Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Martinned]

How's that for Big Tech making a positive impact in the world?

Microsoft shares threat intelligence at CYBERWARCON 2023
By Microsoft Threat Intelligence

Reactive and opportunistic: Iran’s role in the Israel-Hamas war
(...)
First, Microsoft does not see any evidence suggesting Iranian groups (IRGC and MOIS) had coordinated, pre-planned cyberattacks aligned to Hamas’ plans and the start of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7​. Although media and other public accounts may suggest that Iran played an active role in planning the October 7 physical attacks on Israel, Microsoft data tells a different part of the story.

Observations from Microsoft telemetry suggest that, at least in the cyber domain, Iranian operators have largely been reactive since the war began, exploiting opportunities to try and take advantage of events on the ground as they unfold​. It took 11 days from the start of the ground conflict before Microsoft saw Iran enter the war in the cyber domain. On October 18, 2023 Microsoft observed the first of two separate destructive attacks targeting infrastructure in Israel. While online personas controlled by Iran exaggerated the claims of impact from these attacks, the data suggests that both attacks were likely opportunistic in nature. Specifically, operators leveraged existing access or acquired access to the first available target. Further, the data shows that, in the case of a ransomware attack, Iranian actors’ claims of impact and precision targeting were almost certainly fabricated.

Second, Microsoft observes Iranian operators continuing to employ their tried-and-true tactics, notably exaggerating the success of their computer network attacks and amplifying those claims and activities via a well-integrated deployment of information operations. This is essentially creating online propaganda seeking to inflate the notoriety and impact of opportunistic attacks, in an effort to increase their effects. For example, Microsoft observed Iranian actors compromising connected webcams and framing the activity as more strategic, claiming they targeted and successfully compromised cameras at a specific Israeli military installation. In reality, the compromised cameras were located at scattered sites outside any one defined region. This suggests that despite Iran actors’ strategic claims, this camera example was ultimately a case of adversaries continuing to opportunistically discover and compromise vulnerable connected devices and try to reframe this routine work as more impactful in the context of the current conflict.

[Martinned]

Sorry, here's the full story: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2023/11/09/microsoft-shares-threat-intelligence-at-cyberwarcon-2023/

[Frank Drackman]

TLDR

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd ask where they are getting their data from?

If it's registration of IP addresses, in addition to everything else, how do they know that the traffic is really coming from those addresses?

If they are intercepting traffic traveling from Iran to Israel, (a) is that something that Microsoft really should be doing and (b) what prevents Iranians (or those supporting Iran) from either physically being in Israel or making it look like they are? There's no shortage of English-speaking American-born Americans supporting Hamas that Iran could have trained and then sent into Israel.

Reality is that *someone* seriously screwed up computers in Israel -- Israel was overly reliant on technology, without redundancy, and that is the lesson that really needs to be learned here. I think it is also one that the US needs to learn as well as we are overly reliant on it too. Even in the civilian world -- how many people under age 40 can read a map? Take out a half dozen GPS satellites, which China or Russia can do, and we're totally f*cked....

Heck, even if the line noise on an analog phone line is so bad that you can't hear anything, if you then try the high tech digital lines and find them all dead, do you (a) ignore all of this or (b) assume something is wrong and send help?

During the Grenada invasion, it was discovered that the Army couldn't talk to the Navy so an intrepid soldier used his AT&T calling card and a civilian phone to call the main number at Fort Bragg and had them call the Navy for him. Something about redirecting fire support if I recollect correctly.

You need to have redundant means of communication. For some reason, Israel didn't. That was a liability that Hamas exploited.

[shawn_dude]

Microsoft's systems sit at many points on the network between Iran and the rest of the world. They gather data from desktops loaded with their anti-malware software, from switches, search engines, VM farms, etc. They have a multi-faceted view of what Iran or anyone else might be doing. Further, organizations that conduct activities on the internet use certain tools and techniques that act as a sort of fingerprint, which when combined with other information, makes it possible to tie actions to those groups with a reasonable level of accuracy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, watching Iran is a good thing.

But watching Indiana???

I'm not a tin foil hat zealot, but I do wonder if a private company should be able to do this. That was part of the AT&T breakup decision, there is a line in there something like "while the men running AT&T have always been patriotic, there is no guarantee that future men will be, and hence their phone monopoly is a threat to the country."

Actually I think it took the court the better part of multiple paragraphs to say that, but I do remember the "while the men running AT&T have always been patriotic" phrase.

But above and beyond this, money is fungible. Iran could be subsidizing something that it hopes not to have it's fingerprints on -- just because the code doesn't have comments in Farci doesn't mean that Iran wasn't involved...

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : " I’m not a tin foil hat zealot...."

Self-awareness fail of the century.

[Nelson]

Simple, accurate, and to the point. I admire your restraint.

[shawn_dude]

Internet security threats that impact Microsoft’s customers can, potentially, come from Indiana. It’s not a criminal-free state.

You don’t think Reason.com isn’t harvesting your own user data and monetizing it (and you by extension) in some way? Or that they don’t have cyber security professionals of some sort keeping an eye on their traffic in order to prevent intrusion…which includes watching all traffic including yours?

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are reasons why it was decided in 1787 that delivering the mail (i.e. Post Office) would be an exclusive Federal responsibility.

[Martinned]

Was it? Is there anything in the laws of the United States, today or in 1787, that prevents someone from setting up their own post office?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. The post office has a legal monopoly on regular mail.

[darkknight9]

Its on my brain thinking about when my 22 year old son was 10. So now you get to hear it.
*****
Its all fun and games until junior comes into your bedroom Saturday morning at 8am, wearing nothing but undies and his school tuba and starts playing "Hot Cross Buns" at a soothing 10,000 dB.

I came up 2 feet off of the bed. While still laying horizontally. A chase ensued. I think the Tuba won.
*****
He's still mischievous, but I'm all kinds of proud of how far he's come in life.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you will find it better as the years go on and realize that you have successfully raised a person. Many years as children and especially as teens you wonder how you will get through the next day. Then they are grown up, have a job and a life, and then they really surprise you and pick up the check for dinner.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The reason why babies are so adorable is that you won't kill them when they are teenagers. I say this figuratively and not literally, but still I think there is merit in saying it.

[Frank Drackman]

10? shouldn't he have had the chance to prove he was no good at Sports before becoming a Band (redacted)??

[GreenLanternCorps]

Frank, Marching Band is as hard as sports. I’ve had two kids in a competitive high school marching band. It takes a lot of work and time. Making it to the finals of a Bands of America Regional, Super Regional, or Grand Nationals is not for wimps.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So is cheerleading. I once watched the football players practice on one field and the cheerleaders on another and....

[bernard11]

A certain amount of mischievousness is good.

[Commenter_XY]

I am so happy for you. You must be so proud as a Father. I too have similar kinds of memories of my children...when they pulled pranks.

One notable prank: My young sons, aged 7 and 9 once duck-taped down every object on my hobby workbench. Cute. Took them 2 hours to remove it, but was hilarious. Wish I could have recorded my reaction in real time when it happened. It was memorable. We still joke about it 20+ years later on occasion. So many laughs.

These memories are a comfort to us as we age. I hope you have many more happy memories darknight9.

[apedad]

Grand jury declines to indict blind man who allegedly ‘sat on’ girlfriend’s head and broke her neck

A grand jury in Hamilton County on Monday chose to ignore a murder charge for James F. Toothman, a day after he was arrested and charged with first-degree murder in the slaying of 65-year-old Jeni Russell, court records reviewed by Law&Crime show.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/grand-jury-declines-to-indict-blind-man-who-allegedly-sat-on-girlfriends-head-and-broke-her-neck/#disqus_thread

“. . . chose to ignore . . . . “

IANAL so learned that “ignore” is the correct legal term.

“If there are sufficient affirmative votes in favor of finding an indictment, the foreperson signs the proposed indictment as a “true bill.” If there are less than the required number of votes, the foreperson so reports by marking the first page of the proposed indictment or the count or counts that have not received the required number of votes “ignored.” Every indictment presented to the grand jury must be returned to a judge in open court either as a “true bill” or “ignored.”

[Mr. Bumble]

ignoramus /ĭg″nə-rā′məs/
noun

...or an ignoramus:
In law, an indorsement, meaning ‘we ignore it,’ which a grand jury formerly made on a bill presented to it for inquiry, when there was not evidence to support the charges, by virtue of which indorsement all proceedings were stopped, and the accused person was discharged.

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

[John F. Carr]

The summary reminds me of a case from central Massachusetts. A very heavy man caused the death of his small sister-in-law. His defense was they were having an affair and he accidentally crushed her during consensual sex. The jury convicted of murder anyway. As felony murder had not yet been abolished, the prosecution need only have proved an accidental death during rape to win a murder conviction.

[Magister]

But they had to prove rape?

[John F. Carr]

As it turned out, the jury convicted on alternative grounds. See below. There was evidence that the 400 pound defendant knew not to put his full weight on a woman during sex.

[John F. Carr]

I had enough morbid curiosity to refresh my memory of the case. The defendant raped and murdered his sister in law while his wife was in the hospital about to give birth. The victim had called the 400 pound defendant "fatso," among other derogatory words. The jury was allowed to consider that as evidence that (1) she didn't consent to sex, and (2) he was angry at her. It was first degree murder because the victim did not die instantaneously ("extreme atrocity and cruelty"). The judge ruled that the facts of the case would only support second degree murder under a felony murder theory.

https://socialaw.com/services/slip-opinions/slip-opinion-details/commonwealth-vs.-steven-west

[Dr. Ed 2]

But how did his wife get pregnant???

You can't gain 200 lbs in 9 month -- at least, I don't think you can.

[SimonP]

In re: recent reporting on “Project 2025.”

The public-facing documents relating to this “project” are fairly unremarkable statements of conservative policies and a conservative view of the “unitary executive.” But the reporting suggests that, behind the scenes, people are plotting things like invoking the Insurrection Act to put down anti-Trump protests (which people may recall that Jeffrey Clark, then a part of the DOJ, now an unindicted co-conspirator in the DC criminal case against Trump and an indicted co-conspirator in the Georgia case, himself suggested when they were plotting to overturn the election). The media, as might be expected, is hyperventilating over some of this “retribution agenda.”

I realize that few commenters here are unlikely to have much concern that Trump, once in office, would exact retribution against his perceived enemies, which would include people like Biden as well as former aides and officials he’s deemed insufficiently loyal. I won’t bother to appeal to their conscience on that.

I will, however, ask them this: once these gloves are off, what do you expect to happen, next? Do you expect a “retribution agent” like Trump to be responsive to ordinary democratic pressures? When the GOP has sufficiently insulated itself from democratic accountability and pushed “the left” out of the public debate, what assurances do conservatives and libertarians here have that the GOP will remain accountable to them? Aren’t people on the right at least a little concerned that a newly-empowered Trump and GOP would continue to work further to accumulate power and wealth, even when doing so is actually against the interests of the voters who ostensibly voted for them?

Leaders like Putin, Orban, Erdogan, Modi – each of these authoritarian leaders made genuine appeals to their conservative bases, both to get themselves elected in the first place and then subsequently to grow their power. But once they’ve entrenched themselves, they just continue to serve themselves, first shutting out the opposition, but then also attacking anyone on their side who happens to disagree with them. With these kinds of leaders, you’re either part of the “family,” or you’re out.

Where do the VC’s resident conservative and libertarian commenters think they’ll land, when the GOP and Trump have fully seized control of the federal government, with the support of the courts? What reason do you have to believe that life will be better for you?

[Moderation4ever]

All good points. The worst part of having authoritarian leaders is that corrupts sets in. If you are mad now about the time it takes for a permit or license, think how irritating it will be when the application must also include a bribe. It has been pointed out that Russia has a highly educated population with high unemployment for those people. Why because the leader has limited the economy to what get money for himself and his cronies. People in countries like these live for the day because the future holds little hope. That the future being suggested.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"People in countries like these live for the day because the future holds little hope."

China is on the verge of a revolution for this very reason -- people from China told me 15 years ago that the economic costs of the corruption were so much that a revolution was coming.

Even a member of the CCP told me that he was concerned about how the economic benefits weren't getting to the people quick enough to keep them happy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I make the over-under on how many of this blog's right-wing hacks are involved in Project 2025 at 5.5. That collection of anti-government cranks, unreconstructed bigots, authoritarian prudes, nonsense-teaching conservative schools, antisocial gun nuts, disaffected right-wing separatist groups, and religious kooks could be too much for the average Volokh Conspirator to resist.

Readers are welcome to opine concerning which disaffected Federalist Societeers from the Volokh Conspiracy are participating. Two or three seem obvious; most regular readers could probably develop a reasonable roster.

I assume discredited and un-American (and perhaps soon to be disbarred) jackasses John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark are involved, too. Disgraced former federal judge Alex Kozinski seems a coin flip.

Carry on, clingers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe one or two of the Volokh Conspirators would have the character needed to acknowledge their participation in the 2025 Project?

Or, as the longstanding record vividly illustrates, maybe not.

[Krayt]

I've spent the past 5 years complaining about the Democrat's abuse of the power of government turned against a political opponent. They've even hauled out one of the great tyrant tools: seizing the estate of the recalcitrant lord.

Both sides are sickening POS. Trump doesn't need to be president, not because of this disasterbation (as if the SC would approve what you fear, any examples?) and as if large swaths of military wouldn't disobey.

Or are you merely talking retribution inside the law, ummm, him turning the government against those who turned it against him?

He doesn't need to be president because we don't need Putin tanks redefining Europe.

So which column do I pick from? Shit 1 or Shit 2? I swore I was done choosing the lesser of two evils.

[SimonP]

I'm not interested in debating the putative sins of Democrats. I don't think there's any path to seeing eye-to-eye on that.

I am asking conservatives and libertarians to explain to me what reasonable basis they have to believe that they're not going to get fucked by Trump and the GOP, when the opportunity arises. By their own admission, they like Trump's "retribution" agenda. That's what they want. (That they think it's "fair" after how they've been "abused" by the Democrats, again, is not what I'm going to dispute.) So what's going to happen when the boss turns on you? Do you think that's somehow not going to happen?

