulations to Eugene Volokh for fighting NY censorship law. NY post headline.
"The satire site Babylon Bee’s fight against New York’s insane online speech law is not funny"

some key points in the article
And that goes double since state Attorney General Tish James had made it abundantly clear she backs the censors.

The left, in New York and elsewhere, has been on an anti-speech crusade for years, one supercharged by Trump-mania.

It’s no longer a fringe position: A recent survey showed that almost half of Democrats now support legal restrictions on speech; 75% think the state should cut down on hateful social media posts.

Another poll showed more than half of college students think schools should use speech codes to clamp down on unfavored ideas.

[Idihax]

Leftists have always been fascists. They just did a better job hiding it. They also like to fall back on "We are supportive of individual rights because we love abortion and sodomy"

[Ed Grinberg]

[Leftists] like to fall back on “We are supportive of individual rights because we love abortion and sodomy.”

re: sodomy
If "liberals" had their way:
- A & B want to sodomize each other in the public square? No problem! We'll all stand around (with our kids!) waiving little rainbow flags and cheering!
- C points out that sodomy is a sin? Throw him in prison and throw away the key!

re: abortion
You'd think they'd spare a thought for the unborn baby's individual rights...

[Nelson]

"A & B want to sodomize each other in the public square? No problem!"

I haven't heard anyone here (or anyone outside the lunatic fringe) advocate for eliminating laws against sex in public. You'll have to show me where those who say "people should be able to have sex with other consenting adults" turn into supporters of "people should be able to have sex in public in front of children".

Apparently Ed is looking to fill all the fringe cultural conservative squares on the "Trope Bingo" cards today. Who has "gay people corrupt children" or "gay people are immoral" on their card?

"You’d think they’d spare a thought for the unborn baby’s individual rights…"

Since there is no such thing as an "unborn baby", there is no need. And since no one has ever made a convincing argument that a fetus should be treated as a person before viability, there is no reasonable argument that the rights of the pregnant person are invalid.

If you want to establish your premise first, then there's a discussion to be had. As long as you skip that step and use the "I believe this, so everyone else must be forced to follow my beliefs", it is firmly on the anti-rights side on the "supports individual rights" axis.

[Mr. Bumble]

Here is the link to the NY Post's op-ed.
That must be an old picture of EV.
https://nypost.com/2023/09/30/the-fight-against-new-yorks-insane-speech-law-has-never-been-more-important/

[Tom for equal rights]

Bumble - My system blocks me from posting a link, otherwise I would have attached the link

Though it is quite distressing that progressives want to censor speech. Censoring speech is a Stalin/Hilter type behavior. A variation of the Trofim lysenko science progam

[Nige]

Wait, wait. When they remove hundreds and hundreds of books about black, gay and indigenous people, and for some reason anything about farts, from the shelves of schools and libraries, that’s fine because someone somewhere along the chain was elected. When elected officials pass a law against hate speech that’s censorship? Where's the whole 'they'll answer to their electorate at the polls?' argument suddenly gone?

[Harvey Mosley]

Not providing free use of books that many in the community do not approve of does not equal a law banning those same books or any other speech.

[Nige]

See? *Techincally* banning books from libraries and schools isn’t really banning books, so it’s ok.

'many in the community'

It's never really many.

[Nelson]

"that many in the community do not approve of"

Who cares? A minority of people don't like a book? Then don't read it. You don't want your kid to read it? Tell them not to.

Book banning is a bad thing. Period, end of statement. Schools shouldn't only teach things that everyone agrees on. If they did, they would be teaching almost nothing and kids would be ignorant.

If kids can read parts (or all, depending on if it's an honors or AP class) Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto without turning into Nazis and Spcialists, hearing about gay people won't "make people gay".

And yes, Harvey, top-down orders to remove a book from being accessed is a ban. Semantic arguments are tangible proof that your position is indefensible. You are making a semantic argument. Hence ...

[Zarniwoop]

Good article on the 2023 Nobel Prize in Medicine for invention of mRNA vaccines:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/10/02/nobel-prize-medicine/

[Frank Drackman]

It's been a while since Paul Pelosi's Gigolo attacked him, when's THAT trial gonna happen??

[Mr. Bumble]

When Nashville terrorist Audrey Hale's manifesto is released?

[Zarniwoop]

Oct. 23, 2023. Google is your friend.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/federal-trial-date-for-paul-pelosis-attacker-david-depape-is-set/

Also, you could stop lying about the attacker's motivations. He's sufficiently mentally ill that he's embraced extremist views at both ends of the spectrum, with GQP / right wing views predominating prior to the attack on Pelosi, per wikipedia:

DePape also attacked Jews, immigrants, people of color, women, LGBTQ people, social justice warriors, Catholics, and Muslims.[60][48][56][63] He promoted a range of antisemitic conspiracy theories, including proclaiming the innocence of Adolf Hitler, denying the Holocaust, and accusing Jews of orchestrating the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.[55][59][64] His online posts were also often delusional, once attacking Jesus as "the antichrist" and included references to communication with invisible fairies and the occult.[60][42] His last post, published a day before the attack, was titled "Why Colleges are becoming Cults".[54]

Huhn, that sounds kinda like some of the more fringe GQP apologists here on the VC, come to think of it.

[Frank Drackman]

Well he was dating Paul Pelosi so he must have something going for him.

[Zarniwoop]

Repeating a trivially debunked lie doesn't make you smarter or funnier, you know.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

But it makes him this blog's target audience, and part of the reason UCLA's law faculty is about to improve.

[Frank Drackman]

calling something "Trivially Debunked" doesn't make it so. The Marxist Lame Stream Media is so wound up to have "Trials" let's have DePape's, maybe he was the "Real Victim" in this case. Let's put the System on Trial!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zarniwoop]

maybe he was the “Real Victim” in this case. Let’s put the System on Trial!!!!!!!!!!!

Bwahah. Are you really that stupid, or just acting that stupid?

Dollars to donuts he pleads guilty shortly before trial is supposed to start.

[Nelson]

"Are you really that stupid, or just acting that stupid?"

It's Frank. Have you his posts? I think for most people it's a question that isn't worth wasting time on.

[Life of Brian]

he’s embraced extremist views at both ends of the spectrum, with GQP / right wing views predominating

Proof positive that sometimes partisanship baloney comes in very thin slices. Why the incessant need to assign people like this clearly extremely mentally ill specimen of humanity to a particular team?

[Zarniwoop]

It demonstrates that the apparent underlying causes (mental illness) are completely and utterly divorced from Frank's knowing and ludicrous assertions about DePape's motivations: the existence of the delusions is the point. The recent ones are the best evidence that he acted in a deluded mind state. They happen to be GQP-driven delusions, while other, older ones were not. If his recent delusions were left-wing whacko I would have cited to those instead.

[Life of Brian]

It demonstrates that the apparent underlying causes (mental illness) are completely and utterly divorced from Frank’s knowing and ludicrous assertions about DePape’s motivations: the existence of the delusions is the point.

Simply noting the existence of the delusions would have ended the sentence at "He’s sufficiently mentally ill that he’s embraced extremist views at both ends of the spectrum." The rest was purely gratuitous.

The recent ones are the best evidence that he acted in a deluded mind state.

So if the most recent ones didn't exist, you'd conclude he was well-adjusted? Come on.

If his recent delusions were left-wing whacko I would have cited to those instead.

Ok -- unfalsifiable here, but I'm sure it won't be long until the next lefty nutjob comes along.

[Krychek_2]

Frank, I harbor the hope that there is enough decency in you that some day, with a little more maturity, you will look back on your comments here with deep shame. Perhaps I overestimate you.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, I'm not the Gigolo who attacked Paul Pelosi, get mad at him.

[Krychek_2]

I see I overestimated you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hey, I’m not the Gigolo who attacked Paul Pelosi,

This is the blog, and these are the commenters, Prof. Volokh and his fellow Conspirators want.

[Estragon]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why mocking an 80+ year old— who had the temerity to be attacked in his own home with a hammer— is a laugh line at a political rally.

[Krychek_2]

Because look who's doing it. Exactly the sort of person you would expect would mock an 80 year old man who was attacked in his own home with a hammer.

[Frank Drackman]

Because it's his gay lover, it's sort of funny

[Estragon]

Ok, assuming, for the sake of a brief digression, that this was in fact a domestic abuse situation…

Why is that funny?

[Frank Drackman]

Gay stuff is just funny by it’s very nature, see “Uncle Milty” “Rocky Horror”, “the Odd Couple” “Some like it Hot”, and when they’re not gay, but people think they’re gay (Seinfeld, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”) and I’ve seen enough Perry Mason/Law & Order/Columbo episodes to know when a crime scene doesn’t add up, and that one was as Queer as a $3 Bill, as a “Football Bat”, as a “Basketball Glove”, Let me know when the trial actually happens (it won’t)

Frank

[Estragon]

So domestic abuse is funny— but only if “gay stuff” is involved?

[Estragon]

It does not surprise me he would say it, any more than it surprises me that people like Frank would come onto this increasingly deranged online space and post it.

What does surprise me is the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who are willing to go out in public and laugh about an 80+ year old being assaulted in his own home like it’s some sort of Jeff Foxworthy skit.

To me it goes back to the discussion the other day about Trumps appeal. It’s like trying to make cruelty fun or something.

[Krychek_2]

Estragon, as annoying as I find Arthur's ad nauseum comments about clingers, people like Frank give him ammunition. Frank is exactly whom Arthur keeps talking about.

[Harvey Mosley]

I think you give our resident Reverend too much credit. I'm sure Frank is one of his targets but I remember also going after just about everyone on the right.

I have him muted (Frank too!) so maybe he's changed his ways a bit. But I doubt it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I know some people huff and puff against equal ballot access for third parties and independents, predicting the end of the world, the rise of fascism, ballots resembling phone books, dogs and cats living together, total anarchy.

Florida at least *tries* (outside of Presidential elections) to have equal ballot access, with all parties and candidates needing to meet the same standards, and no extra hurdles for not being a D or an R. This policy was submitted to the voters in 1998 by a nonpartisan commission, and the voters approved.

So if the predictions of the ballot-riggers are correct, the results they foresaw would have happened in Florida.

But a study published in 2010, after the Florida system had been running just over a decade, reached this verdict:

“The study concludes that states’ pursuit of egalitarian ballot access laws will not likely create substantive expansion of minor-party electoral success.”

https://journals.shareok.org/arp/article/view/231

I suspect the dominance of the two parties has a lot to do with the first-past-the-post, support-the-less-bad-major-party system. It may well be that replacing first-past-the post with some form of ranked choice or runoff voting might boost third-party numbers, at least in the first round of voting.

But honest ballots in and of themselves don’t challenge the duopoly lock on elections.

Why, then, are the duopolists (outside Florida and a handful of other states) so afraid of honest ballots?

Perhaps they want to hold on to *both* the first-past-the-post system *and* their privileged ballot access, the better to deter voters who dare think about leaving the plantation.

[Ben_]

"I know some people huff and puff against equal ballot access for third parties…"

Mostly people don’t care about it. They’re just responding to you.

[Krychek_2]

“The study concludes that states’ pursuit of egalitarian ballot access laws will not likely create substantive expansion of minor-party electoral success.”

So, Margrave, your own study concludes that adding third parties to the ballots won't help them much, and the two major parties will continue to win almost all elections. So obviously the "duopolists" aren't afraid of third parties, and that's not the reason they're not on the ballot.

It's relatively inexpensive to allow third parties to run for lesser offices. You're not going to have a hundred people showing up to run for the local cemetery board, or city council, or even the state legislature. It is not, however, inexpensive to open it up to presidential candidates, because you then would have a hundred people showing up for it, most of them vanity candidates who will be lucky to get their mothers to vote for them. You saw the circus the last GOP presidential debate was; open it up to all the minor candidates and it will be worse by orders of magnitude.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that the current barriers to third party participation haven't been around forever, they're relatively recent, and your huge ballots with hundreds of candidates for President?

Never, ever happened.

[Krychek_2]

A lot of things are happening now that never happened in older and simpler times. There's a solid argument to be made that without the third party candidates on the ballot, the confusion that surrounded the 2000 presidential election wouldn't have happened.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“2000 presidential election”

...was a quarter century ago, the era of dial-up, when many of our rich pop stars were in diapers if they’d been born at all.

An *illegal* ballot in one country (names on both sides, not one as required) had confusing directions which produced 3rd-party votes probably intended for Gore. I seem to recall that the official who printed up the illegal ballot was a Democrat, so the most likely scenario is the person wasn’t that competent (or was just having a bad day). The lesson is to have election officials follow the law.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“So obviously the “duopolists” aren’t afraid of third parties, and that’s not the reason they’re not on the ballot.”

It seems they are easily startled by shadows, judging by commenters like yourself.

You go on to make your “circus” remark as if you hadn’t fully assimilated your own talking point about the harmlessness of fair ballot access.

And there are some who say fair ballot access is a Republican plot, though they acknowledge that this alleged plot could be counteracted by at least some alternate voting method.

If the voters look at minor parties on an honest ballot and say, "nah, we deserve nothing better than the two big parties," then that's voting rights for you. They don't always produce results one might like. But that's no reason to deny voting rights or rig the ballot.

Voting /= voting right, contrary to what duopoly supporters claim.

[Krychek_2]

You're conflating two issues, I think deliberately to confuse people.

Third parties pose no real threat to the duopoly, and I say that as someone who wishes they did. The next president will be either a Democrat or a Republican no matter how many other parties are running. So from that standpoint, there's no reason for the duopolists not to include them.

The harm that these vanity candidates do is that (1) it costs money to add them to the ballot and (2) it makes people less likely to bother if they've got 20 names to wade through.

I'm in favor of allowing any party on the ballot just as soon as it demonstrates enough popular support to justify it. If it has no popular support, then other than the vanities of the candidates, what harm is there in leaving them off?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“You’re conflating two issues, I think deliberately to confuse people.”

Piss up a rope, you hack. And I hope nobody is fooled by your claims of disinterested ballot rigging.

Obviously, the majority of states – the ones with rigged ballots – aren’t acting from the goodness of their hearts. They expect some benefit to one major party or another, or both.

Of course the study didn’t examine first past the post voting, which Florida has – but I’ve already addressed that.

[Krychek_2]

"Obviously" my ass. It is far from obvious that they are doing it to benefit one party or the other *when your own data demonstrates that it has no effect on election results.* Do you understand that basic concept, that if it doesn't actually benefit the two major parties, then self interest isn't the reason they're doing it?

Minor parties may have a spot on the ballot when they demonstrate sufficient public support to justify it. Until then, just keep complaining about it if it makes you feel better.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

When the snake draws back its head, you know where it’s vulnerable.

Obviously, these ballot-rigging laws didn’t emerge spontaneously out of the ground. These laws keep getting passed after an independent or third-party movement starts “stealing” votes from the big guys.

There’s always the risk of some independent or third-party candidate arising, and they have those laws in place for such a contingency. It’s not a routine “threat” during a random 12-year period, but it always *could* be a threat, and as such has to be guarded against.

[Krychek_2]

And I "could" win Powerball and I "could" be appointed to the Supreme Court and I "could" wake up tomorrow morning next to an underwear model.

These "ballot-rigging" laws arose because there is no reason to spend state money on candidacies that will never command more than low single digit support. The last third party candidate to win the White House was Abraham Lincoln. And candidly, if you're concerned about third parties, abolishing the electoral college would do far more good. That way at least the votes they get would actually count toward the result.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ah, so the real reason for these laws is that Democrats and Republicans want to save taxpayers money!

From time to time you get a Populist Party, a Bull Moose Party, a Socialist Party, not just in Presidential but in Congressional and state elections. Or at least the two big parties *used* to face such threats.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And the last major third-party threat was from Ross Perot, and the reason he was able to maintain a semi-viable campaign may be guessed from this little riddle:

Q: What's the difference between crazy and eccentric?

A: About a billion dollars.

But when you get below the billion dollar range, dealing with ballot-access issues becomes more of a challenge.

[Krychek_2]

And I would have allowed Perot on the ballot because he demonstrated he had more than nominal public support. You do realize, though, that without Perot there would have been no President Clinton? I can live with that result if you can.

It's not about protecting the duopoly, even though you've convinced yourself of that. It's about not wasting time and resources. It's the same principle under which my law firm only interviews candidates whose resumes indicate they are viable candidates for the position. I'm not going to waste my time talking to a candidate who obviously isn't getting hired.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“You do realize, though, that without Perot there would have been no President Clinton? I can live with that result if you can”

Why are you discussing result-oriented criteria in connection with who should be on the ballot? I was suggesting that you shouldn’t have to be a billionaire. If you spend money, it should be on raising your profile, not on getting on the ballot.

The voters themselves should decide whom to hire. The decision shouldn't be made by biased legislatures and officials purporting to act on voters' behalf, and restricting their choices.

You might want to look at the real-world history of some of these ballot-access restrictions. For example, how the Jim Crow Georgia imposed ballot access restrictions in order to keep Communists off the ballot.

https://reason.com/2022/07/13/how-georgias-extreme-ballot-access-law-keeps-libertarians-and-everyone-else-off-the-ballot/

[Krychek_2]

I'm mentioning a result because, given the open hostility you routinely display toward Democrats, I just wanted to be sure you understand that putting Perot on the ballot elected a Democrat. I already said I'm fine with that if you are.

And the voters do speak. When polling data indicates that a particular candidate has 1% of the vote, the voters have spoken. You're just not listening.

Look, we just disagree on this. You hate elections that don't include everybody who wants to run; I hate the electoral college; neither of us is going to get what we want in the foreseeable future. That's life.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“the open hostility you routinely display toward Democrats”

Like when I said that Republicans are almost as bad? The Republicans may sometimes tap the brakes, while the Democrats have their foot always on the accelerator, but they’re both driving the country toward the same destination:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l482T0yNkeo

And I even acknowledged the possibility that Donald Trump may be constitutionally disqualified (per the 14th Amendment) from federal and state office. Although I admit that I didn’t adopt that position in order to promote Democratic candidates, so my motives may not be pure like some people's.

[Magister]

Perot did not give the election to Clinton. Exit polling analysis concluded that at most Ohio would have switched from Clinton to Bush.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/11/08/perot-seen-not-affecting-vote-outcome/27500538-cee8-4f4f-8e7f-f3ee9f2325d1/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Perot did not give the election to Clinton."

For once, it seems you're *not* arguing with me - you're arguing with someone who's arguing with me.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Using Condorcet, or some kind of Total Vote Runoff (a variation of IVR) *within* party primaries would probably do a lot to get rid of bad candidates.

I still think we should figure out a way to choose 538 people who meet, Papal-conclave style, and choose a POTUS who has fewer powers than the current one.

[Magister]

Florida is tricky; anticipating Margrave's complaints by 25 years and arranging a decades long natural experiment! The only effect appears to have been surprising support for Pat Buchanan and the Reform party in 2000. It's as if none of Margrave's solutions would make a difference for third parties. Who would ever have guessed?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What, exactly, are you afraid of?

In 2000, the confusing Pat Buchanan ballot was illegal under state law. (It may have been designed by a Democrat, but my memory of the dial-up era is a bit hazy).

In any case, the fact that an official printed an illegal ballot simply shows that the law should be *enforced,* not changed.

I’ve disproved your phone book ballot talking point.

Reason’s own archives could have told you the obvious: that these ballot-restricting legislatures aren’t acting in the public interest, but are instead trying to limit competitors.

The legislatures aren’t worried about phone books, they’re worried about the contingency in which a third-party or independent candidate might actually be popular, meaning that they want the candidate to be tied up by expensive ballot-access red tape.

[Magister]

I am not afraid of anything related to ballot access. It is wrong when tricks are used to distort the result of elections, but the wrong stuff that happens at the margins almost never has a decisive effect, Big Lie notwithstanding.

The butterfly ballot was not illegal in Florida in 2000, although I think there may have been subsequent bans in other states, and punch card ballots went out over the hanging chad issue.

You have not disproved the phone book ballot; you should perhaps look more closely at what requirements remain for candidates in Florida.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"you should perhaps look more closely at what requirements remain for candidates in Florida"

Which of those requirements do I oppose, in your opinion?

[Magister]

Why don't you look at them and tell us? I don't suggest that you oppose or support any of them, since you are so frequently erratic in your advocacy. I assert only that Florida is not a disproof of the phone book ballot problem.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’ve already done more research than you, posting the results. If you want to do your bit and research the issues you bring up, feel free.

Of course, you tend to ignore the evidence I show you, like when I gave strong evidence that the Jim Crow legislature in Georgia didn’t limit voting rights out of zeal for the public interest, but from Red Scare politics. You have trouble assimilating that information.

Your own arguments are all over the map. First you say that the article I showed you indicated that "none of Margrave’s solutions would make a difference for third parties." Now you backtrack and suggest (without evidence) that Florida's law somehow *doesn't* carry out "Margrave's solutions."

Perhaps you notice a bit of tension between your two positions.

Why don't you have a debate with yourself?

[Magister]

You claim that

I’ve disproved your phone book ballot talking point.

If your example is going to disprove the "phone book ballot talking point", you're going to need an example that meets the conditions that I and others have warned could result in a phone book sized ballot -- reducing filing fees and other demonstration of support to insignificance. So you must be claiming that the Florida fees/signature requirements are insignificant. You complained about the filing fees in Washington state; do you even know what they are in Florida? Evidence suggests that you do not, since they are higher.

Your own arguments are all over the map. First you say that the article I showed you indicated that “none of Margrave’s solutions would make a difference for third parties.” Now you backtrack and suggest (without evidence) that Florida’s law somehow *doesn’t* carry out “Margrave’s solutions.”

I have not backtracked. I simply mock your inability to make a consistent argument. Your projection in that entire paragraph is epic.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"So you must be claiming that the Florida fees/signature requirements are insignificant."

You said the Florida laws are "Margrave's solutions," but now you're backtracking on that.

And as I said, you would have the world believe that the reason the legislature in Jim Crow Georgia limited voting rights (for third parties) was a desire to promote the public interest, rather than the documented motivation of keeping the Communist Party off the ballot.

[Magister]

Goal posts shifted to Margrave's planet, where sarcasm is unknown. Margrave celebrates a victory for third parties from 25 years ago, and ... it made no difference to third party results.

Still haven't looked up the filing fees for Florida? How long will we have to wait for Margrave to admit his claim to have disproved the "phone book ballot talking point" was completely and utterly wrong?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You would have the world believe that the reason the legislature in Jim Crow Georgia limited voting rights (for third parties) was a desire to promote the public interest, rather than the documented motivation of keeping the Communist Party off the ballot.

[Magister]

Complete change of subject, and of course nothing I've ever said.

Margrave claimed a disproof of the "phone book ballot talking point", but now runs away because the Florida filing fees are much higher than ones he previously complained about, and of course the phone book ballot does not occur with higher filing fees. (Margrave's research sills are clearly suspect, since he keeps posting erroneous claims.)

[Ben_]

Looks like RFK may likely run as an independent candidate. That will make it very hard for Biden to win an election. If that happens, how do you think the Dems and the deep state will prevent the GOP nominee from winning?