[Krychek_2]

I don't see Trump getting re-elected. I think that Biden (or whichever Democrat is the nominee if Biden doesn't run) will campaign on how he plans to make life better for Americans, and Trump will campaign on how unfairly he's been treated and the revenge he plans to take, and the voters will have no trouble picking which platform is better for them. Trump has the rage vote locked up but that's only about 30% of the population.

And if I'm wrong and Trump does get re-elected, at that point I think there is a real danger the American experiment will be over. Trump was unsuccessful at staging a coup to remain in power in 2021 only because so many Republican state officeholders were willing to stand up to him and do their jobs, and many of them suffered for it. I don't think we can count on the necessary number of Republican state office holders continuing to have that kind of a backbone indefinitely.

[Martinned]

It is already happening. Trump and his family are living large off the "campaign donations" and donations to the "litigation fund" made by people who probably have better things to spend that money on.

[Krychek_2]

Just think, if Trump were religious, he could have been a phenomenally successful television preacher.

And if he had been born poor he'd be running a three-card Monte scam on some street corner in Brooklyn.

[Nelson]

"Just think, if Trump were religious, he could have been a phenomenally successful television preacher."

It's funny that you think televangelists (or megachurch pastors) are religious. At least the prosperity gospel preachers are honest about their worship of money.

[Krychek_2]

Point taken.

[SimonP]

These are patrons seeking to be part of the "family." Pay now, get favors later.

That's the calculation that big money is making right now - always makes, really, when these autocrats get going. You can make plenty of money under authoritarian regimes, as long as you're paying enough for official protection and favors. That's Musk's whole play, for instance. They just have to convince a lot of people without big money to vote for that arrangement, first.

Those are the people I'm trying to address here.

[Krayt]

I don't have an answer for you as he's not my boss and I don't want him to win. I don't think it will turn into your sweet disasterbation scenario is the best I can say. I tried to draw a difference between dictatorship and tit for tat.

I don't want him to win because I don't want tanks redefining Europe while he's greeted with open arms in Moscow, wow no red tape on the next skyscraper.

I don't want the Democrats to win because, hey, 20% less buying power in my savings isn't actually cool.

Lesser of two evils. Money where your mouth is.

[SimonP]

Of course, under Trump, we not only had uncontrolled spending, we had tax cuts while the economy was growing and interest rates were low. And if Trump gets a second shot, we'll see him try to put more pressure on the Fed in order to overheat the economy and serve his own narrow interests.

So, again - if money is where your mouth is - in what scenario do you think you win, under a second Trump term?

[bernard11]

They’ve even hauled out one of the great tyrant tools: seizing the estate of the recalcitrant lord.

No they haven't. Trump may be barred from doing business in NY. Even if that means he has to sell (not give to the government) his properties there that hardly amounts to expropriation, especially if they are worth anything approaching what he claims.

I suppose he may be on the hook for some back taxes, but that doesn't seem unfair, unless you think that he should somehow be exempt from tax.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I understand it, the judge intends to had Trump's businesses over to recievers charged with closing them out. Trump doesn't get to do it.

And I'm sure you've seen the stories here in Reason about somebody's house being sold at a fraction of its market value to pay back taxes, because, why would the government bother getting a good deal when they only get to keep the back taxes?

And, of course, you always get the best price for something when you unload it all at once, and everybody knows you're going to sell regardless of how little is offered for it.

So, yeah, the plan is to seize his assets, sell them for pennies on the dollar, and then let him have what's left over, if anything, after paying the fines levied.

[Sarcastr0]

The argument that if you remove all context Trump facing accountability looks like he's being persecuted in a banana republic is remarkable only because conservatives are in so deep they think it's a convincing argument to anyone but themselves.

[Krayt]

How does their delusion compare to the delusion those in power have not reoriented government into attacking a political opponent?

You were so close! He was gone! But you had to continue prosecutions to save face, and now it's back to the game.

[shawn_dude]

de·lu·sion·al
/dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/
adjective
characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition.

[Nige]

'He was gone!'

He hasn't even admitted he lost; he was never gone.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Fraction of its market value" is apparently rather different than "fraction of its Trumped-up value".

In any case, there should be no special rules for Trump: if that's what happens to everyone else whose property is liquidated, it should also happen to Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

If there were no special rules for Trump he wouldn't be on trial in the first place. When was the last time you heard of somebody being prosecuted for 'fraud' for overstating the value of the collateral on a loan that has already been paid in full?

[Commenter_XY]

I haven't heard of it. There are now a lot of very influential people in NYC that better watch their backs, since they can be prosecuted for stating a non-government approved property valuation. The precedent has been set.

[David Nieporent]

He's not being prosecuted. This is a civil suit.

[shawn_dude]

If a business commits a crime (or a tort) and completes the transaction successfully (pays off the loan), does that erase the wrongful act? Is it no longer a crime (or a tort)?

[bernard11]

When was the last time you heard of somebody being prosecuted for ‘fraud’ for overstating the value of the collateral on a loan that has already been paid in full?

I don't know.

I do know that the more your collateral is worth the better rate you are going to get. There were some estimates from witnesses at the trial.

Given the amounts involved that can come to a substantial savings. So it actually is fraud, even though it may not often be pursued.

Maybe your outrage should be directed at the fact that it seems a lot of very rich people get away with it, rather than at the fact Trump got caught.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Also wasn't there language in the loan agreement to the effect of Trump's value figure merely being an estimate and that the Bank was responsible for doing its own appraisal and getting its own estimate of value?

How is that different from the traditional "one dollar and other valuable consideration" than was (is?) common on deeds?

[bernard11]

Probably.

The thing is, banks make money by making loans, and big banks need to make big loans, so it is certainly possible Trump would have gotten the same deals with an honest appraisal. But he apparently didn't think so.

I am surprised his defense has not raised this point.

[Dr. Ed 2]

IANAA but have not been impressed with Trump's attorneys for several years now.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett and Commenter, you not hearing about this doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I Googled for NY civil fraud property valuation from 2020 to 2021 and it absolutely happens.

[Life of Brian]

I Googled for NY civil fraud property valuation from 2020 to 2021 and it absolutely happens.

I ran that search too, and saw precisely zero examples of what Brett and C_XY were discussing: supposed fraud based on alleged overvaluation of properties used as collateral for loans that were fully paid in the normal course of business.

Which "it" are you referring to?

[bernard11]

Brett,

Maybe you could provide some support for your claim about the plan, especially the pennies on the dollar business.

Seems implausible to me, though I agree it would be wildly unfair.

My understanding is that the reason so many properties sell cheaply is that they are sold at little-publicized auctions. Guess what, that wouldn't happen with Trump Tower, say. Any auctions of Trump properties would be widely publicized, even by Trump himself, and there would be serious bidders.

And as long as there are serious bidders the fire sale rationale doesn't really hold much water. I mean, if I'm the only buyer and know it's a distress sale then sure, I'm going to lowball my offer. But when you get competitive bidding that logic goes away. A bidder doesn't just have to offer a price Trump is forced to accept, he has to outbid the other bidders, and they are under no pressure to back off of bidding what they think it's actually worth.

So there's a strong element of conspiracy-mongering in your claims, especially about "the plan."

[Commenter_XY]

Let's be clear: You are FOR the forced liquidation of one's business in the absence of a crime for which one was convicted. That is what is happening here.

Let that one sink in. While you're contemplating...

When they start telling Jews to sell their businesses for 'crimes' they were not convicted of in a court of law, just remember that you were for it.

[Nige]

Are you saying Jews are all tax fraudsters?

[bernard11]

First, there is a big difference between forced liquidation and selling at auction to knowledgeable bidders. The former implies, to me, being forced to sell at bargain basement prices, while the latter provides a market price.

Second, what do you think should be the penalty for Trump's various frauds? Nothing? So far in his life he's gotten away with a ton of crap that might have landed a poorer person in jail. You want to let him off again?

Third, I doubt it will be that severe. The judge patently hates Trump, but I suspect he won't go that far, or if he does it will be reduced on appeal.

Fourth, it's not the Engoron's of the world who might force Jews to liquidate their property, it's all those guys shouting about how the Jews won't replace them. You know, Trump's fine people.

[VinniUSMC]

Simple Simon, m4e, krycheck and Nazi boy martin are worried that Trump might retaliate, but don't care about the current, actual totalitarians. But OrangeManBad!

Losers, lol.

[SimonP]

I suppose that, if I can't get a genuine conservative/libertarian take on the question I'd asked, and instead just get a parade of whataboutism (which I anticipated and tried to explain was beside the point), that will be its own data point.

[MoreCurious]

You were expecting Vinni to give a thoughtful, intelligent, rational answer to any question? Really?

[SimonP]

No, I sure wasn't.

[VinniUSMC]

The day one of you manages to be thoughtful, intelligent or rational... then you'll deserve an in kind response. That day is not today, and I won't hold my breath.

You don't care about totalitarianism right now. But Trump hypothetically might possibly maybe sort-of be a little authoritarian! Simple Simon doesn't deserve an ounce of respect.

[Sarcastr0]

Calling America totalitarian nowadays to justify actual totalitarian policies in the future is really dumb.

But you've always leaned on the confidence that comes from being super angry for your posts.

[VinniUSMC]

Sorry little gray box0, your schtick is like Artie's. Repetitive and muted.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Disgraced ex-Marine runs away from yet another fight.

Poor Vinni.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why did Nixon resign?

Barry Goldwater told him that the Republicans weren't going to support him either...

This is why precedent matters and why what the Democrats are doing right now is truly dangerous because as long as Trump doesn't go any further than what they have done to him, I'd have no problem with it. Fair is fair -- they set the precedent that is now biting them.

But if he goes further than that, *we* can impeach him, MAGA can do it, and hopefully the Democrats will go along. We have checks and balances -- as Team Bite Me is rapidly learning.

Bear in mind one other thing -- the SCOTUS precedents that Trump will eventually get will be binding on him as well. When (not if) SCOTUS says that certain things were unconstitutional it means that he can't do them to the Dems, either...

[shawn_dude]

So, if MAGA can impeach Trump in 2025+, you also believe that Hungary's conservatives could do their equivalent of impeachment on Orban? That Putin could find himself voted out of power peacefully? If that's possible, why hasn't it yet happened? And if Orban and Putin can continue to manipulate a sufficient number of supporters to maintain power, why should we believe that Trump cannot do the same?

If he moves like Putin and Orban have, he'll have locked up the courts that matter and stuffed Congress and powerful government agencies with loyalists that will protect him from impeachment. He'll imprison opposition leaders and drive free media out of business. By the time he reaches the point where the MAGA folks realize they've been used, he'll have no need of them any longer.

In what world does MAGA dismantle our checks and balances in order to protect their favorite president and then get to claim they could use those tools later to correct any mistake?

[Krychek_2]

The only way Trump goes away is if he and his MAGA followers cause the GOP to get completely crushed in an election -- not just lose the election, but get completely crushed. Say, the Democrats win 400 votes in the electoral college and have 60% majorities in both houses of Congress.

As much as I might like that to happen, I don't think it's going to. I think Trump will be a millstone around the GOP's neck until he drops dead of a heart attack.

And I will say again that Trump persists because of anti-democratic institutions like the electoral college. Without it, he would have gone away after losing the 2016 election. Who knew that an institution designed to protect us from demagogues instead gave us the worst one in our history?

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump exists because the people running the institutions of government are so poor.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump supporters are very mad at the government, sure, but I'm not sure that says a lot about the government given the often spurious reasons they are mad, or the out there nature of their demands.

[Krychek_2]

Trump’s big accomplishment — if accomplishment is the right word — is that he assembled all the disaffected ragebots together in one place and gave them a voice. And I understand that some people have reason to be angry and disaffected. Anger and disaffection don’t build anything constructive, though.

But here’s the thing: He hasn’t offered one single thing in terms of fixing their problems. His appeal is to people who want to burn the place down, not make the place better. Rather than try to make their lives better, he aspires to make the lives worse of people he perceives as his enemies. He has nothing to offer except anger and resentment.

And, again, he has only been as successful as he has been because we have an electoral college. Without it, he would have ridden off into the sunset after losing in 2016 and that would have been the last anyone heard of him. He is only a viable contender for president a second time because of the EC.

[Nige]

Trump 'exists' because many Republican voters are suckers for bible-thumping preachers, so much so that they project Christian fundamentalism onto a mostly secular TV huckster.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Neither Hungary nor Russia had a 400 year tradition of popular rule (Boston was founded in 1630). Neither Hungary nor Russia had a constitution that had existed since 1789, amended but largely unchanged.

Putin took power in 2000, just 11 years after the Berlin Wall fell and when you subtract the coup attempt against Boris Yelsin, how many years of true democracy did Russia actually have? Pre-Soviet Russia was NOT a democracy!!!

While I don't know my Hungarian history well enough to be absolute, I don't think they had much of a history of popular rule either. America is unique in that it STARTED with self rule, these other countries don't have that.

Now as to dangerously destroying checks and balances, Obama and Biden HAVE done that and it is scary. The persecution of the Jan 6th folk is scary because a future President could do the same thing -- Trump has said that those who painted the White House fence should be treated likewise.

I'm hoping that SCOTUS stomps on some of this stuff because it will preserve the Constitution. You should as well....

[shawn_dude]

Arresting rioters and insurrectionists who crossed a police line, beat cops, smeared feces on walls, smashed windows to gain access to Congress to overturn the election and "hang Mike Pence" is "persecution" that breaks our checks and balances?

You're hoping the USSC protects those people from prosecution because that would "preserve the Constitution?!"

We don't live in the same world. In my world, trying to overturn an election through violence isn't considered a good thing.

[apedad]

"The persecution of the Jan 6th folk is scary . . . . "

You're a joke and will always be.

I'd might have taken you seriously if you wrote 'prosecution' but persecution?!?

You just can't get away from the Losers table.

[Josh R]

as long as Trump doesn’t go any further than what they have done to him

Trump tried to steal an election he lost which is further than anything done to him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

JFK and "Landslide" Lyndon DID steal an election.

That's what made Nixon paranoid and what led to the Watergate breakin -- they were terrified that the Democrats were going to steal the 1972 election as well.

[Josh R]

Assuming for the sake of argument you are correct, SFW?

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, by your standards, the Democrats tried to steal election in 2000, 2004 & 2016.

You can look it up.

[Josh R]

Perhaps a handful attempted to by objecting during the joint session. But that in no way comes anywhere close to what Trump tried to do.

[bernard11]

What bullshit.

You are a complete fucking idiot.

[bernard11]

This is insane.

First, the underlying notion that Trump is being mistreated is a laugh, except to a cultist who thinks Trump is not subject to ordinary laws.

Second, the idea that a Trumpist court is going to rule against him is silly, and the idea that MAGAt’s will impeach him if he “goes too far” is from the galaxy Mxql235.

[Brett Bellmore]

"people are plotting things like invoking the Insurrection Act to put down anti-Trump protests "

I'm not seeing the problem here. Suppose Trump does win the election, and this leads to anti-Trump riots on a scale similar to the Antifa/BLM riots of a few years back; He'll be the legitimate President, are you saying it's impossible to commit insurrection against a President? Or just against Trump?

It would actually be irresponsible to not plan what to do about rioting in the event Trump won.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What was irresponsible was not invoking it the last time.

Once cities started burning, he should have given those state's Governor's an ultimatum --- either call out your National Guard yourself and deal with this (and I'll give you whatever you need) or I'll do it myself. Like Eisenhower did in Little Rock, he didn't even let it get to the point where the city was burning.

And don't think for an instant that any invocation of the Insurrection Act won't be challenged in court. Hence Trump will have to be really careful not to violate civil rights.

[shawn_dude]

Whole cities? Wow!

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, maybe use the actual definition of protest not the one where you conflate it with riots so you can justify an authoritarian crackdown on liberals.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, maybe stop pretending that events where buildings get set on fire and windows get smashed are just "protests".

[Sarcastr0]

maybe stop pretending that events where buildings get set on fire and windows get smashed are just “protests”.

Hey Brett, *this is exactly what you are doing*.

OP: 'invoking the Insurrection Act to put down anti-Trump protests.'
You: 'This is fine because riots count.'

YOU are the one calling violence protests, not me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight0, what part of buildings burning and people dying did you miss? Even in relatively peaceful Boston, the (pricey) Newberry Street business district was looted, a cop car was burned outside an occupied *wooden* hotel (Parker House) and someone squeezed off a clip in the direction of the Boston PD, fortunately not hitting any of the officers.

What part of "violent riot" does that not constitute?

[Brett Bellmore]

The part where the protesters were left-wing, I assume.

[Sarcastr0]

We've been around and around about this, I'd think you'd understand my argument by now.

Opportunistic riots the evening after are not part-and-parcel of the protests during the day.

And Antifa isn't really involved, you just haul them out all the time because you wish you lived in a political thriller.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Opportunistic riots the evening after are not part-and-parcel of the protests during the day."

Yes, all the protestors went home and were replaced by a completely different set of people with zero overlap.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, that is what I said. Well captured.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Yes, that is what I said."

Oh, so daytime "protestors" did riot later?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm expect some did.

That does not transform the protests into riots.

[SimonP]

Maybe you could stop pretending that any violence that occurs in these "protests" is tantamount to insurrection.

The US military should not be used to engage in domestic law enforcement. Arson, broken windows, etc., are run-of-the-mill police matters. Here in NYC, it got bad only because the NYPD are bad at their jobs. We didn't need the US military in here, shooting at crowds.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I’m not seeing the problem here.

Of course not. No disaffected, resentful, bigoted, autistic, antisocial, delusional, unprincipled, seething right-wing misfit would.

Those people, by the way, may be my favorite culture war casualties.

[bernard11]

“people are plotting things like invoking the Insurrection Act to put down anti-Trump protests ”

Brett: I’m not seeing the problem here.

Really? You see no problem with using force to put down protests.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When they start breaking windows, looting stores, and burning cop cars -- YES.

That's not free speech...

[Nelson]

"That’s not free speech…"

The paleocons keep trying to make false equivalence between protests and riots if the protests are against their interests, but when a violent mob attacks the Capitol, they're just tourists who are being persecuted.

Simply put, those that are breaking windows, smashing in doors, attacking police, and looting are criminals. Those that are only peacefully protesting are not.

Pretending that peaceful protesters are the same as looters and vandals is wrong, whether it is BLM or Jan. 6th. Yet any protest conservatives don't like, they label the 95+% that were peaceful as rioters or looters. Why is that, when it's so clearly dishonest?

[bernard11]

Nor is that "protesting."

Look, the effort to conflate the - yes, mostly peaceful - protestors with the vandals and arsonists who showed up later is BS - an excuse to shut down protests.

Let's arrest the criminals and leave the other people in peace.

[Absaroka]

"Let’s arrest the criminals and leave the other people in peace."

I sure don't disagree with that. But let's add some nuance from an actual event: the Portland Federal Building 'siege'.

You're part of a crowd doing your First Amendment thing, carrying a sign or chanting or whatever. That's all good! There is a line of cops standing there protecting the building - sill all good, right?

But you notice people hiding behind you throwing rocks and shining lasers at the cops. That's not really OK, is it? And here comes the nuance - a couple of people run up, throw rocks, and run off, well that's not your fault, and isn't any reason for you to stop your righteous 1A activity.

But what if there are more than a couple? What if they come back day after day after day? What if their facebook pages explicitly say they are using you as an unwitting human shield?

Not your problem? You have your 1A rights, and what the other people do isn't your fault, so the cops can just take it?

For a little more perspective, imagine if you can the people throwing rocks and shining lasers aren't people you feel are political allies. Maybe it's the Jim Crow era and you're there to support desegregation, and the people throwing rocks are the KKK and the cops are there to enforce a desegregation order. Do you still go there day after day even though the KKK is using you for an unwitting human shield?

[bernard11]

Good questions.

No, I personally would not stick around, and I think people should leave, as a matter of common sense, among other things, and also because abetting violence is not in general a good thing to do. Of course the rock throwers need to be arrested.

As for your KKK example, well, all the more reason to scram. Those KKK'ers don't like me any more than they like the cops. Besides, by staying put you are actively helping them, which is the last thing you want to do.

[SimonP]

Brett, I fully understand that you expect to be on the "winning" side of a fascistic takeover.

I just don't understand why you think it won't turn on you, in due course. You're not special or important enough.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't expect to be on the winning side. I expect to be on the losing side; I am now, why would that change?

But IF Trump wins, (Note that "if".) and Democrats then riot in an attempt to overturn that, yeah, insurrection act their asses.

[SimonP]

So your claim is that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act only if protesters were sufficiently riotous to try to overthrow the government? You don't think Trump would bring in the military to try to put down loud, unruly protests whose only offense is to him personally?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't think he would, and if he tried he'd find the system would turn on him.

Something you don't seem to have internalized is just how hostile to Trump the government as a whole is. He barely had the shallowest sort of control over the executive branch. You had bureaucrats using burner phones to discuss how to under cut him, a guy just retired from the State Department bragging about how they'd lied to him about troop levels, his own deputy AG wrote a memo about firing Comey and then sicced a special counsel on him for relying on it.

Give that bunch even the slightest excuse, and they'd hang him from the nearest lamppost. He's the LAST guy who could turn the US into a dictatorship.

The real dictatorship threat is from somebody the bureaucracy LIKES.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Since you clearly don't seem to be aware of the most basic facts of this discussion, I'll just leave this here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/trump-revenge-second-term/

[Nige]

‘and if he tried he’d find the system would turn on him’

Isn’t that why he’s promising to replace everyone he can with personal loyalists?

‘He’s the LAST guy who could turn the US into a dictatorship.’

Amazing. The guy is promising to turn the US into a dictatorship, but you’ll vote for him because you figure he won’t be able to. How shitty are your standards and your principles, exactly?

[David Nieporent]

Something you don’t seem to have internalized is just how hostile to Trump the government as a whole is. He barely had the shallowest sort of control over the executive branch. You had bureaucrats using burner phones to discuss how to under cut him, a guy just retired from the State Department bragging about how they’d lied to him about troop levels, his own deputy AG wrote a memo about firing Comey and then sicced a special counsel on him for relying on it.

Something you don't seem to have internalized is that this is pure conspiracy theory delusion, and mostly lies. Take the last one, for instance: Trump decided to fire Comey to stop the Russia investigation. Then he ordered Rosenstein to write a memo about why Comey should be fired. Rosenstein wrote a memo saying that Comey was mean to Hillary. Needless to say, this was not what Trump "relied on."

The "burner phones" thing is a fabrication, as I've pointed out before; your sole source for this says something entirely different.

Moreover, Trump learned his lesson from Sessions and Barr and Milley and such: he's only appointing people with personal loyalty to him in a second administration. Not people who believe their actions in office are constrained by law and the constitution.

[Heedless]

I’ll bite: The problem is that you assume that the gloves aren’t already off.

What makes it hard to see is that Trump is both guilty and persecuted. The federal charges, particularly on the classified documents, are solid, but the New York prosecution is tissue paper thin bullshit.

The Russian collusion hoax was a smear campaign that numerous defense agencies took seriously, even when they knew that the underlying justification was fraudulent. It was an attempt to undermine a sitting president by people who had an oathbound responsibility to work on behalf of the administration.

Liberals generally don’t notice or don’t care, because they think Trump is awful (which he is), and that therefore anything bad that is done to him is to the country’s benefit (major logical fallacy). We already have the precedent of weaponizing the federal agencies against disfavored politicians. That’s why even you are referring to Trump’s plans as revenge.

I don’t disagree that a second Trump term would be a disaster, but that is because it would be a further extension of our already corrupt and ugly politics-as-lawfare, not because it wold be something new. And Trump would be constrained by the courts, the legislature, and by the natural inclinations of the federal bureaucracy. I would expect a great deal of sound and fury, but as the wall never got built in his first term, I would expect very little actual movement on revenge in his second.

[Sarcastr0]

Partisan feelings that Trump is persecuted as justification for violence against liberal protesters.

Owning the libs justifies the means.

[Heedless]

Please stop accusing me of advocating violence. "Gloves off" refers to a specific phrase in SimonP's original post that has nothing to do with violence.

It's obnoxious, and it makes you look really stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe I took gloves off differently than you meant. But bottom line you are justifying using the insurrection act against protesters because in your view Trump’s been treated unfairly. (by state AGs I guess?)

[Heedless]

Um, no.

I'm saying that we need to weigh the chance that Trump will manage to accomplish some of the things that SimonP is worried about (unlikely given that the entire federal apparatus will be opposed to him) against the chance that Democrats will accomplish some of the less awful but still bad items on their abuse of power wish list – suppressing online speech in the name of misinformation, mobilizing portions of the security state against a sitting president, etc. (much more likely, given that they have already accomplished both to some degree and the federal apparatus is largely on their side)

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sorry, weighing policy issues (with some dodgy understandings of the facts) over a crackdown on dissenting protest is not weighing like against like.

You're wat us to consider justifying authoritarianism from Trump (that you admit is bad) because the Democrats might pass laws you don't like.

You need to pull up and realize the priorities here. I was super missed at GWB's choices in office. I never weighed maybe overthrowing the election, or perhaps using the powers of the state to crack down on neocons.

[Heedless]

Weighing actual existing odious policies against fantasyland.

I could say I am worried that if Biden is reelected he will have all conservatives rounded up and put into FEMA concentration camps. That doesn't mean that if you don't immediately swear loyal to the Republicans that you are there for pro concentration camp. You might just think that my concerns are overblown and a little ridiculous.

Just to make this 100% clear, because you seem to be having a little trouble reading the subtext: I do not actually believe that Biden plans to round conservatives up and put them in camps. That was a hypothetical.

[Don Nico]

"as justification for violence against liberal protesters. Owning the libs justifies the means."

How in the world do you write replies to words that a commenter has never used in his post and then expect people to take your reply seriously.

This ploy, which you use all the time, is dishonest and transparently so.

[Sarcastr0]

The post is replying to an OP about Trump using the insurrection act against protesters.

It is in support of such an action, citing unfairness to Trump via the legal system.

[Don Nico]

Fine, then place it properly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It might build a consensus that certain tactics are unacceptable and that would be good.

[grb]

Heedless : “The Russian collusion hoax was a smear campaign…”

I’ve asked this before and got no answer back, but let’s try again: What is the “Russia collusion hoax” anyway?

1. The Justice Department Inspector General found the initial investigation of ties between Russia and the Trump campaign was warranted. So that’s not the R.C.H.

2. Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel came after Trump bragged about firing Comey to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” After that, a special counsel was inevitable. There’s no R.C.H. there either.

3. Mueller was actually one of the better special counsels in the whole sordid history of the species. He was quick, didn’t leak to the media, and proved excessively conservative in his findings. There’s no R.C.H. in his conduct.

4. And his investigation uncovered much unsettling detail. You had Don Jr. saying (in writing) he’d welcome secret help from the Russian government for Daddy’s campaign. Trump’s campaign head gave secret briefings to a listed Russian spy. Trump’s fixer Cohen went to Moscow throughout the campaign to negotiate a secret business deal with Kremlin officials. Trump associates discussing a bribe to Putin to sweeten that deal. Trump repeatedly lied when asked about his Russian business dealings. And (of course) you had Russian government assistance throughout the campaign to help make Trump president.

On and on and on. The complete list is much longer. There was never any lack of things discovered. No R.C.H. there.

So you have a legitimate investigation conducted by legitimate appointees in a legitimate manner who uncovered scads of legitimate grounds to investigate after underway.

Where is the “Russia collusion hoax” in all this ?!?

[Heedless]

The ties between the Trump campaign and Russia boil down to a single campaign manager who Trump impulsively promoted in the spring and fired in the summer.

The rest of it was bullshit.

The Steele dossier, bullshit.

Justifications for the wire taps, bullshit.

Claims that Trump was twisting US policy to Russia’s benefit, bullshit.

The special prosecutor came back with tax fraud and obstruction charges, even against their highest value Trump world suspects.

Russia’s “help” for Trump amounted to $100,000 in Facebook ads prompting conspiracy theories and a shockingly unsophisticated phishing email that somehow worked. If this was an attempt to get Trump elected, as opposed to a more generally attempt to sow chaos, it was a remarkably low rent one. Putin spends more on toilet fixtures.