- Kill or arrest RFK or his family?
- Kill or arrest electors or their families?
- Kill or arrest the GOP nominee or his family?
- Kill or arrest 5 Supreme Court justices and get the election results declared unconstitutional by the other 4?
- new lockdowns for Covid election year variant?
- Another unrelated pathogen and a new pandemic?
- Terrorism or other attack to cancel or delay the election?
- Nuclear war with Russia or China?
- Even more obvious massive cheating -- Biden gets 95 million votes this time?
- Coordinated, widespread violence at polling places in swing states?
- Exclude the GOP nominee from the ballot in swing states?
- Simply cancel the election?
- Simply ignore the results and continue the regime despite losing?

Bonus question: who do you think the Dem replacement for Biden will be? Michelle Obama? Jay Inslee? Gavin Newsom?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Literally none of this is going to happen. Especially the part about RFK making it hard for Biden to win. If anything it’ll make it easier: the anti-vax conspiracy theorists and other disaffected lunatics who would support RFK were never going to vote for Biden in the first place.

[Ben_]

They already arrested the GOP frontrunner multiple times and are already working to keep Trump off of the ballot.

[Nelson]

Yeah, arresting criminals for doing criminal things is such a bad idea. What could possibly go wrong if we stopped doing it?

[Ben_]

Democrats already stopped doing it whenever not doing it might benefit Democrats.

[Nelson]

Not so you'd notice. Look at Bob Menendez. Look at Hunter Biden's legal troubles caused by ... his father's DOJ. Look at John Edwards. Look at Jim Traficant.

Just because Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson say something doesn't make it true.

The problem with partisan talking points is that they are rarely accurate or unique to one party when looked at objectively.

Trump is a criminal. That isn't just speculation any more, given the fraud case. And I'm sure there's more to come, particularly in the documents case and the election interference case in Georgia.

So is Bob Menedez, for that matter, although that hasn't been proved yet. That guy is as dirty as Jack Abramoff.

That's what it looks like when criminal behavior is called out regardless of party. You should try it.

[David Nieporent]

Trump is a criminal. That isn’t just speculation any more, given the fraud case.

Strictly speaking that's a civil case, not a criminal one, so no. (But he is a criminal.)

[Brett Bellmore]

And he hasn't even been convicted yet, even if the judge already sentenced him.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And what sentence would that be?

[Nelson]

Fair point. Since he's lost so many civil judgements over the decades, I guess this is technically nothing new for him.

So he isn't a criminal, he's just a sleazy scam artist.

[Frank Drackman]

You're forgetting all of the Afro-Amuricans who love anything with "Kennedy" in it.

[Ben_]

Elon posted this yesterday about the vaccine:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1708632465282150796

Nothing says "this is safe" like censoring info about injuries and side effects.

[LawTalkingGuy]

A dude who has no expertise in biology, medical science, or public health posted a meme. Was this supposed to prove something? Am I supposed to be impressed by this?

[Ben_]

Vax pushers might learn something about communicating with people. Acting extremely overbearing and dismissive of others' concerns isn’t persuasive.

"…no expertise in biology, medical science, or public health…"

Dehumanizing or infantilizing non-experts isn’t a good look. Also, public health authorities don’t seem to respect individuals — and telling an individual to undergo a medical treatment entirely for someone else’s benefit is unethical.

[Sarcastr0]

Dehumanizing or infantilizing non-experts isn’t a good look

Sometimes I wonder if Ben reads the comments threads he posts in.

The side that hates experts is not the Dems, chief! And I don't mean arguing over 'the science' I mean explicitly saying expertise is useless and elitist.

[Frank Drackman]

in the 2020 Cam-pain It was Common-Law Harris who said she wouldn't take a "Trump Vaccine" so put that in your Hunter Biden autographed Crack Pipe and smoke it.

[Nige]

'Dehumanizing or infantilizing'

Is that how experts make you feel? Do they make you angry and inadequate and like a little child? Is that why you lash out at them and sneer at them? Because they make you feel bad? Poor Ben. Mister Musk feels the same. He might be a billionaire but he feels bad about other people being experts just like you do.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I wouldn’t ask my doctor to fix my car and I wouldn’t ask my mechanic to take out my appendix. And neither would you.

So why are we asking Elon Musk for public health advice and claiming it’s “dehumanizing” to acknowledge he doesn’t know a lot about this area?

[Ben_]

Individuals' personal decisions whether to get a vaccine are not "public health".

And a person is allowed to decide whether to get his car fixed or whether his appendix should be removed.

Stop demanding people get appendix surgery they don’t need and car repairs they don’t need.

[Sarcastr0]

Viruses are quite public, actually.

Appendices, less so.

[Ben_]

Talk to the viruses then.

Personal health decisions aren’t public. And demanding someone undergo a medical treatment entirely for others' benefit is unethical.

[Nige]

If I could walk with the viruses
Talk to the viruses
Grunt and squeak and squawk with the viruses
And they could squeak and squawk
And speak and talk to me

'Personal health decisions aren’t public.'

They are in a public health emergency.

[Randal]

And demanding someone undergo a medical treatment entirely for others’ benefit is unethical.

You keep saying this retarded thing. But it's quite common... it's what quarantines and vaccines are all about. We don't want people with infectious diseases running all around. You aren't permitted to be a danger to society just because you want to treat your polio with ivermectin.

[David Nieporent]

Individuals’ personal decisions whether to get a vaccine are not “public health”.

You're beclowning yourself. They absolutely are. It's true that most medical care is not public health. But dealing with infectious diseases absolutely is. Vaccination absolutely is. Herd immunity is an actual thing. (Even the anti-vax loons didn't deny that; they just decided that it was better to achieve herd immunity by infecting lots of people rather than by vaccinating them.)

[grb]

Looks like another post by Ben_

Is it:

– Complete lunacy?
– Right-wing masturabatory drivel?
– Something with no relationship to reality?

Yep.

Bonus Question : Can projection be anymore obvious and pathetic? Saddled with a huckster buffoon candidate who tried to steal the last election he lost, our Ben_ fantasizes abut Biden behavior that would make Trump look better in contrast. That his fantasies are imbecilic shows just how hard that is.

[Ben_]

Trump already looks a lot better. Biden takes bribes and welded open border gates for invaders.

I'd prefer Ramaswamy or DeSantis. Ramaswamy's plan to cut the Federal workforce by half or more is great.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ramaswamy strikes me as a guy who thought, "If Trump can do that, why not me?" and focus grouped how to look like a conservative. I have no idea what he'd be like in office.

[Ben_]

Better than Biden or Harris. There was no way to know what policy Trump would go with either. He could have done the exact opposite of everything he said.

Ramaswamy is a risk worth taking.

[Life of Brian]

Better than Biden or Harris.

A low bar to be sure, but beyond that fairly obvious point Ramaswamy gives me the heebie-jeebies. It's almost as though he's pushing to see how ridiculous of a caricature he can make of himself and still stay in the race. All over the place on policy from what little of him I've had the appetite to follow.

[Ben_]

"…Ramaswamy gives me the heebie-jeebies…"

Ok, but that’s extremely shallow (at best).

"All over the place on policy from what little of him I’ve had the appetite to follow."

Presidents aren’t dictators and can’t enact many of their policy proposals. They work with Congress. A perfect construction of policy ideas isn’t needed and is barely relevant. If he did half of what he says it would be awesome. Probably he’d also end up making some mistakes, just like anyone else.

[Life of Brian]

Ok, but that’s extremely shallow (at best).

Sorry, but that’s where I and my Malcolm Gladwell "blink" assessment are with him right now. The way he presents himself reminds me of how I feel when I have the occasional misfortune of stepping onto a used car lot, though with unarguably higher-quality suits.

“All over the place on policy from what little of him I’ve had the appetite to follow.”

Yeah, I worded that vaguely — see my more detailed comment below. The issue is that he just appears to belt out whatever he feels like is going to get the biggest “amen” from the crowd — until he discovers it doesn’t and then cheerfully pivots to whatever now seems like it might work. If I’m being unfair and you’ve seen strong evidence of actual core principles somewhere, I’m happy to take a look.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, he's less likely to leave via the 25th amendment than either of them, I'll give you that. And, yes, I was pretty worried about Trump in 2016, and I'm beyond worried about him this time around.

But Ramaswamy? I mostly like what he has been saying, but I can't find anything where he said the like BEFORE deciding to run for President. So he strikes me as entirely synthetic.

[Life of Brian]

I mostly like what he has been saying

On which particular day? It's starting to look like he's one of those slaves to focus groups who just reinvents himself every week or two and feels no particular need to explain if/how his thinking evolved. https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/watch-vivek-ramaswamy-flip-flops-on-one-issue-after-another/

[Ben_]

I think he decided he wanted to run for President a long time ago:

https://news.yahoo.com/video-emerges-18-old-vivek-214758132.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Well he needs to lose the Jimmy Neutron hair style.

[Ben_]

Also, here’s a sort of taxonomy of the propaganda techniques we've all seen:

https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/

Whenever we see a denial of something, look for one of these specific propaganda types.

Of course, the above grb message is a denial that something will happen in the future. It’s based on nothing and ignores that parts of it already happened. But no one knows the future.

A regime that will arrest the GOP frontrunner for the next election might do anything.

[Nige]

'is a denial that something will happen in the future.'

'But no one knows the future.'

You barely seem aware of the present, and think that somehow this is a defense of your list of horribles. 'Disagreement is a propaganda trope.' Well that covers pretty much most of politics, and a significant percentage of everyday conversations.

[David Nieporent]

Looks like RFK may likely run as an independent candidate. That will make it very hard for Biden to win an election.

Why exactly would a MAGA Republican like RFK running make it hard for Biden to win an election, even assuming RFK could actually get on the ballot as an independent, which (to Margrave's chagrin) is very hard to do? (Ask Kanye.)

[Ed Grinberg]

MAGA Republican like RFK

???
I can't believe anyone actually thinks this, which makes you an outright liar. Sad.

[grb]

He's closer to MAGA than any Dem (or normal people in general)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

He’s closer to MAGA than any Dem (or normal people in general)

Let’s see…an environmentalist (as well as an environmental lawyer) who says things like, “the very wealthy people should pay more taxes and corporations”, supports tax-the-rich plans put forth by Elizabeth Warren, has said he “wished there were a law you could punish them under” regarding people who so much as express skepticism about global warming, supports AOC’s so-called “Green New Deal”, etc, etc, etc….

Yeah, no Democrat/leftist leaning there. He’s clearly MAGA all the way.

[Nige]

Doubt anyone's going to see past the vaccine thing and the support for Putin.

[Sarcastr0]

Pointing to his history of where he was, not where he is.

Just like the GOP trying to pretend the Dems are bad now because of the 1950s.

[Ben_]

They'll say anything. Absolutely anything.

The list of election remedies above would have been unthinkable historically. But now Dems will say and do absolutely anything.

[Nige]

Countrpoint: it's YOU doing the 'say and do absolutely anything.'

[Sarcastr0]

No one is as evil as the Dems in Ben's head.

[Ben_]

But you keep trying to live down to the lowest expectations, getting worse and worse every year.

"Go to where the puck is going, not where it has been."

[Nige]

Only in your lies.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

a MAGA Republican like RFK

Holy crap. You really are in a race to unseat Sarcastr0 as the most shamelessly full-of-shit poster here, aren’t you?

[Nige]

Roll your eyes all you like, if thats how Dems see him, and MAGAs like his anti-vax crap, so what?

[Sarcastr0]

Block him. He used to engage, now he does nothing but call people liars.

[Nige]

Ah I don't mind him. He's not what he was.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, when I can write their comments without seeing them, I block. That's Wuz, Frank, and RAK. Ben's getting there.

Ed, by contrast, is an incredible innovator of awful. Never gonna block him for long even if...spiritually?...he's the worst of the bunch.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“even assuming RFK could actually get on the ballot as an independent, which (to Margrave’s chagrin) is very hard to do”

At least the state legislatures are empowered to decide how Presidential electors are chosen. They could even bypass the voters and appoint the electors themselves.