More broadly, our intelligence agencies should never lie to the courts or to the American people to discredit an American citizen, much less a sitting president. They did so repeatedly. Even if you believe (and I am far from convinced) that there was some level of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians, that still does not make it OK for our intelligence agencies to exaggerate the scope or give credit to sources that they know or false in making the accusations.

Even if we accept your premise, it is the same pattern we have seen elsewhere: Trump does scummy things, but that does not change the fact that our intelligence and police apparatuses are coming after him for things he did not do and lying to the American people in the process.

The gloves are already off.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep saying 'the gloves are already off.'

So you've already chosen violence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lawfare is violence???

[Heedless]

I'm referencing a specific phrase used by the SimonP in the original post I replied to. It had nothing to do with violence then, and it has nothing to do with violence now.

If you are going to accuse people of advocating violence, it would be useful to read what they have actually written. You will look less like an idiot.

[grb]

Heedless : (assorted nonsense).

You really don’t know much about this subject, do you? I listed several ties between Trump, his associates, and his family that you chose to ignore – but they’re still there for everyone to see. For instance, all during the 2016 campaign Trump was secretly negotiating a massive business deal with Kremilin officals and the Trump organization discussed bribing Putin. Don’t you find that significant? Apparently Trump did, because he lied his ass off about his Russian business dealings throughout the campaign.

Here’s another one : During the transition, Kushner went to the Russians and asked them if he could use their secure communication lines to talk to the Kremilin. He didn’t want his own government to hear. (the Russians were astounded at the request)

As for Steele, he was right about Russian assistance to the Trump campaign, he was right about Russia hacking Clinton associates, he was right about Manafort talking to Russian spies, and he was right about Cohen having clandestine meetings with Russian officials. Hell, he was even right about the sex tape. Mueller established it existed, it was a forgery by Russian criminal elements behind the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant, and that Trump tasked Cohen to surpress it. Cohen used Russian-American businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze as an intermediary, who reported back: “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know….” Both men testified before Mueller’s grand jury.

As for Trump helping Russia, are you friggin dellusional? Trump relentlessly attacked and denigrated NATO. He was Putin’s wet dream come true.

As for Russia helping Trump, here’s another Mueller tidbit you are (of course) totally ignorant about: Russian Intellegence hacked Clinton friend John Podesta and then sat on the email they stole for over five months. So when did they begin leaking the messages? Mueller established it came less than one hour after the Access Hollywood story broke, knocking the Trump campaign back on its heel. Their boy was in trouble, so the Russians rushed to help.

You say “our intelligence agencies” lied repeatedly, but that is itself a lie. Personally, I don’t know if Trump ever approached the Russian for their assistence against his political oppoenent, but nobody can claim he wouldn’t or couldn’t. After all, he tried to extort just that kind of thing from the Ukrainians.

Please do a little research on this topic before you post again, willya?

[Heedless]

Jesus.

Rarely has so much self-satisfaction been supported to so little justification.

Let’s start with the most obvious: what exactly was Trump doing to “bash NATO?” He was bullying the Europeans into meeting their quotas for military spending. He was forcing NATO to become stronger. Now as you keep pointing out, I don’t really know much about this subject, but to me that looks like the last thing Putin would want. Especially when you combine it with the massive increase in American oil and natural gas exploitation.

Perhaps with your vastly superior intellect and historical knowledge, you can explain to me what I’m missing on this particular point.

[grb]

"There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.

Last year, President Trump suggested a move tantamount to destroying NATO: the withdrawal of the United States.

Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Current and former officials who support the alliance said they feared Mr. Trump could return to his threat as allied military spending continued to lag behind the goals the president had set.

In the days around a tumultuous NATO summit meeting last summer, they said, Mr. Trump told his top national security officials that he did not see the point of the military alliance, which he presented as a drain on the United States"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

NATO was created because Europe consisted of fragmented states, most of which had been bombed flat.

The European Union is now a sovereign nation but no national defense -- the EU should now adopt the responsibilities of NATO like any sovereign nation does. The US could still provide military aid to the EU if necessary, as we do to South Korea and Israel, we could even base troops there for logistical reasons, as we do in Japan, but they really should be dealing with Russia themselves.

[Martinned]

NATO was created because Europe consisted of fragmented states, most of which had been bombed flat.

That and the fact that Europe, unlike the US, lived right next door to the shared enemy of the US and Europe. (Still does, of course.)

[grb]

Donald Trump has suggested that under his leadership America would not necessarily come to the aid of a Nato ally under attack, saying he would first consider how much they have contributed to the alliance.

Speaking to the New York Times in Cleveland on the night before he was due to accept the Republican nomination for president, Trump also warned that, if elected, he would not pressure Turkey or other authoritarian allies to end crackdowns on political opponents or the suppression of civil liberties.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/21/donald-trump-america-automatically-nato-allies-under-attack

[grb]

The role of the United States in NATO has become a point of contention here between Mr. Trump and his chief rival, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, as the candidates battle to win the state’s 42 delegates in Tuesday’s primary. Mr. Cruz has criticized Mr. Trump’s comments on NATO, saying that the United States needed to support the organization’s fight against terrorism and to counterbalance Russia’s influence.

On Saturday, as he did in an interview with The New York Times last week, Mr. Trump painted the organization as old and out of date. “It was really designed for the Soviet Union, which doesn’t exist anymore,” Mr. Trump said. “It wasn’t designed for terrorism.”
Later, at an event in Wausau, Wis., Mr. Trump seemed to acknowledge the controversy his initial remarks about NATO had prompted. “I said here’s the problem with NATO: it’s obsolete,” Mr. Trump said, recounting his comments. “Big statement to make when you don’t know that much about it, but I learn quickly.”

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/02/donald-trump-tells-crowd-hed-be-fine-if-nato-broke-up/

[grb]

Yep. Let's start with the obvious, shall we?

[Heedless]

As seems to be your MO, not much delivered with great bravado.

You have candidate Trump blustering on the campaign trail, and President Trump engaging in some negotiational brinkmanship (a strategy of which he is far too fond). All of it is talk. If you want to show Trump acting on Russia’s behalf, you need to show him doing something.

Did he actually do anything to weaken NATO? No.

Did he make any changes to our defense commitments under the treaty? No.

Did he bully Europe into increasing their military spending? Yes.

I suppose you could argue that moving our European military command to Brussels and drawing down a third of the troops in Germany counts, but you would sound pretty stupid making that argument.

Ultimately, Trump left NATO a little stronger than he found it. Wriggle all you like, you cannot escape that basic fact.

[Sarcastr0]

All of it is talk.

This is overdetermined. By this, one must forgive those out of office all indications they will be authoritarian Russian stooges since they're not in office to make it real.

[Heedless]

Color me shocked that Trump's words and Trump's actions don't always line up perfectly.

You, I would expect, are even less impressed with his truthfulness than I am, so why on earth are you judging by his words, when we already have his actions plain to see.

[bernard11]

Color me shocked that Trump’s words and Trump’s actions don’t always line up perfectly.

Color me shocked that the Trump cultists are prepared to always argue that Trump doesn't mean what he says as a way of excusing his claims and promises, and assume he will be sensible.

I don't see much evidence of him being sensible.

[Nige]

'All of it is talk.'

You have to ignore what Trump says, and does, and focus on his ineffectiveness.

[Heedless]

So he was so ineffective at sabotaging NATO that he made it stronger despite his best efforts?

Please tell me you are not actually stupid enough to believe this.

[Nige]

He promised and talked about one thing; you claim the opposite happened. He certainly tried. Must be ineffectiveness.

[grb]

Heedless : “All of it is talk”

Three Points :

1. NATO is an international orginization composed of over thirty member states, each with its own outlook and objectives. Not surprisingly, “talk” becomes important when it’s the bilious rancor of a member leader. Particularly when that leader is the most important in the trearty organization.

No doubt you’re a Trumpian lickspittle, claiming the right to accept or ignore whatever verbal diarrhea flows from your man-child’s mouth. But foreign affairs are run by more demanding rules. There, what a President says has tremendous importance.

2. Or what he refuses to say. You ask: “Did he make any changes to our defense commitments under the treaty?” Officially, no. But President Trump made a big public show of refusing to commit to Article 5 over several months. This (of course) is the treaty obligation to defend another NATO member under attack. At least twice, members of his administration assured everyone he would in an upcoming speech, but Trump refused each time.

Eventually he did. But in a treaty orginization run on the faith of each member in the others, what message did all the other countries hear?

3. You act like Trump’s anti-Nato harranges were just campaign bluster. But President Trump was always rude and obnoxious to other NATO leaders at every event. The same man who would obsequiously fawn over despots and tyrants acted like a petulant terrible-two whenever cooped-up with other Western leaders.

[Heedless]

I don't particularly care for Trump. I didn't like him when he was a real estate blowhard in New York, I didn't like him when he was a loudmouth reality show host, and I liked him even less as a politician.

He was a terrible president, but that doesn't mean he was colluding with Russia. He was rude to just about everybody he stepped into a room with or got on the phone. That also doesn't mean he was colluding with Russia.

On the two matters of American policy most important to the Russians, NATO and oil, Trump left NATO in better military shape then he found it, and he increased American oil production and by extension decreased the price Russia could command for its oil.

The problem here is that you cannot separate liking Trump from accepting or rejecting a particular charge against him, which is why I am providing concrete examples of his actions, and you are presenting things that were part of his general character (rudeness), or that you know when your heart he would have liked to have done.

One of these is concrete evidence, and the other one is not.

[grb]

You keep saying Trump left NATO in better shape, apparently unaware there’s no evidence to support that.

(1) There was an agreement to increase NATO spending that existed before he took office.

(2) There was also a Trump call for Europe to increase defense spending even beyond that - higher than theU.S. percentages. But everone ignored that as an empty stunt.

(3) There were Trump speeches about all his fabulous accomplishments that were predictably all lies.

So which one of those things fooled you? It wouldn’t hurt to doublecheck your assumptions. You’re gonna find your pat statements are wrong.

[Heedless]

European countries have been promising for decades to increase their defense spending, but somehow it never seemed to happen.

Then Trump shook them out of their complacency and got them to actually do it. The rest is just whining.

That doesn’t make him a good president, but it does rather undercut your argument that he was a Russian stooge. Sometimes bad people do useful things. Sometimes they are accused of crimes they did not commit. Even if we can’t stand them.

And please stop with the needless pose of intellectual superiority. It's unconvincing and nobody is impressed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump also provided lethal weapons to the Ukrainians, Obama only gave them blankets. Which is more hostile to the Russians, anti tank weapons or blankets?

[Nige]

'Then Trump shook them out of their complacency and got them to actually do it.'

He tried to undemine NATO, but they rallied in the face of US instability and unreliability, is actually evidence he tried to undermine NATO.

[Heedless]

Yes, Nige, when the American president demanded that our NATO allies increase their spending, and they increased their spending, that is clear and convincing evidence that his dastardly plan all along was to weaken NATO.

And he would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids!

Seriously, are you fucking kidding me?

[bernard11]

All of it is talk.

Worst excuse ever. Utter bullshit, rationalizing stupid rhetoric.

"Let's not talk about what he says he's going to do. Let's talk about all the wonderful things I think he's going to do, whether they are in fact wonderful or not."

[shawn_dude]

"Liberals [...] think Trump is awful (which he is), and that therefore anything bad that is done to him is to the country’s benefit (major logical fallacy)."

The major logical fallacy there is "strawman." If liberals truly believe as you think they do, the court system is the worst option since it requires hard evidence. So, if they're right and he did commit real crimes, then it's hard to conflate holding him responsible for financial and other crimes as persecution. If they're wrong, then it requires some level of conspiracy to have so many DAs and prosecutors all willing to haul him and his family into court without sufficient evidence just to get even.

Ask yourself this: if one or more of these court cases ends up with guilty verdicts based on evidence and findings by a jury, will you still see it as persecution? And how would that differ from, say, the Gotti family?

[Dr. Ed 2]

WHAT "hard evidence"?!?

These are show trials -- if the DoJ had legitimate evidence of a crime, they'd say sure -- transfer this case to West Virginia and you can have a jury of coal miners if you wish.

If the DoJ had true evidence of crimes, legitimate crimes, they'd be bending over backwards to avoid giving him any grounds of appeal. Like they did with Whitey Bulger, they were shutting down a major highway to safely drive him to court, they had a solid case against a truly guilty man and they didn't want anything going wrong.

The problem with the Federal case is that the population of those who have violated this law is so small that a valid equal protection claim could be made and SCOTUS might agree. If Biden & Pence aren't prosecuted, ummm....

[Heedless]

Can't agree with that either.

The classified documents charges are pretty much a slam dunk. Trump cocked a snook at the justice department and dared them to charge him for it.

The election charges are a little trickier, but if they can show that he knew he lost the election, then he really does deserve to be in jail.

The New York charges are bullshit, I will grant you that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

First, "equal protection of the laws." You have no case if there are thousands of people speeding and you get stopped. But imagine there are only three chemical companies dumping toxic waste into the river, and the EPA only prosecutes one while letting the others continue with impunity?

Second is balance of power and the Congress no more has the authority to tell the President what hoops to jump through to declassify something than the President has to tell Nancy Pelosi how many National Guardsmen she must have protecting the Capitol.

In declassifying the U2 photos of Cuba, JFK gave the Soviets valuable information about what the U2's camera could (and couldn't) see. That is Presidential authority -- the same Authority Trump had to declassify anything he damn well pleased. If he actually did -- and wasn't lying about stuff being classified to impress guests. Anyone remember the issue about number of people attending the inauguration?

The Presidential Records Act is not completely clear on what belongs to the President and what belongs to the Archives.

And as to "knowing" he lost the election, define "knowing." Should every criminal defense attorney be disbarred -- they "know" that most of their clients actually are guilty, but unless the client actually admits that, they can have them on the stand saying things that the lawyer 'knows" ain't true.

Suspecting that something isn't true, even having a strong suspicion it isn't true, is a very difference from having actual indisputable evidence that it isn't true.

[David Nieporent]

I was tempted to use the Billy Madison macro again, but I'll instead respond:

1) a) The EPA doesn't prosecute people; DOJ does.
b) Selective prosecution is virtually never a successful defense. Especially class-of-one selective prosecution arguments. And of course that's nonsensical here since there's only one Donald Trump, not three.

2) You mean "separation of powers," and you misunderstood it as well as getting the name wrong. Of course Congress can tell the president what hoops to jump through to declassify things. He's not a king; his job is to carry out laws passed by Congress. And your analogy is equally wrong, because the president, not Nancy Pelosi, decides what the National Guard does. Pelosi has no authority to countermand an order the president gives in deploying such troops.

3) The Presidential Records Act is very very clear on what belongs to the President and what belongs to the Archives.

4) Criminal defense lawyers do not know that their clients are guilty, unless their clients tell them. They are not percipient witnesses. CDLs cannot ethically suborn perjury, though, no.

[Heedless]

As I said, I didn't think the federal charges are solid. The classified documents charges are a slam dunk, bar in jury notification, and while the election charges will turn on the question of whether Trump knew that he had lost the election, I think that Feds have a good case.

The problem is all the tacked on bullshit from the state charges. As OJ taught us, it's not ok to try to frame a guilty man either.

[David Nieporent]

"Frame" does not mean what you appear to think it means.

[Heedless]

That is, I DID think the federal charges are solid.

Stupid auto correct.

[shawn_dude]

There's already a finding that Trump committed fraud. It's a civil case so no prison is involved but it'll be expensive. I'm sure it'll be appealed but that won't change the evidence.

[Heedless]

I'm more thinking Bragg's prosecution than the civil stuff.

My sense is that the timing of those civil suits was politically motivated – they could have been rolled out any time in the last 20 years – but the substance is solid.

Trying to turn a porn star payout into election interference, on the other hand, is just insulting all of our intelligence.

[M L]

The last point is what I was thinking. Trump couldn't even build a wall. The intelligence agencies and the rest of the bureaucracy were not just fighting him at every step, they were actively trying to take him down. With the D.C. bureaucracy being like 99% Democrat, and the other 1% neocon kingpins and sniveling token "Republican" bureaucrats like James Comey (hyperbole but only a little), conservatives would have to fire most of the bureaucracy if they actually wanted to mirror image the leftists in broadly going after the other side with the IRS, FBI, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

It's OK to stress test our Republic by Trump trying to crack down on protests because you're sure it'll be okay due to everyone being liberal except for you and Trump.

This is some tangled justification.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight0, you have less faith in Federal employees than I do.

As long as the protesters aren't "breaching the peace" -- eg blocking highways, burning buildings, looting stores, etc. -- they'll tell Trump to go f*ck himself. Or just call in sick.

Conservative Federal employees (including military officers) are some of the most strident advocates of free speech you'll ever see. Their attitude is that it is a "free country" and you have a right to make a fool of yourself, as long as you don't hit people or break things. Or block highways because messing up other people's lives is not free speech, no matter how legitimate your cause.

So Gaslight0, it's the Leftist (not Liberal) Federal employees you appear to be worrying about. They will censor peaceful Leftist protests???

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Perhaps if you watched the movie, you would understand what the term means. It's available on a number of streaming services. Both Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman were excellent.

[grb]

M L : “Trump couldn’t even build a wall”

Sigh. None of this occured that long ago, but already people are substituting their fantasy myths for simple fact. Newsflash: Trump never cared about the wall a single minute.

In late 2018 Trump concluded budget negotiations with Congressional leaders and emerged to make an afternoon statement bragging about the result. As with the previous budgets, it contained no wall funding. This was because the wall was just an applause line for the dupes, rubes and chumps.

Only this time, Trump caught massive grief from wingers like Coulter and Limbaugh. By next morning, Trump reversed himself and suddenly insisted on wall funding. Thus the longest government shutdown in history resulted from Trump’s wild panic.

But your lesson, ML, is this: Trump wasn’t blocked from pursuing wall construction by nefarious deep state enemies. He never gave the slightest damn about it until half his presidency was over. He only care then because his rabid attack dogs were howling for red meat. The wall was always just an speech line to rile-up fools. Trump knew that. Why don’t you?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump didn't need a wall. He had illegal immigration essentially stopped.

[Nelson]

Wow. Even for Dr. Ed, that one is a whopper.

[bernard11]

Trump couldn’t even build a wall.

Right. And rather than attribute that to incompetence, or Trump's actual lack of interest, you construct a conspiracy by the entire civil service to obstruct the project.

Sheer idiocy.

[SimonP]

I’ll bite: The problem is that you assume that the gloves aren’t already off.

I am not interested in debating whataboutism.

And Trump would be constrained by the courts, the legislature, and by the natural inclinations of the federal bureaucracy. I would expect a great deal of sound and fury, but as the wall never got built in his first term, I would expect very little actual movement on revenge in his second.

Given that the conservative think tanks are planning to take down all of these guard rails - that is the express policy of Project 2025, to say nothing of what's been reported from behind the scenes - I am not sure how you can be so confident that this will remain the case. Tuberville is holding open positions in the military, the campaign is drawing up plans to fire large numbers of career bureaucrats, and they are recruiting people to put into those positions. Didn't we just see Mike Johnson - who had previously tried to use his position in the House to install Trump as president - win the Speaker's chair? They want to eliminate the independence of the DOJ and the Fed, as well as every other executive agency.

Here is a scenario. Tell me it's implausible. Trump wins in 2024. After four years of eroding the independence of all the agencies, he's surrounded himself with sycophants and cronies. He accepts that he cannot run again in 2028 and seems to support the Republican nominee. But after yet another hotly contested election, Trump declares that there are too many election irregularities, and sends the military to seize ballot boxes in several Democratic jurisdictions and declares the election invalid. No one knows what to do next. Judges installed in several red states reject legal challenges raised by states of state. Some smattering of electoral ballots make their way to Congress, but Congress refuses to count or "certify" them, asserting that the process has been too corrupted to be able to choose a President in accordance with the Constitution. Trump remains in office by default.

I'm not saying that's likely; it's certainly a bit fantastical. But given what they tried to do in 2020, I don't see how it's impausible, given what we know about Trump. We had lawyers advising Pence that he could unilaterally reject the counting of ballots; electoral slates, that they could submit their votes despite Trump losing their states.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Perhaps the Democratic jurisdictions should be careful to be slightly above reproach?

Maybe the 2020 election wasn't rigged, but damn it, you don't have that shoddy an election if you want people to trust its integrity.

[Nelson]

The 2020 election was no more or less shoddy than other Presidential elections. It was most noteworthy for its lack of noteworthiness. Then the GOP and Trump went insane. But the election itself was completely normal and ordinary.

[Krayt]

It's implausible. Nobody is gonna sit by while that happens.

Even a completely borked election (truly, not one lied about) would be handled properly. Nobody gets to remain president by default.

[shawn_dude]

January 6th says they won't sit by... they'll actively support it. (And smear poo on things just to underscore how serious they are.)

[Nige]

'Nobody gets to remain president by default.'

It's not even that big a leap after the efforts to install him when he lost.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Congress would pick a President.

[Martinned]

Well, the House of Representatives would, yes.

[Heedless]

2 points:

1) It's not whataboutism if you are making the (implicit) argument that this is a reason to vote against Trump. You are right, but not as strongly as you thought because there are comparable reasons to vote against Biden.

2) Trump doesn't need to cheat to win the red states, and he doesn't have the enough support in the purple states or the legislature to accomplish any of the things you are worried he might try.

Frankly, I find myself in a bit of a dilemma this election, because while Trump's intentions are clearly worse, I worry that the Democrats have a much greater ability to accomplish their less odious, but still quite nasty use of the federal bureaucracy to attack their political opponents and to restrict political expression online.

[shawn_dude]

Trump had enough pull on the legislature to get a strong majority of the Republican members of the House to try and stop the counting of the electoral votes and throw the election to the state legislatures. He had enough sway to gather a large group of fanatics, rile them up, and sic them on Capitol building. And he continues to have enough political authority to scare Republican senators and congresspersons to pretend they weren't scared for their lives when Trump's mob attacked them calling for Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence. He nearly pulled off a coup and still has strong support among Republican legislators and voters.

You'd say with a straight face that he wouldn't, if back in office with hand-picked loyalists in the military, DOJ, and other key posts, along with a Republican legislature that backed him even after he endangered their lives, be able to do even more harm to our constitutional republic? All to avoid a Democratic presidency that would let the DOJ prosecute criminals and some vague risk that Democrats would kill the first amendment? (In a world where Republicans are banning books and trying to make drag illegal, you're worried about Democrats and the first amendment?!)

You're also making the implied claim that while Trump is disempowered because of purple and blue states, that a Democratic president wouldn't be disempowered because of purple and red states. What, in your opinion makes Democrats more effective in country where Republicans control more state legislatures than Democrats do?

[Heedless]

There was no coup.

There was a pack of mouth breathing morons breaking into the capital building and scaring the crap out of the Senate. That was really awful, and they are now rightfully serving 2 to 5 in the federal pen, but it wasn't a coup.

They were never in a position to do more than delay the certification of the vote, Trump and his people were caught totally flat footed (there are even reports that he got into a fight with his Secret Service agents about going to the capitol, which would not have been the case if any of this had been planned), and the rioters only managed to do as much damage is they did because the capital police were woefully arrogant and unprepared.

I am very worried about what Trump and his cadre of yes men might do. I'm worried about trade policy, I am worried about China, I'm worried about the Middle East, I'm worried about Russia and Europe, and I'm worried about the orgy of corruption and winner picking that Trump's version of industrial policy would entail. I'm not worried about a coup.

[bernard11]

There was no coup.

There was no successful coup.

There was certainly a failed (and incompetent) coup attempt.

As someone said, all insurrections look farcical, until they succeed.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

What makes you think it was planned?

[bernard11]

What makes you think it was planned?

Why does it matter whether it was planned or not. Coups can be spontaneous. And of course there is evidence that some of the violent fascist groups were coordinating something like this beforehand.

[Nige]

'The Russian collusion hoax was a smear campaign'

That's a tell.

[Heedless]

It's a tell that you don't like what I have to say, but apparently have no counterargument.

[Nige]

grb summed it up quite well, I thought.

[Heedless]

It can be a little hard locate grb's point amid all he smug, but at least he has an argument. You do not.

[Nige]

His arguments are quite clear. My argument is simpler: anyone who uses the term ‘Russia collusion hoax’ while claiming to be even-handed, is not.

[Heedless]

I’m not even handed. I thought SimonP was wrong, and I said so. I also said why.

If you object, tell me why I am wrong. Otherwise, go away.

[Nige]

I refer you to grb again, he summed it up.

[bernard11]

Tell us why grb was wrong, why don't you, before asking someone else to repeat grb's points.

[Bob from Ohio]

"reporting suggests"

Lets go crazy because "reporting" feeds our fantasies.

Log off, get therapy, have a drink.

[Kleppe]

"I realize that few commenters here are unlikely to have much concern that Trump, once in office, would exact retribution against his perceived enemies"

Two things. First, you aren't going to scare me into not voting for Trump by saying that hypothetical future POTUS Trump would be worse than actual current POTUS Biden. That is just not persuasive argumentation.

Second, you realize that political retribution is being exacted *RIGHT NOW*, right? The primary political opposition to the current administration is facing dozens and dozens of criminal allegations across the country, all of which were brought by Biden loyalists or his own administration, and almost none of which even pass the straight face test. And while not criminal, the ongoing civil trial in New York is among the most egregious.

[Sarcastr0]

Justifying support for authoritarianism because it's the only weapon that will work against the other side, who are already authoritarian (even if only Trump supporters think so).

As noted above, it's established you think the boot is righteous and good; do you think you'll be safe from it?

[Kleppe]

Again, warning me about some spectral inchoate future wrongs is not persuasive as American conservatives are facing very real wrongs right now. Your question has been asked and answered, and the answer is "no"

[Sarcastr0]

And thus nothing Trump says or any of his people plan matters, because you’re mad at the libs.

This is an utterly unlimited rationalization for everything bad, since it won’t be bad till it happens.

Chalk you up as another who has discarded being a good citizen of a Republic because he can't stand losing elections.

[shawn_dude]

Every time a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, a Republican is wronged.

Every time a drag queen bursts onto the stage in a blazing glory of fabulousness, a Republican is left feeling empty.

Every time a student checks out “The Bluest Eye” in a school library, a Republican loses their smirk.

All these wronged Republicans crying out in agony as other people live their own free lives.

[Heedless]

The student is shortly going to lose their smirk too, because “The Bluest Eye” is boring, depressing, and vapid.

Stick with “Beloved.” It’s twice the book, and not just in length.

[Nelson]

I took a class with Toni Morrison. Listening to her talking about her thoughts on writing and the development of ideas in writing was mesmerizing, but the way she spoke was even more so. She had a cadence, combined with her slow pace and soft voice, that literally made me feel like I was coming out from under a spell when she stopped talking. Her books are great, but her presence was literally overwhelming in the best possible way.

[SimonP]

The responses I've received to my original comment have been informative. They tend to break into two groups. One group simply consists of "whataboutisms," usually premised upon some false description of things the Biden administration or his allies are doing. The other group claims that the institutions that constrained Trump during his first term would continue to hold in the second, so that there was no need to worry - despite the fact that Project 2025 and Trump himself have made extremely clear that they know what the institutional constraints were the first time around and they have a strategy for tearing them down, in a second term.

While both perspective illustrate different kinds of stupidity and ignorance, they're moreover apparently inconsistent with each other. Your comment here helps to illustrate the point. Because you are straightforwardly implying that the institutional constraints that supposedly would prevent Trump from effecting his worst agenda are useless against Biden and his allies.

I have one group of conservatives saying that things are awful, just awful, under Biden; while another is telling me that I needn't worry about Trump, because he wouldn't be able to pull off what Biden is apparently able to do without difficulty (without having campaigned on or planned for a "retribution agenda").

[Mr. Bumble]

Is this a great country or what?:

Bridgeport CT Democrat wins general election but must now run in new primary because of voter fraud.

https://pjmedia.com/gregbyrnes/2023/11/08/bridgeport-ct-prepares-for-democrat-primary-after-general-election-win-n4923756

[apedad]

Thanks for that election news.

Seems like there was some other election news lately too.

[Frank Drackman]

There was one?

[Mr. Bumble]

Feel free to post.

[apedad]

Don't quote me on this but Fox had a headline on Wednesday that read something like, "Republicans got fucked in the ass during yesterday's election," or something similar like that.