Cutting to the chase, they could get the result you want by simply appointing Democratic electors and cutting the voters out of the loop completely. Maybe you could just spare us the pretense of democratic (small d) Presidential elections and have the legislatures take that route.

As far as the voters are concerned, I see little difference between the honest method of bypassing them and not even pretending to consult them, and the dishonest method of pretending to respect their wishes while serving them up a limited, rancid menu of choices.

[Ben_]

He doesn’t necessarily need to get on the ballot in a state to affect the results. It will probably be a close election, and it’ll be harder to cheat in some places this time.

[Commenter_XY]

RFK is a MAGA republican? Whut?

[Life of Brian]

a MAGA Republican like RFK

Setting aside David's propensity for shock trolling for sport, I have seen this notion circulating lately -- perhaps it focus polled well and went out on whatever the successor was to Journo-list.

I have to say I find it fascinating that there's been enough mass abandonment by liberals of their formal principles and long-established boogeymen that someone who has built their career on suing environmental polluters and big Pharma for their demonstrably cavalier attitudes toward safety in favor of profits can be cast as a fringe righty without immediately being laughed out of the room.

[Nige]

Nobody likes a spoiler candidate, but in this case I wouldn't be sure who he acts as spoiler to.

[Randal]

We've lost our taste for lawyers, for one thing.

But mainly, he's clearly made a conscious decision to adopt the MAGA grievance playbook, which makes him much more likely to split the MAGA vote than the Democratic one. There just aren't a lot of Democrats out there wishing for someone more MAGA-like to vote for. But there are a few MAGA people who recognize that Trump is damaged goods. Think, like, the auto workers who Trump just insulted.

[Ben_]

Here’s new polling results:

https://x.com/rasmussen_poll/status/1709246426964795761

Dems want to vote for RFK more than GOP or Ind voters.

[Randal]

Did you even read the article?

“The opposite is true. Kennedy is taking more votes from Trump than from Biden,” reads a press release announcing the poll numbers, which was shared exclusively with POLITICO.

Kennedy, as an Independent, would pull more support away from Republican Donald Trump than Democrat Joe Biden, according to the findings.

[Mr. Hook]

This is so naive. Biden's plan all along, quite clearly, has been to unleash his army of Draconis who will gather up all Real Americans™ and extract their vital energy, which will then be used to power Hunter's laptop. That laptop will then be used to launch the singularity that will make Joe Biden a timelord who will rule for eternity. The truth has been in front of you all along, but you've been blind.

[Ben_]

Why do Dems like making up stories so much?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you read your own posts?

[Ben_]

Yeah. Are any of the items in the list implausible?

I’d say widespread violence at polling places would be difficult to achieve effectively because voters are geographically sorted. Law enforcement would have to be in on it, and that wouldn’t work in most localities. It would only work where Democrats are already going to win by big majorities anyway.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. Wildly so. You make up stories all the time.

[Mr. Hook]

Who you calling a Democrat? You just don't like being called out for being naive as to what's really going on. I've talked with the same truckers and fisherman as "Dr." Ed, and they agree that, like "Dr." Ed says, this is just like Weimar Germany, and it's all about Biden becoming a timelord after stealing your life force.

[Ben_]

I’ve seen Democrats arrest the GOP frontrunner. I haven’t seen anything like in your story.

[Mr. Hook]

Look, I've warned you. If you don't want to end up powering Hunter Biden's laptop, that's on you now.

[Drewski]

You gotta keep that trap of yours shut. I've spent all week readying the orbital mind-control lasers, and if you tipping them off prevents powering the laptop, then. . . well, I just don't know what we'll do. Arrest or kill the electors' families, I guess.

[Nige]

'That will make it very hard for Biden to win an election.'

Not sure you get exactly who RFK appeals to...

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot unaware that POTUS candidates nominate VPOTUS candidates,
I could see a RFK Jr/Kanye (his friends just call him "Ye") doing well with certain "Demographics"

[Frank Drackman]

What "DemoKKKrat" Primary??
Nominee will be whoever Rooster Clyburn in SC says it will be, just like in 2020

[Nige]

Maybe he'll go back in time and kill his Dad.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative, faux
libertarian blog has operated for

THREE (3)

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

TWENTY-EIGHT (28)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
28 different discussions,
not 28 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
published daily at this conservative
blog, which is presented from the
right-wing fringe of modern legal
academia by members of the
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s stale and ugly thinking, here is something worthwhile.

This is a good one, too.

[Frank Drackman]

How long have you gone without committing a crime against nature?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is delightful that Drackman is customarily the only guy who says a word when this blog's disgusting right-wing bigotry is mentioned.

That bigotry is going to drag down every one of your political preferences, clingers. The gun nuttery, the anti-abortion absolutism, the endless special privilege for superstition, the disdain for immigration . . . those points, and the rest of the Republican Party's positions, will be submerged by the weight of conservatives' revolting bigotry.

[Frank Drackman]

so you can't remember how long it's been? I guess that's "improvement"

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

I'm gonna die. I need to stop laughing.

[grb]

Another work of architecture (linked below) : 1111 Lincoln Road in Miami

A while back I posted the Hamburg concert hall by the Swiss firm Herog and de Meuron, a building now the face of its city. Here we have the same architects and a similar phenomenon, albeit on a reduced scale and in the very American setting of South Beach.

Lincoln Road was a mangrove forest before being cleared to become the social center of Miami Beach. It was remade a pedestrian mall in the 50s by Miami architect Morris Lapidus, working in that city’s own glitzy modern style (successor to its Art Deco buildings of a generation earlier). The original version had gardens, fountains, and an amphitheater. Modern Lincoln Road has well over 200 boutiques, shops, restaurants, bars, an acclaimed new concert hall, and the ArtCenter/South Florida group of artist studios & galleries. It’s one of the most popular visitor destinations of South Beach.

So a developer building a parking garage there decided he had to up his game. The result is 1111 Lincoln Road, a 300-car deck garage with retail spaces and a landscaped park at the ground level, a little jewel of a shop halfway up, and the owner’s penthouse apartment on the top deck. And thus a parking garage became a tourist destination in its own right, drawing several hundred people a day. Runners use it for exercise. People parking their cars linger for the panoramic views across South Beach. The garage now hosts charity events, wine tastings, dinner parties, yoga classes, fashion shows, and massive wedding receptions.

As for the structure itself, the developer wanted something grand as an old train station : big, airy, light-filled and head-turning. He got that and a building of pure raw energy as well. Some artworks have a modern vigor on their first appearance but that gradually fades over time. Others (Le Sacre du printemps being a prime example) never lose it. They have that same bracing vibrance a century later. I think that’s 1111 Lincoln. You might say its effect is to jazz-up the site, but that’s not specific enough. To me it’s like early-60s Coltrane tearing off a twenty-minute take of My Favorite Things – the song just familiar, but reborn thru the artist’s fierce intuitive intelligence.

https://www.atlasofplaces.com/architecture/1111-lincoln-road/

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/us/24garage.html

[Brett Bellmore]

When do they plan to finish it?

[grb]

Sigh. You’re trying to be difficult, aren’t you?

Links to a model and 3min video. The fashion show on the video is kind of happenin’

https://vimeo.com/51889050
https://www.moma.org/collection/works/291070

[grb]

( wrong link. The fashion show is here : https://www.eventective.com/miami-beach-fl/1111-lincoln-rd-698228.html )

[Brett Bellmore]

It does look better with the plants and lighting.

[Bob from Ohio]

It still just a parking garage with weird pillars.

[grb]

I was serious about the analogy above: It’s a worn truism to call architecture “frozen music”, but here that seems particularly apt. The building’s form has a very musical feel in the compression and expansion of its razor-thin horizontal planes with the twisting, turning, and canting verticals. Maybe a string quartet with just a taste of dissidence and bite or, as I suggested, Sixties jazz before Davis drove the genre off the cliff with Bitches Brew.

From a purely tectonic-sense, it’s an extraordinary building (how did they hold those horizontals so tight anyway?). And perfect for the muscular eclecticism of South Beach. I can picture Tubbs & Crocket glide by in the latter’s Ferrari Daytona Spyder or the former’s vintage Cadillac.

[Bob from Ohio]

It still just a parking garage with weird pillars. No songs involved.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Please tell us about all of the magnificent architecture (and first-rate cultural amenities, and excellent medical facilities, and great schools*, and anything else worthwhile) in Can't-Keep-Up, Ohio.

*Nonsense-teaching, superstition-based, backwater schools with sketchy accreditation and faith-based faculty do not count.

[Brett Bellmore]

At least it's not going to set cars on fire.

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : “It still just a parking garage with weird pillars. No songs involved”

Here’s the deal:

I was preparing to issue a big statements like “Charlie don’t surf” (its corollary being “MAGA don’t do art”), but got distracted by the National Review’s flailing film criticism. And not, mind you, the rancid joke known as Armond White – but the more sensible one who used to work there, Kyle Smith.

And not NR’s tendency to see every film as politics and judge it exclusively thereof, but something else entirely: Smith had a review of Goodfellas saying it was the all-time great guy film because the guys in it really cut loose (before they’re shot or go to prison). It was a long article but that’s the sum total of all he said.

Really?!? Every time I watch the film (and I do so often), I see men who are ignorant, shallow, brutish, without honor, loyalty, or dignity – and lacking a single redeeming human trait. I doubt if the most stringent radical feminist could paint a picture of “toxic masculinity” more damning than what Smith applauded. We all agree Goodfellas is the anti-Godfather, but surely that’s for greater reason than its gangsters enjoy more yucks?

And speaking of The Godfather (I & II), I’ve seen a similar meme of men in awe of Pacino’s Michael. That’s pretty strange to me. I see two films where the character gradually rots out, leaving a hollow shell where his heart and soul used to be. The birthday scene at the end of G-II is pure tragedy.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/goodfellas-forever/

[apedad]

Donald Trump Georgia RICO co-defendant pleads guilty at ‘impromptu’ hearing, promises to ‘testify truthfully’ at trial

On Friday, (Scott Graham Hall, 59) pleaded guilty to five misdemeanors.

As part of his plea agreement, Hall agreed that he will “testify truthfully at any other further court proceedings” in the case, including trials.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/donald-trump-georgia-rico-co-defendant-pleads-guilty-at-impromptu-hearing-promises-to-testify-truthfully-at-trial/

The guy's a bail bondsman so he knows a little bit about how the system works.

[Zarniwoop]

Seems like a decent deal for winning the race to roll.

Especially since the evidence of the specific acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that included messing with GA's election tabulation machines seems pretty solid.

[Michael Ejercito]

Messing with election tabulation machines can no more be justified than forging evidence presented to a court, like Kevin Clinesmith did.

[Zarniwoop]

Both Hall and Clinesmith pleaded guilty to actual crimes (because they were both guilty of actual crimes). Both got sentences reflecting acceptance of guilt. Makes sense to me.

Their cases are not the same, however, so your apparent assertion that equivalency of punishment is required is questionable.

What's your actual point, other than some weak-sauce whataboutism that no one cares about?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These dumbasses are just flailing now, partly because they don't understand the legal situation but also partly because they might be sentient to recognize that their hero probably can't lie and bluster his way out of these prosecutions, which makes them sad and desperate.

[apedad]

The Supreme Court on Monday denied an effort by lawyer John Eastman to appeal a ruling that found he may have acted criminally with the legal advice he gave former President Trump. It spurred a rare recusal from Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife corresponded with the California attorney in the weeks ahead of Jan. 6.

A federal judge in California found Eastman as well as Trump “more likely than not” engaged in criminal conduct in hatching a plan for the former president to stay in power after losing the 2020 election, including in a memo that urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to buck his ceremonial duties to certify the election results Jan. 6, 2021.