[Sarcastr0]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Magister]

Probably not consensual, since Republican devotion to incredibly unpopular issues and candidates doesn't mean they wanted it, but even if it were then somebody broke the "don't stick your dick in crazy" rule. Better to enjoy the schadenfreude without metaphors of sexual violence.

Fox News Left Shell Shocked by Dems’ Election Night Romp

Election night 2023 was a GOP disaster, and Fox News is pissed—killing off Youngkin’s candidacy before it existed and telling Republicans to set aside their abortion fixation.

A year after promising viewers a “red tsunami” in the 2022 midterms, only to be left with egg on their faces after the GOP drastically underperformed, Fox News was once again wondering what went wrong after Democrats romped to victory in statewide elections on Tuesday night.

[Sarcastr0]

Interesting where we go for our schadenfreude. It's a vice, but I absolutely went to patriots.win on Tuesday night.

[SRG2]

I find that schadenfreude is one of the more honest and sincere emotions

[Magister]

The Daily Beast link only turned up when I was searching for Fox News Tuesday night election results. Yesterday I went to CNN to find out the results, during my morning check that the world isn't ending (in which case I would not go to work). Plenty of schadenfreude in this thread alone.

[David Nieporent]

Fox News was once again wondering what went wrong after Democrats romped to victory in statewide elections on Tuesday night.

Where Democrats "romped to victory" was on an abortion referendum, not on elections. Dems have a reason to be satisfied with the results, but it was not some shellacking of GOP candidates.

[shawn_dude]

These days with tight margins, keeping control of the Virginia state senate and flipping the House of Delegates (with a small 3 person margin) was pretty successful in a state that had no other major ballot issues that might energize the left to vote for other reasons (like abortion.) "Romp" seems a bit exuberant for what was likely more of a "gritty slog," but that victory appears earned and is cause for some liberal pride in Virginia.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Every Democratic candidate defeated every Republican candidate in Pennsylvania's statewide judicial elections. The Supreme Court is 5-2 (and one of the Republicans was appointed by a Democratic governor).

The Democrat defeated the Republican for Kentucky governor.

Ohio was a rout.

Some Republicans (Ramaswamy, DeWine, DeSantis, Santorum) are rambling weakly about "getting better on messaging" and "getting voters to understand" and "sexy issues," and blustering about the strength of conservative positions, and pointing to the governor who won in Mississippi, but most of the sensible conservatives I have observed assessing Tuesday's results have acknowledged that the Democratic Party kicked the Republicans' asses. Some even have suggested that "direct democracy" is for the birds.

[SimonP]

So there are multiple things happening here.

"Ballot harvesting" is illegal in CT, but not necessarily fraudulent. Prohibiting it is ostensibly designed to prevent fraud, but there's nothing inherently fraudulent about being an election volunteer and helping people vote absentee - as long as the ballots are valid and actually voted by the people entitled to vote them.

One of the Bridgeport videos is hard to view as, shall we say, innocent. It seems very obvious from the context that the woman "stuffing" the absentee ballot box in that video was just filling out ballots and dropping them off in batches. If it what it appeared to be, that's definitely fraud, so it was good that the ballot box was monitored and the activity could be caught.

Re-running the election therefore seems like the best remedy, in that case.

But in other cases we may see someone dropping off a stack of ballots - again, likely illegal in CT, unless you qualify for an exception from the "harvesting" prohibition - without other clues that they were dropping off fraudulent ballots. There, we should be more careful about jumping to wild conclusions about "voter fraud."

[Mr. Bumble]

In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law or criminal law, or it may cause no loss of money, property, or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong. Wikipedia

[Brett Bellmore]

My view is that we create election procedures that are designed to make it hard to commit fraud and not get caught. People then do not follow the procedures, and you complain, "But, this doesn't prove fraud!".

Well, duh: That it could conceal fraud was exactly why ballot harvesting was outlawed in the first place!

[Sarcastr0]

Your priorities are pretty clear, yeah.

Ease of voting didn't even show up.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's right. Because we're so far from voting being hard at this point that it's disappeared over the horizon.

I get the impression you won't be satisfied until we are voting by psychic hotline, and you're poo-pooing the notion that Madame Sophia would ever lie about what she saw in that crystal ball of hers.

[Sarcastr0]

I disagree with your line drawing about where voting gets hard.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your idea of voting being "hard" is people actually having to do it in person if they don't have a good excuse for not being able to. Oh, and being required to show ID, that's all but impossible!

My idea of voting being hard is more like this.

[Sarcastr0]

You have indeed made it quite clear you don't much care if some of the riff-raff doesn't get to vote if it makes you feel secure.
My priorities are different. I do feel secure.

I also the opportunity to vote is a very important part of our civic fabric and I don't think it is at all clear more security meets the cost benefits of making it harder in order to chase a problem that is by all evidence quite rare and even more rarely material.

[Brett Bellmore]

I care very much about people not "getting" to vote, as in not being permitted to. I don't give a damn about people who don't "bother" to vote because they find showing up inconvenient.

[Sarcastr0]

Inconvenient can cover a multitude of sins.

[bernard11]

I don’t give a damn about people who don’t “bother” to vote because they find showing up inconvenient.

And you strongly endorse measures whose objective is to make voting as inconvenient as possible for people likely to vote for Democrats.

[bernard11]

I don’t give a damn about people who don’t “bother” to vote because they find showing up inconvenient.

Are you under the impression that "inconvenience" is randomly distributed over all potential voters? It's not.

Are you under the impression that partisan officials can't manipulate the degree of convenience or inconvenience experienced by different voters? They can, and do.

[SimonP]

You're opposed to voting being easy in ways that make it easier to conceal fraud.

I'm opposed to voting being hard in ways that make it easier to prevent people from exercising the franchise. (E.g., requiring in-person voting makes it easier for officials to suppress the vote, by limiting voting sites, failing to provide adequate numbers of ballots or voting carols, passing laws that make waiting in line a slog, etc.)

I think voting should be easy and secure. When I voted last Tuesday, I was able to walk down the street to my site, walk in without a line, present my voting card, grab a ballot, fill it out in a few minutes, and walk out. That might not be possible during crunch times in presidential election years, but it should be what we aim for.

[bernard11]

Get real, Brett.

"Showing up in person" often means:

Getting to an inconvenient polling place.

Waiting in line for an unreasonable length of time - in November. (And of course no water or snacks to be distributed).

Missing work, or finding someone to care for the kids.

Being unable to vote because an emergency arose.

etc.

Of course, in the pleasant suburbs there are plenty of poll workers, so waits are short, and there's a place to park your car, and people can fudge their work schedules, etc. Not true everywhere.

Brett,

All your complaints amount to one thing: you don't like Democrats voting. You cover it with BS about fraud.

Listen to yourself: "The reason no one can find significant fraud is the the fraudsters (all Dems, of course) have rigged it so the fraud is impossible to find. That there is no evidence of conspiracy just proves how clever the conspirators are."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That’s right. Because we’re so far from voting being hard at this point that it’s disappeared over the horizon.

You're a comprehensive jerk, Mr. Bellmore. I would give you a pass with respect to your antisocial and ignorant behavior, consequent to your on-the-spectrum issues, if you weren't such a profound and belligerent jerk.

Let us know when you find Obama's Kenyan Muslim communist birth certificate, or unlock the QAnon key.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What needs to be understood is that Republicans were outspent 5:1.

Sadly, when you are outspent 5:1, you simply are not going to win, no matter how good your message is.

The Democratic party is now the party of the rich -- yet somehow manages to deny that....

[Krayt]

So the Repubs just got their ass beat.

It's ironic they defend infinite amounts donated for ads, while Democrats want to unconstitutionally limit it. Go figure.

[Magister]

Democrats spent more than Republicans in the recent election, but not 5 to 1.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/11/07/election-day/dems-outspent-gop-00125836

That might only be spending on ads, but I cannot imagine that the Democrats spent enough otherwise to reach the margin that Dr. Ed 2 claims.

[Nelson]

Are you surprised that Dr. Ed said something that wasn't true?

[Michael P]

Bernie Goetz, call your office!

https://nypost.com/2023/11/08/metro/photos-show-vigilante-suspect-who-fired-shots-in-nyc-subway/

[Frank Drackman]

Of course, the good guy gets arrested,
by the time Litigation James,
Merrick the Elephant Man Garland, and Kathy Horseface get done with him, he'll wish he shot himself.

Frank "forget it Jake, it's New Yawk"

[Michael P]

And possibly this was Bernie Goetz's lawyer?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12728101/kenneth-darlington-panama-climate-change-protesters-shoot-dead.html

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

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

THREE (3)

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

FORTY (40)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
40 different, distinct discussions
that include racial slurs,
not just 40 racial slurs; many
of those discussions have
featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the broader, incessant stream of
gay-bashing, misogynist, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, transphobic, and
immigrant-hating slurs and other
bigoted content published daily
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the receding,
disaffected 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 right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile.

This is a good one, too.

(Don continues to perform at a high level; if you have a chance to attend a show, don't miss it.)

[Krayt]

Trans Catholics can be baptized now. I suppose some will wonder whether an imaginary god is actually getting mad at that or not.

[shawn_dude]

While I'm sure there are some trans Catholics, I'd imagine them to effectively be a sort of "unicorn" Catholic where they are willing to subject themselves to a lifetime of abuse by their fellow religionists while never able to hold equal positions of authority in their church, rather than simply shift to another Christian church or abandon their faith entirely (as many LGBT persons do.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

My Christian church considers them mentally ill.

[shawn_dude]

When the patients run the asylum, that's to be expected.

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, what is your Christian church’s medical and mental health training and diagnostic experience?

Some churches believe in demon possession and practice exorcisms. Do you regard such a belief and practice to be valid?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm -- no.

Now as to the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", we aren't quite where we were 300 years ago, and I think that is a good thing...

[Magister]

Is this the same Dr. Ed 2 who thought it reasonable to employ deadly force against witches? Maybe Dr. Ed 2 is not in the same place as three months ago, but it's unlikely to be a better place.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/09/alleged-psychic-intuition-isnt-enough-to-make-a-federal-claim-plausible-enough-to-withstand-dismissal/?comments=true#comment-10191157

[BrotherMovesOn]

"My Christian church considers them mentally ill."
Maybe they think they're possessed.
They (and you) probably think Bridget Bishop was righteously dealt with.

[bernard11]

My Christian church considers them mentally ill.

Your "Christian" church needs to stay well away from medical matters. They have no basis whatsoever for forming diagnoses about mental illness, or anything else, for that matter.

Didn't Jesus preach humility? Seems like that would preclude someone from claiming technical knowledge they don't have, all the more so when the BS claims lead to actual harms to actual people.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How is baptism of trans Catholics associated with the Volokh Conspiracy's steady stream of conservative, faux libertarian bigotry?

[shawn_dude]

It's a stretch, but my best take is that, like Reason.com, the Catholic church has gained a reputation for being cruel and aggressively harmful to those that don't share it's beliefs. The trans baptism story is a PR move to try and mitigate decades of homophobic drum-beating out of time with the rest of humanity. Perhaps its a message to Reason.com to find a better shade of lipstick.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How is that relevant to this blog's incessant right-wing bigotry?

[Dr. Ed 2]

" I suppose some will wonder whether an imaginary god is actually getting mad at that or not."

How did Indulgences work out in the end?

Of course the Bible does warn about an AntiChrist -- and I'm not sure that is (a) singular or (b) fixed at one point in time. It's so much nicer being a Congregationalist where we can vote to fire the minister at the annual church meeting... 🙂

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

We're all gonna die.

[apedad]

American household debt increases by $78 billion: report
A new report found that American households increased their total debt by $78 billion in the third quarter of 2023.

The study, released Tuesday by WalletHub, found the average amount of total debt owed by U.S. households at $145,319 at the end of the third quarter. It is $13,631 below the all-time high, set back in the fourth quarter of 2008.

“Consumers typically rack up the most debt during the fourth quarter of the year as we spend excessively on holiday gifts and travel, so it’s not a good sign when we enter the final few months of the year with a lot of new debt,” John Kiernan, the Managing Editor at WalletHub, said in a statement emailed to The Hill.

“Given how Q3 played out, WalletHub is now projecting that U.S. households will end the year with $350+ billion more debt than they started with,” Kiernan continued.

The collective debt owed by U.S. households heading into the fourth quarter of 2023 is $17.3 trillion, the report said.

https://thehill.com/business/4298149-american-household-debt-increases-by-78-billion-report/

No comment, just a datapoint.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Could people be buying more houses, at higher prices?

If so, considering residential mortgage debt a problem seems dumb, even for a "financial analyst" whose credential is a relatively fresh journalism degree.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does Kirkland remember 2008?

[Frank Drackman]

the "Reverend" doesn't have to worry about housing costs,
he's got a 40+ yrs "Zero Interest" deal at
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

🙂

[Sarcastr0]

The election seems to show that 1) abortion is still kicking the GOP, 2) There was overreach on parental sex book panic and trans stuff; it remains to be seen if the issue itself has receded. 3) the economy didn't seem a sufficient electoral spur, at least in an off-year.

Bottom line, the GOP has some evidence it should pivot from it's current choice of issues.

But there isn't really a lot of agreement on issues across the current GOP coalition. That's what happens when your common cause is owning the libs.

Of course, a year in politics is a long long time, with who knows how many shutdowns and Hunter Biden dick pics ahead of us, so anything could happen.

[Nige]

It is somewhat heartening to think that every cent of every million spent on anti-trans messaging was effectively either set on fire or gifted to the opposition.

[apedad]

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) says his state’s vote Tuesday to enshrine abortion rights “was a gut punch” for anti-abortion officials such as himself.

In a lengthy post online, Vance, who campaigned against the effort to ensure abortion access, attempted to parse out why the measure won with support from nearly 57 percent of voters.

“For pro lifers, last night was a gut punch. No sugar coating it,” he wrote.

“We have to recognize how much voters mistrust us (meaning elected Republicans) on this issue,” he added.

[Sarcastr0]

It was interesting how neither side really offered a middle ground solution. At the maximal level, looks like we're pro-choice.

But that misses a lot of nuance. Where the lines of compromise are remains to be seen. Whether either sides policy leaders can countenance a compromise is also a question.

The pro life side better start thinking along those lines, though. Some flex could give them some pretty strong wins. If they insist on 100% looks like they will lose and take down their party with them.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s the price we pay for being against less (fewer?) babies of color being killed.
Think how many Floyd Georges won't be born, grow up to be Wife beaters and overdose on Fentanyl!

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

The problem may be that there does not seem to be any real interest in babies of color. There is the talking point but little else. Woman of color tend to have more health issues in pregnancy. So, what is likely to produce more babies of color, more abortion restrictions or better health care for these women?

[Mr. Bumble]

Less unprotected sex?

[Frank Drackman]

I guess "Stop Smoking Crack" could be considered a form of "Better Health Care"

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Women of color have more trouble with pregnancy because of poor lifestyle choices. 0besity, smoking, drugs, & STDs -- and then the secondary of blood pressure & blood sugar being too high. There's more but these are the big ones.

But we can't say this....

[Nige]

...or people might begin to wonder why the US squeezes so many people of colour into poverty.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The pro-choice side currently is the middle ground solution. Despite Republican messaging, the vast majority of pro-choice voters (not to mention the laws and Roe) do not want (allow) unrestricted abortions up until birth. Viability with later exceptions for life/health of the mother is the compromise position. It's madness to suggest otherwise. This is why the pro-choice side keeps winning. Roe is the compromise position.

The anti-abortion side wants no abortions for anyone. They just want to keep ratcheting things down to the point where, at best, there is an illusory right to have an abortion. Essentially, they'd like to "compromise" to a limit to abortions at two weeks, but nobody knows they are pregnant yet and there's a three week waiting period before you can get said abortion.

[Defenderz]

<They just want to keep ratcheting things down to the point where, lt;at best, there is an illusory right to have an abortion.

Sounds like the anti-gun rights political left.

[shawn_dude]

Since the "anti-gun rights political left" that you describe is such a tiny, tiny fringe, whereas the anti-abortion political right is a majority GOP position, the comparison you're trying to make doesn't work.

The more reasonable comparison between the two would be the majority left position that background checks and licenses be required for all gun ownership.

[Defenderz]

No, it's not a tiny, tiny fringe. It's the mainstream Democratic Party. Supporting private sale background checks, bans on "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazines" and "sensitive places" legislation for carry, are extreme positions supported by the mainstream Democrats. It's not a fringe at all.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Supporting private sale background checks, bans on “assault weapons” or “high capacity magazines” and “sensitive places” legislation for carry, are extreme positions

At a bigot-hugging blog for gullible gun nuts, that point probably makes sense.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There are three types of "pro-life" people

Reasonable ones: these people manage to recognize that some situations are incredibly difficult and that as much as they hate elective abortion they're able to understand doctors and women need flexibility. In terms of general moral outlook, they probably have more in common with people who vote pro-choice.

Maximialist liars: These are people who want maximalist bans, but lie about what they want to do, lie about the effects of their position, and every time a horror story comes around they lie about either its existence or pretend that their maximalist policy would have permitted the abortion.

Maximalist truth-tellers: these are the people who want maximalist laws, are up front about it, and openly and enthusiastically embrace horrors as a positive good.

The reasonable ones can't shake the taint of the maximalist groups. The maximalist truth tellers sound insane. And people don't trust the maximalist liars.

[shawn_dude]

The "reasonable ones" were probably okay with the Roe v Wade outcome. The rest aren't and they're in charge of the GOP. In conservative Ohio, 43% of this week's voters were part of "the rest."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These distinctions will become increasingly irrelevant over time. The anti-abortion absolutists will continue to fail in America, and the more reasonable abortion opponents will see their preferences dragged down with the bigotry, superstition, and other right-wing failure they hitched their political wagon to.

Aligning with the losing side of the culture war, the wrong side of history, and the weaker side at the marketplace of ideas has consequences.

[OtisAH]

I have no idea where you get the idea there is “compromise” on the anti-abortion side or what more compromise you think should come from the choice side. Or how you could possibly believe any MAGA compromise, if presented, is offered in good faith.

The states rights argument was for ending Roe. Talk of a national ban immediately followed. The fact some people are becoming quieter about a national ban means nothing. Any perceived MAGA compromise or moderation on the subject — 15 weeks instead of 6 weeks, or grudgingly accepting exceptions for incest/rape, for instance — is solely intended to elect people who, if and when given the opportunity, will install or at least acquiesce to a full ban.

I mean, seriously, you’re a little younger than me I think but we’ve both been watching this battle our entire lives. Literally nothing changes or has changed except: a) every few cycles MAGA candidates get a little more clever in how they disguise their intentions publicly, and b) we’re in, but possibly nearing the end of, a previously unheard of cycle where they’re letting their full freak flags fly.

[Sarcastr0]

6 weeks with no exceptions is clearly a non-starter. In some of these red states, I'm not sure that there aren't some lines that would get public support.

But the pro life folks may not see it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody who isn't knocking on the door of a lunatic asylum is demanding 6 weeks with "no" exceptions. Are you ever going to stop lying about that? EVERY state, every last state, permits abortion to save the life of the mother. EVERY state.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Four justices on the Oklahoma Supreme Court dissented in a case where the majority declared there is a right to terminate a pregnancy when it threatens the mother's life.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, gee, they were the dissent. You got anything better than a losing dissent in one court case?

The Republicans' problem is that the Democrats dominate the media, and so the Republicans get portrayed as no exception extremists no matter what the truth is.

Here's a pro-choice site listing abortion laws. See all those states listed as "Total ban on abortion"? Let's look at one.

"Alabama is enforcing a total ban on abortion", says the guide. Then you click on the link, and they' instantly backpeddle: "Abortion is completely banned in Alabama with very limited exceptions" Get it? No exceptions except for the exceptions!

"Exceptions are very limited and include:

To save the pregnant person's life
To prevent serious risk to the pregnant person's physical health
If the fetus is not expected to survive the pregnancy."

They lied about abortion being totally banned in Alabama. Lied.

Let's try another one.

"Arkansas is enforcing a total ban on abortion".

Oh, wait, click on the link, and it's "Abortion is completely banned in Arkansas with very limited exceptions.

Exceptions are very limited and include:

To save the pregnant person's life."

Oops. Lied again.

Maybe Idaho? Oops, lied about that one, too. Lied about Indiana, too. Lied about Kentucky. I'm noticing a pattern here.

Every last state they said had a total ban on abortion actually had exceptions. Every one.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Nobody who isn’t knocking on the door of a lunatic asylum is demanding 6 weeks with “no” exceptions."

You said this. I pointed out that four justices on a state supreme court were prepared to allow just that. If just one flipped there would be a state where a mother did not have a constitutional right to her own life if balanced against that of a fetus. Are they knocking on the door of a lunatic asylum?

As for your "lies" it seems both you and that site are playing with language. I mean you object to characterizing it as a "total ban" because they'll allow women to survive a dangerous pregnancy. But that's not really much of an exception if a woman has to be near death in practice before the pregnancy can be terminated.

If I said that "its not a total gun ban, you can have a single shot musket" you would be apoplectic. I don't see how "its not a total ban, a doctor can terminate if she's septic" is any different.

[Brett Bellmore]

Does the word "total" have a meaning? Seriously, does it? Or does it mean the same thing as "partial"? Why did they use that word adjective, anyway? They could have just put that “Abortion is completely banned in Alabama with very limited exceptions” on the front page, but they went out of their way to put something on the front page which was objectively false.

As I said, the Republicans' problem is that the Democrats control the media, so ANYTHING Republicans do about abortion will be reported as a complete ban. I pointed out this site just as an example of that sort of lie.

Who do I blame for this problem? I blame the Republicans. They LET the Democrats get that dominance. The Stupid party, indeed.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Be honest, if Gavin Newsom said “its not a total gun ban, you can have a single shot musket” would you be getting super pedantic about the meaning of the word "total." Would you accept "ban with limited exceptions" as a correct and accurate characterization of the policy? Or would you correctly recognize that such a characterization is the height of disingenuous bullshit?

[Commenter_XY]

LTG...Others were playing with the language (were you?). Brett merely highlighted that.

Dobbs is working exactly as it should. People are deciding the abortion question for themselves. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Republicans’ problem is that the Democrats dominate the media,

The Republicans' problem is the racism.

And the transphobia.

And the old-timey religion.

And the misogyny.

And the gay-bashing.

And the hatred of ignorance.

And the economic inadequacy of conservative backwaters.

And the Islamophobia.

And the disdain of science to flatter childish superstition.

And the authoritarian prudishness.

And the antisemitism.

And the gun nuttery.

And the pining for illusory "good old days."

And the conflict of Republican preferences with modernity, science, education, inclusiveness, reason, freedom, and the reality-based world.

[Sarcastr0]

Nobody who isn’t knocking on the door of a lunatic asylum is demanding 6 weeks with “no” exceptions. Are you ever going to stop lying about that?

Yes, if the mother will die there is an exception. But the issue in Ohio was that there was no exceptions for rape or incest.

That is the usual parlance of 'no exceptions' but if you took that wrong, then let me correct the record.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also don't forget that the life and risk of serious physical harm exceptions are drawn narrowly too, and no one knows when exactly they should kick in. Yost and other liars claimed the ten year old obviously could have had an abortion under the risk of serious physical harm exception because a child giving birth that young is inherently risky. Except that was very unclear both from the statute and her medical condition at the time. It might have been the case down the line...but you'd have to make the poor girl suffer to get to the point where a doctor could make that medical determination.

[Brett Bellmore]

They are drawn narrowly because there's a track record of abortionists abusing not so narrow language to treat the ordinary risks of pregnancy as medical necessity, even simply not wanting to give birth as a mental health emergency.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you're going to make exception very narrow to thwart the medical determinations of actual doctors familiar with the patient based on your wild speculations, maybe don't complain when people characterize what you're doing as a "total ban"

[Sarcastr0]

Is there such a track record, or is it something that LifeSiteNews insists is a big thing? Because I've seen little proof and lots of right-wing ipse dixit about that.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Improving the statute didn't require an amendment. Simply specifying a "substantial risk [in Ohio law, substantial means non-remote, or non-trivial] to the life of the mother" rather than "necessary to avoid" would have gone a long way.

[Magister]

Some states only allow affirmative defenses on that basis, not exceptions. In any case, doctors have to decide how much to risk their patient's life with only vague guidelines, and the belief that such exceptions would be administered with any compassion is delusional.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : ” ….. knocking on the door of a lunatic asylum …..”

As with so many issues, Brett seeks to construct a narrative out of whole cloth where his stance is repositioned to “reasonable moderation”. In the case of abortion, this involves two things.

First, six-week bans (before many women even realize they’re pregnant) are “reasonable” because the Right-wingers aren’t willing to let pregnant women die. Of course that’s a given and I (a Leftie) willingly admit only a microscopically tiny percent of the anti-choice movement are willing to priorotize the fetus over the woman in a life threatening situation.

Everybody who talks about “exceptions” is discussing other issues, such as rape or incest pregnancies. Brett knows this, but his dissembling is a twofer: He gets to whine about press coverage and boast how “reasonable” our home-grown Taliban is because they won’t let women die.

Second covers the other side, where Brett (a Rightie) is unwilling to admit only a microscopically tiny percent of the pro-choice movement support abortions past the point of fetus viability. In fact, he shameless lies about this, over and over and over. Bullshit seldom reeks so foul as Brett’s insistance abortion occurs at the point of birth (or just after!) wherever the satanic Left holds sway.

But he needs those trash lies. Having created a phony “moderation” in six-week bans, he needs to create a phony “extremism” with his fantasy ninth-month abortions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, it isn't even called an "abortion" -- there's a different term for it.

[Zarniwoop]

I think LTG’s categorization is pretty decent, at the level of generality is offers. I think that a more granular analysis could perhaps tease out subcategories in the “reasonable ‘pro-life’“ bucket, but LTG doesn’t seem wrong here.

One could probably make a similar categorization of the “pro-choice” side here, from ”generally in agreement with Roe/supporters of the OH amendment approach” (lots and lots of people) to “true maximalists” (incredibly rare, but I’m sure some nut jobs are out there).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sarcast0, the pro life folks did a terrible job of advertising.

Most parents would want to know BEFORE their 14-year-old daughter had an abortion. They may be (and are) pro choice zealots but STILL would like to have to give their permission.

And the mistake was not selling the message in that way.

[shawn_dude]

Hey folks! We're going to enact a very restrictive abortion ban which, while not exactly a total ban, will effectively function nearly the same as one. So all you women out there, be on notice that we own your reproductive systems! Oh, and also, we're going to treat your 14-year old daughters the same way, even if she's pregnant with her own sibling, which should encourage you to vote in our favor!

Yeah, that would have totally sold it!

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Even though we vote on issues every year, a marvelous number of Ohioans are ignorant of the fact that they can put most anything the General Assembly passes on the ballot in the form of a referendum - before it can even go into effect. The incorrect assumption that a bunch of old sleazy people (they are) at the Statehouse could enact any awful thing without any remedy, coupled with a reasonable sounding (it really wasn't so reasonable) amendment likely tipped the scales in favor of passage.

[shawn_dude]

“We have to recognize how much voters mistrust us (meaning elected Republicans) on this issue."

Interesting that he said "mistrust" rather than "disagree."

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not to give Vance too much credit, but mistrust is also a big part of it, especially in Ohio. How are you supposed to persuade people about the moral correctness of the argument if the people making it are exposed as consistent liars? Ohio republicans were consistently from the time Dobbs came down to November 7.

[shawn_dude]

In a Trumpian, post-truth world, the answer is simple: You trust the people who tell the lies you want to believe.

I sometimes cannot tell the difference between a Republican who believes the stuff they're saying and the ones that don't but say it anyway. So it may be that Vance believes what he's selling. But if he's the other sort, his real questions is "why didn't this work when I told all the right lies?!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fifty-seven percent. In Ohio.

Good luck making your way along the road of modern American progress, clingers. Your betters will be waiting.

[Nige]

They're going to go for a federal ban. Then divorce, then contraception.

[shawn_dude]

They’ll get their anti-LGBT agenda passed between the nationwide abortion ban and going after divorce. Divorce affects rich men who want younger wives (see: Trump) so it’s going to be a harder sell without chumming the waters with more red meat first.