Thomas’s recusal comes after reporting that his wife, Ginni Thomas, emailed Eastman, as well as Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and Arizona lawmakers wrestling with pressure from the Trump campaign, to look for ways to reverse the election.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4233719-supreme-court-denies-eastman-petition-with-rare-recusal-from-thomas/

Hey Ben_ (above)!

THIS is the real world not the wet dream you post.

[Zarniwoop]

It's not a decision on the merits by the S.Ct., of course, but still I wonder what the impact on Judge "Loose" Cannon will be if (when) she is separately asked to rule on the propriety of the crime-fraud exception to ACP for Eastman's conduct.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here was what my Facebook friend, Jack Marshall, wrote.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/08/26/ethics-quote-of-the-week-lawyer-john-eastman-on-the-georgia-trump-indictments/

Eastman is also being disbarred in several jurisdictions, like Rudy Giuliani and others, for representing Donald Trump. I strongly suspect that the legal profession will come to regret this “crossing of the Rubicon,” though my legal ethics colleagues in the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers could barely restrain their cheering for Eastman’s fate. (I have significant evidence that more members agree with Eastman than will let on in the group’s listserv comments, because Trump Derangement holds sway there, and non-woke points of view are treated, shall we say, harshly, with condescension and shunning.)

Eastman was indicted along withTrump and 17 others, accused by partisan District Attorney Fani Willis of, in the objective rhetoric of the Associated Press, “scheming to subvert the will of Georgia voters in a desperate bid to keep Joe Biden out of the White House.”

What the AP meant to say, I’m sure, was that Eastman has been indicted for providing legal advice to a sitting U.S. President in his effort to ensure that the 2020 election was not illegally corrupted to the extent that it defied the U.S. Constitution and subverted the will of the American people.

[Zarniwoop]

Repeating someone else's legal wankery that doesn't come to grips with a Federal court's determination regarding the crime-fraud exception to ACP is .. an interesting choice on your part.

Trump has plenty of lawyers who aren't being disbarred for "providing legal advice" to him. But the ones that appear to have engaged in conduct in furtherance of subverting the US Constitution and the peaceful transfer of power following an election are being disbarred and criminally charged.

I can tell the difference between "providing legal advice to [Trump]" and committing unethical conduct and crimes in the course of representing Trump. Can you?

[Michael Ejercito]

But the ones that appear to have engaged in conduct in furtherance of subverting the US Constitution and the peaceful transfer of power following an election are being disbarred and criminally charged.

They should not.

Those are not crimes.

[Zarniwoop]

Those are not crimes

Who should we believe, you or a Federal judge?

...and the court of appeals?

...and the S.Ct. denying cert?

Try pounding on the table some more, counselor.

[not guilty]

"It’s not a decision on the merits by the S.Ct., of course, but still I wonder what the impact on Judge “Loose” Cannon will be if (when) she is separately asked to rule on the propriety of the crime-fraud exception to ACP for Eastman’s conduct."

I doubt that Judge Cannon will be asked to rule on Donald Trump's communications with John Eastman. Based on what information has been made public, Eastman does not appear to have been involved with the Mar-a-Lago documents, so I doubt that Trump's communications with him will be at issue in the Florida case.

The Trump/Eastman communications are likely to be hugely important in the D.C. and Fulton County, Georgia trials, but Judge Cannon is (thankfully) not involved in either of these cases.

Communications between Trump and Evan Corcoran are highly germane to the Florida prosecution. U. S. District Judge Beryl Howell in D.C. has apparently ruled that the privilege does not shield these communications, and information attributable to Corcoran prominently features in the superseding indictment in Florida. (Corcoran is described in the indictment as "Trump Attorney 1.")

I do expect Judge Cannon to try to work some mischief with the Trump/Corcoran communications despite Judge Howell's ruling. In an order entered July 21, 2023, Judge Cannon stated that "Defendants maintain that this proceeding raises various 'novel, complex, and unique legal issues,' . . . [including] challenges to the grand jury process that led to the indictment (including questions of attorney-client privilege)[.]" https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.83.0_1.pdf That is a rank falsehood -- the Defendants' filings to that point said not one word about any grand jury challenge nor any questions of attorney-client privilege. I suspect that Judge Cannon is champing at the bit to flout Judge Howell's ruling regarding Trump's communications with Corcoran.

[Zarniwoop]

Ope, you're right that it's Corcoran's ACP that will probably be at issue before Judge Cannon. Totally my unforced error, thanks for correcting that.

[not guilty]

I haven't seen the SCOTUS order yet, but I am unclear on what relief Eastman was asking for. He voluntarily dismissed his appeal to the Ninth Circuit from Judge David Carter's order. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.380.0.pdf

[Zarniwoop]

The entirety of the entry in today's Orders List reads:

22-1138 EASTMAN, JOHN C. V. THOMPSON, BENNIE G., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

so there aren't a whole lot of tea leaves to read.

[John F. Carr]

His petition is available on the Supreme Court’s web site if you search by docket number. The January 6 committee demanded documents from Eastman. Eastman filed an action to quash the subpoena. The District Court ordered 10 emails to be disclosed because they fell within the crime-fraud exception to attorney client privilege. The documents were disclosed with a request that they remain secret while Eastman appealed the order to produce them. The January 6 committee viewed and published the documents despite Eastman’s request. The case became moot as a result. Eastman wants the District Court order vacated so there is no finding on the record that he was involved in a criminal act.

In my opinion, the petition is not worth the Supreme Court’s time. The case is unusual. Everybody already knows one judge thinks Eastman is a crook. Vacating the order will not rehabilitate his reputation. If the case became moot through no fault of Eastman’s before the appeal could be decided, he can tell that to the next judge deciding on admissibility of the emails.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2023/09/29/move-decisively-to-fix-troops-barracks-lawmakers-tell-austin/

“As Secretary, you are responsible for the welfare of these service members. This is a failure of leadership that cannot be ignored.”

They cited a recent report by the Government Accountability Office that detailed numerous problems with the barracks that included rooms with pervasive mold, doors that don’t lock, a lack of air conditioning or heat, contaminated water, and dysfunctional plumbing. In one case, squatters moved into the barracks. In another example, base officials told auditors that service members are responsible for cleaning biological waste that may remain in a barracks room after a suicide.

“This is reprehensible, and we expect you to take expeditious and appropriate action to hold those personnel accountable and ensure service members are receiving the support they might require after that experience,” the lawmakers wrote.

The letter, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif.; and Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., was signed by six senators and 11 representatives.

Auditors found that oversight and funding has been lacking for years “It will take years to address the chronic neglect and underfunding we uncovered,” GAO’s Elizabeth Field told members of the House Armed Services Committee’s quality of life panel Wednesday.

There’s failure at all levels, the lawmakers wrote. “Across the enterprise, personnel are shirking their responsibilities to provide service members with safe, habitable living spaces.”

As the GAO report concluded, DoD “simply chooses not to make barracks management a priority,” they wrote. “Modernization and investing in next-generation equipment cannot come at the cost of your most important charter: to provide for the most junior soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and guardians in the force.”

There is probable cause that at least one person of grade O-5 or higher was derelict of duty.

[Longtobefree]

Maybe an amendment to the military appropriation bill will require all officers to live in barracks?

[Frank Drackman]

They don't have "Barracks" for Officers, except in training.
They have "Bachelor Officer's Quarters" that are supposed to be for duh, "Bachelors" but end up being predominantly used by "Geographic" Bachelors, those guys who love getting away from their awful wife/kids, I mean, leave their wife/kids in Jacksonville NC so they can stay at their School, while they serve in some Hellhole like Miramar MCAS or Pensacola.
Even most enlisted don't live in the "Barracks" most of which are nicer than the shithole student housing I lived in during Med School.

Frank

[Nige]

Wild prediction: one day there is going to be a reckoning about massive and obscene levels of corruption in the military.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm guessing you're not referring to the "Female Genital Mutilation" procedures performed on 19-21 year olds at Military Hospitals while Veterans wait months to get their Heart/Diabetes medications refilled.

[apedad]

Proud Boy who assaulted police on Jan. 6 and skipped out on sentencing hearing found ‘unconscious’ in home with survivalist gear, night goggles, cash: Feds

(Christopher Worrell) facing up to 14 years in prison for his violent conduct at the Capitol, was convicted of multiple felonies in May after a five-day bench trial in Washington, D.C.

The Florida man, a member of the self-described “Western chauvinist” Proud Boys extremist group, was first slated to appear before Senior U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth for sentencing on Aug. 18, Law&Crime reported. But mere days before he was due in court, the hearing was vacated.

Worrell had gone missing. A nationwide search got underway in September.

https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-breach/proud-boy-who-assaulted-police-on-jan-6-and-skipped-out-on-sentencing-hearing-found-unconscious-in-home-with-survivalist-gear-night-goggles-cash-feds/

What a "survivalist" this guy is; he passes out in his own home.

TBH, he apparently has non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but then maybe it's not the best idea to go on the lam.

[Longtobefree]

"What a “survivalist” this guy is; he passes out in his own home."

He was "found unconscious"; was he conscious just before being "found"?

[Martinned]

For those keeping track:

Today the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Castro v. Trump, which raised a Section Three challenge. The lower federal courts held that Castro lacked standing to challenge Trump's ballot eligibility in Florida. The denial of certiorari was not surprising.

The interesting point about Castro is that no recusals were noted from consideration of the petition. This probably means that all nine Justices will participate when a suitable Section Three challenge reaches the Court and certiorari is granted.

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2023/10/castro-v-trump.html

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe "if" a suitable Section 3 challenge reaches the Court?

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

I think one will.

Which is not to say that SCOTUS should conclude that it has jurisdiction. As you pointed out yourself (thank you) there is no federal authority to keep a candidate off a ballot. Federal authority cannot keep him on a ballot. (This court might well overturn Thornton; it was wrong, and its logic doesn’t extend to presidential elections, where the people don’t actually choose any candidate.)

What would be intriguing to see is whether any case could come out of D.C., since they choose three electors. Even if SCOTUS rules him ineligible to appear on the D.C. ballot (unlikely), it wouldn’t bind the rest of the country, given the jurisdictional issue.

[Randal]

I think if a state supreme court ruled that 14/3 of the United States Constitution applied to Trump, SCOUTS would feel alright about reviewing that determination.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Because... they have no respect for jurisdictional limitations?

[Randal]

Because they always feel comfortable reviewing state courts' interpretations of the US Constitution.

[Frank Drackman]

You're forgetting all of the Afro-Amuricans who love anything with "Kennedy" in it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You’re forgetting all of the Afro-Amuricans

But better Americans are unlikely to forget or ignore this blog's rampant bigotry.

As was recently demonstrated.

[Frank Drackman]

Trying to find a photo of the EV that Parkinsonian Joe took from DC to Michigan and back to DC to stand (Stiffly) on a Picket Line for 10 minutes,
somebody help a Bro out!!

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Dare anyone to try this with any EV.

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/dart-across-america/

[Zarniwoop]

You don’t know sheet about cars either, it seems. The current Cannonball Run record for an EV is 42 hours, 17 minutes in a Telsa Model S.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a38095522/ev-cannonball-record-tesla-model-s/

[Mr. Bumble]

Versus you not knowing shit about anything. That EV Cannonball Run record is 42 hours 17 minutes versus 25 hours 39 minutes for an ICE vehicle. Over 7 hours were spent charging. My link to the Dodge Dart story wasn’t about speed, but rather durability. and repairability Let me know when a 48 year old EV is still on the road and functional.

[Longtobefree]

On the other hand - - - -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genset_trailer

[Zarniwoop]

I know that the ICE record is faster, duh, that's why there's a separate category for EVs and why Road & Track thinks it's noteworthy.

Most 48 year old cars are long since crushed, and the small number that are maintained can still make the trip. In 48 years most 2023 EVs will also be crushed, and some small number will still be roadworthy and will be able to make the trip.

SoTFWhat? What sort of "gotcha" does that mean for EVs?

This is a pathetic troll so you can feel good about hating on EVs, nothing more.

[Nelson]

Professor Volokh wants you to know that seven years ago he was both on the road and functional. Today, a 55 year old EV is still on the road and functional.

Regarding electric vehicles, it's not a very good argument when you say "This new technology? Talk to me about it when it's as old as the technology it's replacing". Saying "It's really old" isn't the same as saying "It's really good".

[Zarniwoop]

Yeah, especially with regard to a 1960s Dodge Dart as the basis of comparison!

My parents had a Dart station wagon (1965 IIRC) and a 1953 MG TD in the 1970s. My dad still has the MG (I helped him with a full resto down to the frame in the mid 1990s); the Dart is long since dead. I remember dad complaining about what a POS the Dart was when I was a little kid (circa 1975)!

He could theoretically still go across the country in the MG, but it would be ... non-ideal.

And pretty much completely irrelevant to the durability and repairability of a 2023 EV compared to a similar 2023 ICE vehicle. It's legit to observe that it may be hard to get parts to repair (for example) the computer screen of a 2023 EV in 2073. It will be about as hard to get a computer screen to repair a 2023 ICE in 2073. It's not an EV-vs-ICE things, as much as Mr. Bumble wants to whinge about a vague apples-to-oranges comparison.

[Frank Drackman]

So why did Parkinsonian Joe use a 747?

[Mr. Bumble]

It has a bedroom and toilet facilities.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Wait until these hayseeds see the list of ailments Trump conjures when it is time for him to whimper about needing special treatment during incarceration.

Those "bone spurs" won't even make the list this time.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Dare anyone to try this with any EV.
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/dart-across-america/

Not that EVs don't still have some issues when it comes to practical long-distance travel (they do, not to mention towing)...but I'm not sure what it is that was accomplished in that exercise that is much of a challenge for any vehicles that isn't in even worse shape than that bucket of bolts was.

[Zarniwoop]

Kinda surprised the Trump's NY civil trial for fraud is a bench trial. Was that intentional, or a screw-up by Trump's attorneys who failed to make a timely jury demand?

The longer version:

The NYAG filed a "Note of Issue" (which apparently starts the process of putting the actual trial date on the court's calendar) on July 31, 2023. It specified "Trial without Jury" on the front page. Docket #644.

Trump had 15 days to respond with a jury demand per NY CVP § 4102(a), which states in relevant part

Any party served with a note of issue not containing such a demand may demand a trial by jury by serving upon each party a demand for a trial by jury and filing such demand in the office where the note of issue was filed within fifteen days after service of the note of issue.... If no party shall demand a trial by jury as provided herein, the right to trial by jury shall be deemed waived by all parties."

Note that Trump tried to remove Judge Ergonon on Sept. 14, 2023 via lawsuit (which predictably failed). Did that happen only after they realized they screwed the pooch on making a jury demand? Should Trump's NY attorneys consider new careers, possibly as clowns?

[Zarniwoop]

NY fraud case docket:

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=FX5LeuzFvFRaeD3C6Ob/SA==&PageNum=9&narrow=true

[John F. Carr]

Traditionally there is no right to a jury trial in a count that would have been brought in a court of equity as opposed to a court of law prior to the merger of law and equity. I do not know New York law on the subject.

[Longtobefree]

I wouldn't want a NY jury if I were Trump.
Reversal on appeal is the only hope, once the farce is over and the guilty verdict is in the court record as well as in the press.

[Zarniwoop]

Not sure that would be a sound call for Trump's attorneys, because math.

In an ideal world, jurors ignore their political leanings and vote solely on the evidence.

Let's assume the opposite, that NY jurors vote solely on the basis of political affiliation, and furthermore that the jury pool is 90% (D) and 10% (R) - an exaggeration of the average voters in the Five Buroughs. The Bronx, the most (D) county in the entire state, was ~79% (D). But let's go with 90% (D), 10% (R).

Each individual juror has 90% chance to convict, 10% chance to not convict. Conviction requires all 12 to be in the 90% group, so 0.90^12 chance of not getting a hung jury. That calculates out to only a 28% chance of unanimous conviction, 72% chance of a hung jury (acquittal vanishingly unlikely).

If we go with a Bronx jury, 0.79^12 means a 5.9% chance of conviction, balance hung jury (acquittal still vanishingly unlikely).

Even with the 90% figure, I think going with an easily-confusable jury is, for Trump, a better trial strategy than a bench trial before Judge Engoron. Would you prefer 28% or the guy who already ruled against Trump on SJ?

Even if you posit that a NY jury is completely and absolutely political, there's very very good odds that such a completely political jury would refuse to convict - despite the wild over-generalizations of political partisans, not every New Yorker is actually a Democrat.

I generally trust the jury system in a case like this one: if the evidence is insufficient to prove Trump guilty, he only needs one non-political juror to be seated and justice will get the right answer (or at minimum a hung jury). But the prosecution needs to seat 12 completely political jurors to get the "wrong" result.

And the math doesn't lie.

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear,

1) This is a case brought in NY County Supreme; the jury pool is Manhattan, not any other county.
2) This is a civil case, so "conviction" is a misnomer.
3) This is a civil case, so there's only 6 jurors.
4) This is a civil case, so unanimity is not required. 5/6ths are required for a verdict.

[Life of Brian]

Kinda surprised the Trump’s NY civil trial for fraud is a bench trial. Was that intentional, or a screw-up by Trump’s attorneys who failed to make a timely jury demand?

If you're going in to a trial with the knowledge that both the judge and jury pool are hard against you and you're virtually certain to lose at the trial court level, I don't know that it's crazy to think a bench trial written opinion with explicit findings of fact (I presume NY does this or something conceptually similar) will be more conducive to appeal than a relatively black-box jury verdict.

[Zarniwoop]

I don't know the exact geographic scope of the jury pool, but for NYC's five buroughs in the 2020 election, the vote percentages for Trump were:

Bronx 14.6%
Manhattan 11.4%
Brooklyn 20.5%
Queens 25.1%
Staten Island 53.0%

Your initial assumption that a jury - even one from NYC - is necessarily "hard against" Trump is not supported by evidence.

I suspect you don't want to acknowledge the possibility that Trump voters on the jury might uphold their oath and vote to convict, if supported by the evidence presented at trial.

[Life of Brian]

I suspect you don’t want to acknowledge the possibility that Trump voters on the jury might uphold their oath and vote to convict, if supported by the evidence presented at trial.

Ackshully, I had the exact thought I expressed regarding appellate odds either way, which you apparently "don't want to acknowledge" since you didn't say a word about it and just went off on a rant about an aside in my opening sentence -- one which you've admitted you're not qualified to evaluate, and neither am I, but which I presume his attorneys who you're gleefully armchair-quarterbacking just may have looked into.

[Zarniwoop]

To be fair, you do posit a plausible reason that Trump's failure to make a jury demand could have been intentional. Props for that.

As to the "not qualified to evaluate", I used figures for NYC, which includes the most Democratic counties in NY (with the exception of Staten Island). Any wider jury pool will almost certainly be more favorable to Trump.

I disagree to the extent that such a decision is based on the unsupported premise that a NYC jury pool is automagically "hard against" Trump. No jury pool, even from NYC, is 100% (D), and a hyper-political jury will also contain Trump sympathizers - based on the actual voter/juror pool in deep-blue NYC. You have to assume all (D) jurors are hyper-political and will always convict, and no (R) juror is hyper-political and will never hang a jury. I don't think that's a good assumption.

I generally trust juries, because for the most part they're not as hyper-political as a lot of partisans (and defendants with lousy cases) want to believe.

[Life of Brian]

Your disagreement is clear and noted. But last I checked, unlike skin color it's perfectly lawful to use peremptory strikes to exclude a minority political opinion. So running back of the napkin aggregate percentages from what you've quoted (keeping in mind that, e.g., Manhattan has ~5x the population of Staten Island), it's hard to imagine that a realistic and responsible attorney wouldn't contemplate pretty decent odds of ending up with a full-on anti-Trump jury.

[Estragon]

From a malpractice perspective, if this was indeed a tactical decision as you suggest, or Trump’s decision not to request a jury trial (rather than a mere oversight), I hope Ms. Habba obtained a waiver of jury trial demand for her case file. From what I’ve seen of her work to date, I wouldn’t bet on it!

[Life of Brian]

"I'll take things we'll very likely never know but are endlessly fun to groundlessly speculate about for $800, Alex!"

[Estragon]

What’s groundless about what I said? It would absolutely be in her best interest to have a signed waiver from the client rather than merely letting the deadline expire. What she should have done is requested a jury trial whether they ultimately want one or not. You can always waive it later, but not if you miss the original demand deadline. Which is why I was talking about malpractice.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've pointed that out in regards to trials in DC: It's virtually always going to be the case that a DC prosecutor can use peremptory strikes to guarantee a 100% Democratic jury, given how one-sided the jury pool is.

[Sarcastr0]

Their line of questioning might be suspect to figure that out.

Also party affiliation doesn’t matter, normal people aren’t going to put party registration above doing their job.
There are a ton of examples of that. Like recently a MAGA hat juror vote to convicted a J6 person.

[Life of Brian]

I realize this is probably too late in the game to catch you. But I did want to add that, in the vast majority of cases, I generally would end up in the same place you've expressed re playing the odds on a hung jury (though for the same reason I'm about to say below, that's a bit of a pyrrhic victory since you can just about guarantee he'll be perpetually retried and thus is just kicking the can down the road a year or so at a time).

But in this case, we're talking about an individual that has become so toxically polarizing (just look around here, Twitter, wherever on any given day) that I'm really not convinced jurors who finally get an opportunity to stick it to him are going to be inclined or perhaps even able to get past that and look at the evidence objectively. And even past the jurors' own personal feelings, there's such a degree of blind fury toward and obsession with the man that a member of the jury that couldn't vote to convict him could realistically look forward to perhaps serious and perhaps permanent rifts in their social circles.

I'm not saying any of that is how it should be, but again just trying to temporarily occupy his lawyers' shoes I'd be very surprised if they didn't spend a good bit of time gaming all this out with a ruthlessly realistic set of assumptions.

[M L]

I guess this was an insurrection, by some definitions.

Exclusive — Capitol Sources: Jamaal Bowman Threw Signs Warning Door Was Emergency Only on Floor Before Pulling Fire Alarm

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/09/30/exclusive-capitol-sources-jamaal-bowman-threw-signs-warning-door-was-emergency-only-on-floor-before-pulling-fire-alarm/

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Look, this incident demonstrates that Bowman is at best a moron…but I don’t see any good evidence there that he tore the signs off the doors. The one photo they’re claiming shows that the signs aren’t there anymore doesn’t clearly show any such thing. In fact I’ve seen clearer photos of Big Foot hanging out with Elvis on a UFO.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Adding that I previously didn't notice the white square in his left hand while he's reaching for/activating the fire alarm. Of course that square could be one/both of the door signs. That's just not clear to me from a photo that grainy.

[Brett Bellmore]

You would think that the system, instead of snapping a picture as the fire alarm was pulled, would run continuous video, and retain a lengthily segment around the time it was pulled. I mean, this IS the Capitol, it's supposedly tied down with more surveillance than a panopticon prison.

Or maybe it did, and this is all they released?

[David Nieporent]

Well, we all know that regardless of the facts, Nancy Pelosi is solely responsible for all Capitol security, so it's her fault.

[M L]

Joe Biden Tells Democrats to Treat Future White Minority ‘with Respect’

https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2023/10/02/joe-biden-tells-democrats-treat-future-white-minority-respect/

[Idihax]

The federal government has long operated an unpopular economic policy of Extraction Migration. This colonialism-like policy extracts vast amounts of human resources from needy countries, reduces beneficial trade, and uses the imported workers, renters, and consumers to grow Wall Street and the economy.

The migrant inflow has successfully forced down Americans’ wages and also boosted rents and housing prices. Additionally, the inflow has pushed many native-born Americans out of careers in a wide variety of business sectors and contributed to the rising death rate of poor Americans.

The lethal policy also sucks jobs and wealth from Heartland states by subsidizing coastal investors with a flood of low-wage workers, high-occupancy renters, and government-aided consumers.

The population inflow also reduces the political clout of native-born Americans because the population replacement allows elites and the establishment to divorce themselves from the needs and interests of ordinary Americans.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I've been saying this for years. The "wealth" of the blue states is largely a result of poor government policy that impoverishes the middle-class heartland.

[Nige]

How objectionable.

[Harvey Mosley]

How much longer will we be subjected to, "X, formerly known as Twitter"? At some point the media is just going to have to trust that we know what "X" is when talked about in a social media context.

[Zarniwoop]

Meh, I think folks will Sears Tower the hell out of Twitter for a long time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you think people will give it the "Democrat Party" treatment just because it bugs the guy running Twitter (into the ground).

[Zarniwoop]

I'm sure there's some fraction of the human population that will use Twitter to deliberately tweak the nose of a pompous mofo, sure.

[not guilty]

In a September 29 filing, the Special Counsel alerted Judge Tanya Chutkan to a potential violation by Donald Trump of his conditions of pretrial release:

The defendant recently was caught potentially violating his conditions of release, and tried to walk that back in similar fashion. In particular, on September 25, the defendant’s campaign spokesman posted a video of the defendant in the Palmetto State Armory, a Federal Firearms Licensee in Summerville, South Carolina. The video posted by the spokesman showed the defendant holding a Glock pistol with the defendant’s likeness etched into it. The defendant stated, “I’ve got to buy one,” and posed for pictures with the FFL owners. The defendant’s spokesman captioned the video Tweet with the representation that the defendant had purchased the pistol, exclaiming, “President Trump purchases a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!” The spokesman subsequently deleted the post and retracted his statement, saying that the defendant “did not purchase or take possession of the firearm” (a claim directly contradicted by the video showing the defendant possessing the pistol). See Fox News, Trump campaign walks back claim former president purchased Glock amid questions about legality (Sept. 25, 2023),
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-walks-back-claim-former-presidentpurchased-glock-amid-questions-about-legality (accessed Sept. 26, 2023). Despite his spokesperson’s retraction, the Defendant then re-posted a video of the incident posted by one of his followers with the caption, “MY PRESIDENT Trump just bought a Golden Glock before his rally in South Carolina after being arrested 4 TIMES in a year.”

The defendant either purchased a gun in violation of the law and his conditions of release, or seeks to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he did so. It would be a separate federal crime, and thus a violation of the defendant’s conditions of release, for him to purchase a gun while this felony indictment is pending. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(n).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.64.0_4.pdf I wonder what Trump's lawyers will have to say about this at the hearing on October 16.

A judicial finding of probable cause to believe that a criminal defendant has committed a Federal, State, or local crime while on release triggers a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, per 18 U.S.C. § 3148.

[Zarniwoop]

18 U.S.C. § 922(n) says a person under indictment can’t “receive” a firearm (that’s been shipped in interstate commerce).

18 U.S.C. § 922(g) bans both “possess[ion] in or affecting commerce” and “receiv[ing]” a firearm by convicted felons. From memory, the scope of “possession” in 922(g) is quite broad – it doesn’t require purchasing, or even physically holding, the firearm.

I don’t recall encountering much 922(n) caselaw, but I guess holding a firearm would be "possession" but not "receipt", since Trump’s actions would be a slam-dunk 922(g) possession case if he’d already been convicted of a felony.

[not guilty]

A firearm purchase, if it occurred, would entail both receipt and possession. Trump's minions claimed that Trump purchased a firearm, then claimed that he didn't. The reasons for the belated denial are self-serving, but what would motivate a false claim in the first instance?

An evidentiary hearing under § 3148(b) may be in order. Put the campaign spokesman and the gun seller under oath, and see what they say.

[Zarniwoop]

I’m readily willing to believe that the spokesperson was either lying for political reasons, or simply mistaken and overzealous. But that’s not a violation of Trump’s conditions of release.

I was mostly interested in the crucial difference between 922(n) (receipt only) and 922(g) (possession or receipt). It’s the line between “Trump being fine” versus “Trump facing an additional Federal charge based on video evidence”. I was assuming Trump "possessed" the firearm (he was holding it, after all), but didn't "receive" it per 922(n) because "receipt" is narrower.

My guess is that without a little more, such as info on the presence or absence of a background check as suggested by Longtobefree, this isn’t going to go anywhere.

[not guilty]

We don’t know what happened. If Donald Trump in fact made a purchase, that is sufficient to lock him up pending trial or to modify his conditions of release, irrespective of whether Trump faces additional criminal charges.

The campaign spokesman evidently regards truth as malleable. He has both affirmed and denied that Trump purchased a handgun. Neither statement was made under oath. I wonder whether taking an oath would make a difference.

The gun seller apparently has not weighed in on what did or didn’t happen. He either did or did not institute a background check. He knows whether Trump did or did not fill out the paperwork.

Probable cause is not a high threshold. There is enough here to justify examining the participants (other than Trump, who has a Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify) under oath. The Special Counsel would be justified in moving for revocation of pretrial release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b).

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump did not make the purchase, you can take that to the bank.

No firearms dealer is going to volunteer for a stay in prison and career suicide just to assist in a photo-op.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Trump did not make the purchase, you can take that to the bank”

Because it was never anything more than a photo-op. Trump has no more need for a gun than he does a conscience. After getting a few picture to peddle to the rubes, does anyone think he'd fork over the cash for something so useless as a gun?

[Nige]

Plus he'd never pay for that with his own money anyway.

[Zarniwoop]

Could Judge Chutkan, reviewing compliance with conditional release, require Trump himself to answer (under oath, natch) the Q “did you buy a gun, like your campaign staff claimed?”

Three possible answers:
1) No –> end of story (unless he lies and then he also has a perjury charge). But there’s yet another on-record statement he’s a liar and grifter.
2) I take the 5th –> DOJ investigates, asks FFL holder and other witnesses to testify, etc.
3) Yes –> slam-dunk revocation of conditional release

While I agree that we don’t know what happened, I’d bet pretty good money on answer #1, because Trump is a blowhard.

Occam’s Razor the situation. “Trump is a liar” is always a safe bet.

[not guilty]

Neither the prosecution nor the Court could call Donald Trump as a witness.

[Brett Bellmore]

"1) No –> end of story (unless he lies and then he also has a perjury charge). But there’s yet another on-record statement he’s a liar and grifter."

If his campaign staff claim he bought a gun, and when asked to testify he says "No.", and he hadn't... It's his campaign staff that lied. Not him.

[Sarcastr0]

Not how credibility determination work.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is how "lying" works, however.

I will grant, though, that it hurts his campaign staff's credibility.

[Sarcastr0]

You're axiomatically assuming Trump's honesty. Surely you understand what a tool that makes you look like.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm not axiomatically assuming his honesty. Practically the opposite, in general: While the media go to great lengths to exaggerate how much he lies, he certainly does lie a lot.

But when a lie is uttered by Bob, that doesn't make Larry a liar, even if Bob is on Larry's payroll.

If I might indulge in an excuse to make you cry, "Whataboutism", some years ago a guy you may have heard about hired a publicist to help hawk his books and speeches. That publicist jazzed up his bio by claiming he'd been born in Kenya, to lend him a bit of exoticism.

The guy didn't lift a finger to correct that mistake until it became important and he was confronted over it.

So, did Obama lie about being born in Kenya? Or was that just his publicist? I expect you'll arrive at the right answer for Obama, is it so difficult getting it right in Trump's case?

[Sarcastr0]

I note that after your discussed Trump's credibility you moved directly onto abstractions.

So you do know how credibility determinations work, but are ignoring that fact.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you DO know that I was disputing Zarniwoop's claim that this scenario demonstrated Trump being a liar, right? Expressly so. When somebody else uttered the falsehood.

Well, I suppose that's why you moved on to "credibility determinations", instead.

[David Nieporent]

There is enough here to justify examining the participants (other than Trump, who has a Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify) under oath.

The seller would also have a fifth amendment privilege. Trump's various staffers/hangers on/spokespeople would not.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's hope the events were recorded -- and the recording survives.

[Krayt]

Why would he need a gun? He’s got free Secret Service for the rest of his life. On top of whatever a super rich dude has. Even attenuated riches.

[Nige]

Doesn;t it have his face on it? It's like a Trump branded gun. Then again most things branded 'Trump' tend to misfire.

[Longtobefree]

A video tweet is 'trumped' by the presence or absence of a background check form. You know, the thing Hunter lied on? Any actual reporting happened yet that mentions the form?

[Zarniwoop]

[Ben_]

In order to make Americans' lives worse, the Biden Administration will add hundreds or thousands of dollars to the bill next time you need to replace your gas furnace:

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/09/30/yes-they-are-coming-for-your-gas-furnaces-too-n581442

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

I need a better name.

[Magister]

Sorry, all the good names are taken.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

I could always use my real name. It's great. This is the only site on which I don't. But then I wouldn't be anonymous.

[Frank Drackman]

Hard to take a trial seriously with Larry David presiding as the Judge, who's the Ballif? Leon Black?

[Nige]

'The Federal Communications Commission came down on Dish for 'failure to properly deorbit' a satellite called EchoStar-7, in orbit since 2002.'

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/science/article/2023/10/03/us-tv-provider-given-first-ever-space-debris-fine_6145352_10.html#Echobox=1696334246

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot can only feel robot emotion for his fellow mechanical device, EchoStar-7

[grb]

Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly on Monday confirmed past reports that then-President Donald Trump insulted wounded veterans in private conversations with staff and called fallen troops “losers” for sacrificing their lives for their country.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2023/10/03/trump-insulted-vets-in-private-former-chief-of-staff-kelly-confirms/

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that there were other people there who deny it.

Of course, I wasn't there, and there are people making conflicting claims, but doesn't it strike you as a remarkably weird thing to have said, even if he thought it? It's more like cartoon villain dialogue than something an actual person would have said.

[Nige]

‘It’s more like cartoon villain’

Remarkably unfamiliar with the reality show star you voted for. Everyone forgets that time he mocked the disabled reporter.

More recently:

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1708102400668561890

[Sarcastr0]

More axiomatical assumption of Trump's virtuous ways.

You used to have some dignity, at least.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “… but doesn’t it strike you as a remarkably weird thing to have said …”

For Trump? Monday he ranted about late night TV on social media:

“Now that the ‘strike’ is over, the talentless, low rated CREEPS of Late Night Television are back. I knew there was a reason I didn’t want to see it settled – True LOSERS!!!”

A couple of days back, it was the danger of electric boats vs sharks. Trump offered this to a crowd (slurring several words) :

‘But if I’m sitting down, and that boat’s going down, and I’m on top of a battery, and the water starts flooding in – I’m getting concerned. But then I look 10 yards to my left and there’s a shark over there. So I have a choice of electrocution or shark, you know what I’m gonna take? Electrocution. I will take electrocution every single time. Do we agree?’

Keeping to the last few days, we have this for all-caps fans :

“JUST ARRIVED AT THE COURTHOUSE TO FIGHT A CORRUPT & RACIST ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND A ROGUE, OUT OF CONTROL, TRUMP HATING JUDGE, WHO REFUSES TO FOLLOW THE APPELLATE COURT DECISION WHICH KNOKS OUT 80% OF THIS SHAM CASE,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday morning. “THIS IS THE CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!”

So “weird” or “cartoon villain dialogue”? Sure. Trump can’t talk five minutes without checking off one of those boxes….

[Sarcastr0]

Today in Supreme Court History, Justice Thomas recuses from a J6 case.
John Eastman was a Thomas clerk.

[Estragon]

Gen. Langley got his 4th star this week, a Marine Corps first. “Coach” Tuberville could not be reached for comment.

https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/3119142/gen-michael-langley-becomes-the-marine-corps-first-black-four-star-general/

[grb]

And the GOP's descent into clownishness takes another giant floppy-foot step:

McCarthy ousted as speaker...

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not that a former school principal could never do something equally dumb. But I think you're as aware as the rest of us that a former school principal would be well acquainted with people childishly pulling fire alarms to cause a disruption.

It's probably why the tactic occurred to him in the first place!

[Tom for equal rights]

Queen almathea 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
What has to be cooked up is certainty of intent. There’s a saying about being too quick to assume malice when incompetence will do."

Individuals are told repeatedly starting as early as elementary school not to pull the fire alarms. Cut the BS crappy excuse!

[Nige]

Probably! A high school principle plagued by kids pulling fire alarms accidentally pulling a fire alarm isn’t impossible, it’s just ironic.

Never mind! Aparrently he did do it deliberately. Let justice be done though the sprinklers fall!

[Brett Bellmore]

If he'd actually done it, it would indeed have been a textbook case of treason, regardless of how much he disliked the President in question. Arguably just telling them he'd do it satisfied the "and comfort" prong.

Civilian control of the military means civilian control even when you don't like who got elected. Or it means nothing.

[David Nieporent]

These people — who pretend they oppose aid to Ukraine because they fear escalation to nuclear war — are mad that Milley tried to reassure China that we wouldn't launch a sneak attack on them.

[Nige]

Still ironic, though.

[David Nieporent]

He pulled it deliberately. The claim that he did so to "cause a disruption," however, is fictional. How many people heard about this story from right wing circles and thought that he pulled an alarm in the capitol to cause an evacuation and prevent a vote? In fact, he pulled the alarm in another building to get to the vote, a vote which the Democrats wanted.

[Nige]

Calling him to reassure him that the US isn't going to attack China is treason? How can that be if not attacking China is government policy?

[Sarcastr0]

Textbook? Your confidence sure loves to write checks you can't cash.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

True. And I worried when Milley issued that letter post-January 6 that he was setting a bad precedent.

On the nuclear exchange example, treason that keeps your country from getting fried will often be a greater act of love of country than formal loyalty that gets it fried.

[Michael P]

If we declared war on China, they would unquestionably be an "enemy" within the original understanding of the Treason Clause, and giving them advance warning of an attack would be within the original understanding of "aid".

You sure like your fallacious ipse dixits.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Imagine if a US President was to order a strike against a foreign power... Let's use Iraq as an example.

Then imagine a US General called up the Iraqis before that attack and said "This attack is coming, just so you know"

Wouldn't that be treason?

[Moderation4ever]

Aaron Rodgers was hired for on the field work. It is doubtful that it ever was envisioned that he would help from the sidelines. I don't see Rodgers ever going to coaching. He is certainly smart but I see his talents, aside from Quarterbacking, elsewhere. Expect to see him on commercials and in commentary.

[Nelson]

I don't think players are allowed on the sidelines or to travel with the team when on IR.

[Kazinski]

Aaron Rodgers just had Achilles surgery in the last few weeks, he’s hardly in physical condition o be walking on it and standing for 3 hours.

Let alone having the agility to get out of the way of a 3 or 4 players coming out of bounds at 20mph. He isn’t even healed enough to start rehabbing it yet.

I can’t think of a more petty criticism of a player with a season ending injury to a lower extremity, but I'm sure you are capable of even more pettiness.

[Nige]

Trump had ordered a strike against China?

[David Nieporent]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that it would be treason. What does that have to do with this situation, in which Trump hadn't ordered an attack on China and Milley called them up and spoke only hypothetically?

It's not like Milley entered into a contractual agreement with China that he'd warn them.

[Nige]

Yes, but that didn't happen.

[not guilty]

"If we declared war on China, they would unquestionably be an 'enemy' within the original understanding of the Treason Clause, and giving them advance warning of an attack would be within the original understanding of 'aid'."

"Yeah, and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped," per Cassandra from Wayne's World.

[Tom for equal rights]

Queen you BS is just as bad as Sacastro's BS - Quit being stupid - show some intelligence.

[Idihax]

No, simply because I don’t think he’s very bright, and I don’t trust unmarried men.

[David Nieporent]

He is certainly smart

Maybe he has football smarts. Real life ones?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In fact, he pulled the alarm in another building to get to the vote, a vote which the Democrats wanted.

If true, it's a clear indication that he's a complete moron with the reading comprehension skills of a turnip. Both doors are clearly labeled with instructions on how to open them. Pulling the fire alarm on the wall is not included in those instructions.

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/10/NYPICHPDPICT000053277926-1.jpg

[Nige]

Geez, the plot thickens. I mean, that makes more sense, barely, than he wanted to delay the vote, if true, throw the book at him. Twerp.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is the crux. The way everyone was describing it here, it sounded as you said. But, as you point out, it is not at all obvious how pulling an alarm in another building would prevent a vote in the Capitol.

Definitely stupid. But the alleged motive doesn't make sense (given the actual facts of where he was and given Democrats desire to have a vote). Though I remain open to be convinced otherwise, but the burden of that is obviously on those making the allegation. And why so eager to expel Bowman now, but these same people are defending both Trump and Menendez.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But the alleged motive doesn’t make sense...

True enough. But interpreting instructions on a pair of doors with push bars (of the same sort he undoubtedly had at the school where he was as principal) saying "PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS" as meaning, "Pull that alarm lever over there on the wall" (which were also undoubtedly installed at his school) doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a really stupid excuse, but to be fair to him, he's well aware he only needs a pro-forma excuse, not one that's even the slightest bit plausible.

The excuse isn't there to convince people he's innocent, it's just to signal to supporters that he's going with denial rather than "I did it, so what?"

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “It’s a really stupid excuse, but to be fair to him, he’s well aware he only needs a pro-forma excuse, not one that’s even the slightest bit plausible. The excuse isn’t there to convince people he’s innocent, it’s just to signal to supporters that he’s going with denial rather than “I did it, so what?”

This is Projection lifted to dizzying heights. It’s as if Brett decided to open the Bellmore Play Book and read the standard operating procedure verbatim.

If you, Brett, find the Bowman excuse evasive and nonsensical, then welcome to our world! We’ve had that same reaction to many of your posts (particularly when in Trump-Excuse-Sgt. Schultz-Mode).

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In fact, he pulled the alarm in another building to get to the vote, a vote which the Democrats wanted.

Not that I think it means he was trying to stop anything, but even this argument demonstrates an ignorance of what was happening at the time.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-rep-bowman-faces-investigation-after-pulling-fire-alarm-capitol-2023-10-01/

"Rep. Bowman pulled fire alarm as Democrats tried to delay vote"

"The House was about to vote on a bipartisan bill to keep the government open for 45 days and avoid a shutdown. The bill ultimately passed with near-unanimous Democratic support but, at the moment, Democrats were scrambling to buy time to read the bill, which Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had just unveiled."

[bernard11]

It’s a really stupid excuse, but to be fair to him, he’s well aware he only needs a pro-forma excuse, not one that’s even the slightest bit plausible.

OK, Brett. What do you think his intentions were. Recall the points made by DMN and NOVA about how stupid it would be to pull the alarm given the circumstances.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Recall the points made by DMN and NOVA about how stupid it would be to pull the alarm given the circumstances."

When I point out just how stupid you'd have to be to think that breaking into the Capitol would have done anything but terminate Trump's election challenges by making them politically radioactive with members of Congress? When I point out that even if they'd captured Congress and forced the to vote Trump President it wouldn't have worked?

I get told that an incompetent coup is still a coup, so the fact that it couldn't possibly have worked means nothing.

Eat that reasoning yourselves, or stop using it.

[Sarcastr0]

We have social media posts establishing that people were exactly that stupid and violent about J6.

We have nothing of that sort in this case.

Plus most Congresspeople tend to be more...institutionalist than J6 folks.

Again, if there is evidence otherwise, than things might look otherwise. But you. Have. No. Evidence.

Appeal to telepathy, as appeal to incredulity, is not evidence.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Recall the points made by DMN and NOVA

It’s a pity that you weren’t bright enough to read the comments that preceded yours, especially mine showing that the “point” made by DMN was ill-informed.

[bernard11]

The problem with your analogy is that we know for a fact that the insurrectionists did indeed have a moronic objective, and used idiotic tactics in its pursuit.

Here we know that Bowman did something stupid, but not what his reason, if anything, despite all the RW hyperventilation.

It is one thing to know, from their own words and actions what some idiots were trying to accomplish. On the other hand, as Sherlock Holmes himself tells us, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.”

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Well, given that the original claim was a declaration of “treasonous intent”, not an incident of actual treason…

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

are mad that Milley tried to reassure China that we wouldn’t launch a sneak attack on them

Mischaracterizing an assurance that he'd inform them ahead of time of any sort of an attack as being reassurance that "we wouldn't launch a sneak attack on them" is some Sarcastr0-level dishonesty.

[Don Nico]

"are mad that Milley tried to reassure China that we wouldn’t launch a sneak attack on them"
And rightly so, the very idea that a top general would be out of control in a crisis, deserves serious punishment.
Our country is serious about civilian control of the military and the requirements regarding the chain of command for a reason.

[Nige]

Except he didn't do that.

[Drewski]

He's an anti-vaxxer and into alternative medicine. Yes, I can see that someone who capitalizes "quarterbacking" would think of him as smart.

[David Nieporent]

His intent, presumably, was not to give the Chinese an advantage in an actual war — which would be treasonous — but to reassure them that we weren't going to attack them, so that they wouldn't attack us — which would not be treasonous.

[Sarcastr0]

It is.

But it's also not going to 'only following orders' it's way in to WW3 because Trump was having a tantrum.

Both things can be true. Serious does not mean blindly following.

[Don Nico]

You have no evidence that there was ever a serious danger of Trump committing to and attack. Actually Miley of all people would know that POTUS cannot scream, "let's nuke the fuckers."
Miley was seriously out of line. As for punishment, that's not for me to say. If the charges and evidence are robust enough, then a military tribunal is in order.

[Sarcastr0]

It wasn't Miley speaking for Miley.

Trump ordered a rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. And Somalia. Four days after he lost the election.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/10/13/trump-ordered-rapid-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-after-election-loss/

Afghanistan was a disaster and pulling out remains the best thing Biden has done. But Trump was on some *shit*. The DoD getting spooked makes complete sense.

[Don Nico]

There is a big difference between bugging out of Afghanistan and launching a first strike. It was also Miley who must have been on some shit. There is NO evidence that a nuclear strike was ever talked about even in jest.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, Miley wasn't just on his own, this was a DoD position.

And when the CiC is behaving erratically in a way that indicates and reckless disregard for national security, I don't require the magic word nuclear to be dropped.

If Trump ordered a first strike on China shortly after losing the election, would civilian control of the military require the DoD say 'yes sir?' and launch the missles? I don't think so.
Humans are not machines, and that's more often than not a good thing.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastro - even after Nico explained the facts and distinction , you fall back on partisan BS

[Sarcastr0]

It isn't partisan, it's reported facts about what Trump was doing and the DoD's motives.

Trump saying lets kill Miley only strengthens the validity of the concerns about his behavior upon being defeated.

You don't do well with contradiction.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Would you like to provide hard evidence of the DOD position, in particular as issued by The Sec Def. or and or the Senate-confirmed leaders of the DOD.
If you cannot, then Miley was on his own in claiming he would inform China in advance.
Once in a while trying not making excuses for folks based on your disgust with DJT.