[David Nieporent]

No, they're not (wrt the last two). This is just catastrophe porn.

[Nige]

Wishful thinking more like. How can they make themselves not just unpopular, but universally loathed?

[shawn_dude]

I'm not sure I'm buying divorce but contraception I can see. They'd just need to devolve it to the states and then blame local control for why individual states are cruel. They could start by banning access to minors and free handouts in places where minors might be present. If they feel they're on solid ground banning books and enforcing gender taboos, a condom is easy. (The pill is already considered an abortifacient so that might not even need to wait for a new law if they can figure out a way to kill abortion meds in general.)

[Nige]

No-fault divorce, at least.

[not guilty]

There doesn't appear to be any movement to abolish divorce, but contraception is a different matter. Too many folks have the mistaken notion that some contraceptive methods act as abortifacients. https://www.hli.org/resources/abortifacient-brief-intrauterine-device/ It is not inconceivable (pun intended) that some state legislature could criminalize sale/use Plan B or IUDs. Such a measure would be plainly unconstitutional under Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), but all bets are off as to whether the current SCOTUS would revisit those decisions.

[Nelson]

I believe Clarence "pimp my ride for free" Thomas has already expressly stated his desire to take on Griswald and Obergafell in his Dobbs concurrence.

Those seem to be just waiting for some test case from the right fringe.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, I wish a lot more politicians would speak with the same forthrightness and humility that Senator Vance did. DC would be a much better place.

[Nelson]

Ignoring the clear will of the voters on abortion is, admittedly, forthright. It's the exact opposite side of the spectrum from "humility".

When a message is as clear as the one Ohioans sent about abortion and your position isn't "this is what the vast majority of my constituents believe, but fuck those guys", it is the most extreme display if arrogance possible.

[Commenter_XY]

That is not how I understood the Senator's comments, Nelson.

Team R is addressing the issue of abortion incompetently; Vance called it out. He is right.

[Nelson]

No, team R is wrong on abortion. That's what the message was, but team R won't accept that.

[Nelson]

"Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) says his state’s vote Tuesday to enshrine abortion rights “was a gut punch” for anti-abortion officials such as himself."

Which is why the GOP is likely to get steamrolled in 2024 unless they change direction quickly.

A reasonable person would have looked at a double-digit loss in a dark red state and think, "Hm. Apparently my constituents, whom I'm supposed to represent, vehemently disagree with our attacks on abortion. I should reflect their position in the Senate.". But Vance's take? "We have to recognize how much voters mistrust us (meaning elected Republicans) on this issue,".

It's not about trust. It's literally a simple message: stop trying to eliminate abortion before viability.

But I doubt any Republican will understand such a simple message or respect the moral reasoning ability of the 2/3 of Americans who keep telling them to cut it the fuck out.

So brace for 2024. When the Rs lose the Senate, House, and White House specifically because they didn't listen to the voters, you'll hear a myriad of reasons, but none of them will be the true reason:

Republicans don't listen to voters. They only hear what they want to hear. And on abortion, they will never listen.

[apedad]

Facing the press on the steps of Virginia’s Capitol, Gov. Glenn Youngkin was direct about how he felt about Tuesday’s General Assembly elections.

“I’m a little disappointed, to be clear,” Youngkin said Wednesday in his first public remarks about the outcome.

Nearly halfway through his four-year term, the Republican governor had spent enormous amounts of time and money trying to help the GOP hold the House of Delegates and flip the state Senate. Instead, Democrats held the Senate and flipped the House, an outcome that leaves Youngkin with less legislative power than he had before.

(I'm particularly proud of this one since I voted in the [Great State of Northern] Virginia.)

[Sarcastr0]

As did I 😛

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, sounds just like Barry Hussein Osama in November 2010

[Defenderz]

Fairfax, Loudon, Arlington and Alexandria should be ceded to Maryland. They're a cancer on the rest of the state.

[apedad]

Definitely agree (with the cancer part, not the ceding part)!

I wholeheartedly (and indeed actively) support the “cancer” that is killing off 17th century values that many southern-county Virginians still hold.

From the Great State of Northern Virginia (and those other, inferior places)!

[Defenderz]

Electing transgender she-men is not a value that should be lauded.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Lemme just add another bigot to the muted list.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Can you mute a Conspirator? I thought not.

[Defenderz]

To add to it, there's nothing great about NOVA. It's filled with immigrants and government employees.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators.

And the reason strong, mainstream law schools are disinclined to hire movement conservatives. It's mostly the bigotry, of course, but also the antisocial backwardness and the superstition-drenched, belligerent ignorance.

[apedad]

Danica Roem becomes Virginia’s first openly transgender state senator

New Jersey elects first openly LGBTQ woman to state legislature

Gabe Amo elected as Rhode Island’s first Black congressman

(The poor, white, American [cis-gender], male . . . .)

*****tear runs down the cheek*****

[Frank Drackman]

So 3 men got elected? Who gives a fuck?

[shawn_dude]

Hey, there's a lot of us white, American, CIS-Gendered men in the "LGB_Q" and allies grouping. We're happy to see these results. ...and richer for it, too. 😉

[David Nieporent]

Danica Roem becomes Virginia’s first openly transgender state senator

As someone commented on Twitter, they understand what the people who said this were trying to convey, but as phrased it kind of invited people to guess who the closeted trans ones in the past were.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The important point is that the Republican Party aligns with the obsolete, deplorable bigots of many stripes. As America continues to improve, this seems a stronger drag on Republican Party prospects (outside the most desolate, left-behind backwaters).

[Nige]

Since an outed trans pastor recently committed suicide, that doesn’t land as all that funny.

[Frank Drackman]

Smiths Station Alabama Mayor and Pastor of the Phenix City 1st Baptist Church F.L. (I'd say it stood for "Fucking Loser" if I didn't refrain from speaking badly about the daid') "Bubba" Copeland "outed" himself by posting on AlGores Internets, and he was also "outed" for publishing photos of minors and stalking and writing "murder porn" about a local businesswoman, nobody made him give himself a 40 Caliber asshole on his "haid".
https://1819news.com/news/item/to-say-i-was-a-stalker-would-be-a-bit-of-an-understatement-curvy-transgender-smiths-station-mayor-copeland-wrote-fiction-about-murdering-real-life-local-businesswoman-assuming-her-identity

Frank

[shawn_dude]

Do we know the pastor was transgendered? Transvestitism is still a sexual kink for heterosexual men. I'd still consider him a "Q" in the LGBTQ index, but I've seen nothing (and don't expect to) that necessarily points to him not being CIS-gendered.

[Nige]

Hmm, yes, that's ambiguous. Shitty either way.

[grb]

Today’s Right isn’t an ideology & the GOP hardly qualifies as a party. Instead, both are something like an entertainment conglomeration. They service a large consumer base, providing faifthful viewers with cartoon theatrics, gaudy fireworks, and pro-wrestling style thrills.

Therefore they don’t need substantive issues. Junk nonsense like CRT in the schools or the transexual threat are more effective entertainment than anything real. And basic competence in governance isn’t necessary since incompetence often provides a better show. And they absolutely don’t require serious politicians, (who rate as set extras at best), since the whole point is to give their viewers star entertainment acts like Trump, Desantis, Jordan, Gaetz, Greene and Boebert.

But what happens when the election fiascos start to pile up? When are lessons learned? We’ll see with the upcoming potential government shutdown. The Right will either continue to feed its consumer base yucks or they’ll morph into serious adults.

[Sarcastr0]

It's looking like they may soon need substantive issues. And they by and large don't have them; it was declining and then Trump.

I also think their leadership woes are related. When there is no substance around which to do horse trading, it becomes a pure power struggle and that's a much less tractable place to be.

I spent some time looking for other forums to be an contrarian on...VC is kind of as intellectual as the right gets these days, at least in places open to public comment.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What about FreeRepublic, Instapundit, RedState, Stormfront, National Review, Gateway Pundit, PowerLine, etc.?

[SRG2]

It's the White Grievance Party - and the more they lose, the stronger their grievance, which makes it hard for them to react rationally.

[Defenderz]

They're losing because they're being replaced. It's not a matter of right and wrong, but about raw dead weight in the voting booths.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Defenderz is right.

Older conservatives are dying off -- millions each year in America -- and taking their stale, ugly right-wing thinking to the grave with them. They are being replaced in our electorate and society by better, younger Americans -- again, millions each year. This is why America is steadily becoming less rural, less religious, less backward, less bigoted, and less white.

For a long period, conservative losses in this respect were offset by increasing conservativism as people aged. When Americans collected spouses, jobs, children, mortgages, etc., they tended to become more focused on their personal economic issues and more conservative.

That has changed, however. How many people wake up one day and decide these days:

"I have been an inclusive, tolerant person all my life, but I'm 40 now so it's about time I became a racist who hates immigrants"

or

"I know I have relied on reason and science to this point in life but for some reason as I get older I keep thinking I should become more superstitious and ignorant, so I'll start going to that faith-healing fundamentalist church down by the river and see what that snake-juggling, tongues-speaking stuff is all about"

or

"Sure, Bob and Sara have been my friends for decades and I guess I have liked my gay classmates, teachers, softball teammates, and co-workers, but, dammit, I think I'm going to start with the hatred of gays and transgenders now -- and maybe stop being so naive about women and Jews, too"

[Defenderz]

Less white means less intelligent and less resourceful.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The depleted human residue in West Virginia, North Dakota, Iowa, South Dakota, Idaho, and Kentucky calls bullshit . . . for starters.

Also, central Pennsylvania, rural Nebraska, rural Oklahoma, rural Indiana, rural just about everywhere . . .

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is uncalled for...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This entire blog is uncalled for.

[Frank Drackman]

What a fucking Idiot, did you follow the Kentucky Governor erection at all?
"45"'s currently polling 20% of the Black Male vote (Still support restoring voting rights to Felons?) which if it's even close means say hello to "47" (of course if it's Common-Law Harris-Brown or Calvin Loathsome who gets the nomination after Parkinsonian Joe assumes room temperature, it's over then)

Frank

[Nige]

‘are more effective entertainment than anything real.’

The effects on trans people and black historians and courses in black history are pretty real. It’s entertainment in the sense that a fundamentalist preacher can get up there and put on a big show that everybody else finds gobsmackingly transparently an embarrasing schtick, but under it all, and the reason it works for those preachers, is that they believe this stuff with a terrifying ferocity.

[Moderation4ever]

The abortion issue again highlights the disconnect between the Republican party and the average person. Like the ACA, abortion was a good issue for the Republicans, and they won by opposing both. But like the ACA when they had the power to change things they have little to offer. With the ACA, it was "repeal and replace" but the reality was they had no replacement. Now with abortion it was "let the states decide" and people in state want abortion access. The reality is that both abortion access and health care are something people want.

[Defenderz]

Yeah, everyone wants health care. They just don't want to pay for it.

[Moderation4ever]

Who is not paying for health care? When I worked it was part of my benefits, now I am on Medicare, a program I paid into through my working career. Most people are like me. Only the poorest and the sickest get medical care with little or no out of pocket expense.

[Defenderz]

Most people don't pay anywhere near what they draw out in medical care. That's all that the Affordable Care Act was about. Reallocating from the payers to the takers. It did nothing to reduce costs.

[shawn_dude]

You'd need to be more specific about what "costs" you're referring to, but I suspect it's hospital costs and not patient costs. (The latter would require empathy.)

The "payers" as you call them were having to pay higher prices for their own insurance and medical care in order to cover the millions of uninsured Americans that could still get care for "free" at most hospital emergency rooms. The hospitals were just passing those costs back to the "payers." Also, "payers" can catch communicable diseases from "takers" so keeping them healthy and employable is an act of selfishness.

[Defenderz]

Ultimately, health care costs a lot because people get it up until the day they die, no matter how futile or old, and we don't penalize or ostracize people who make poor health decisions. As long as that continues, our health care costs will continue to spiral out of control.

[Krayt]

A lot is accounting gimmicks. Just make sure you don't cut into the profit motive driving innovation in drugs and treatment and research. Slowing that will kill more than the golly darned bestest free health care will save, by orders of magnitude, as tech drops further and further behind where it otherwise would be.

[shawn_dude]

A solid amount of the initial research for new medical treatments come from federal funding at universities and other research institutions. Also, are you suggesting that European medical advances have dropped since they instituted a public healthcare system?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The dynamic you describe has seriously undermined political support for single payer healthcare. Throughout rural America, the relatively poor have been getting fully socialized (however low quality) medical care in emergency rooms. My Arkansas relatives tell me the hospitals don't even bother to bill the patients, because trying to get any money from them just generates more loss. The bills all get nationalized.

That setup means that any politician who represents that kind of constituency cannot afford to support single payer. Even though it would lower costs for typical patients, single payer would have to impose at least some costs on everyone—meaning it is a non-starter for the emergency room patients.

Almost paradoxically, the swing vote for single payer is probably in the hands of people who enjoy medical benefits more socialized than anyone else gets (or would sensibly want to have, if they had a choice). How screwed up is that?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Reallocating from the payers to the takers.

Someone should tell this guy which side of the divide -- educated, reasoning, diverse, modern, strong, progressive communities and states vs. superstitious, bigoted, backward, economically inadequate, conservative backwaters -- does the paying and which side does the taking in today's America.

[Defenderz]

Someone should stop lying.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's check your apprehension of reality -- which group of states (Republican or Democratic) dominates the lower reaches of the "states ranked by educational attainment" list?

[Defenderz]

Let's control for race.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're hoping that would rescue West Virginia, North Dakota, Iowa, South Dakota, Indiana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, or Montana?

You might as well hope for that Rapture.

[Frank Drackman]

You're forgetting our Senate/House of Whores. Barney Fag got his Heart Surgery at Bethesda, S-S-S-S-S-S-t-t-t-t uttering John Fetterman got his ECT there also (to confuse things, they tore down the "Old" Walter Reed Army Hospital and renamed Bethesda Naval "Walter Reed). And that's just the inpatient part, they have their own Doctors/Clinic in the capitol so they don't have to mix with the Hoi Polloi.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

The old Walter Reed was a nice chunk of land on Georgia Avenue in DC and within walking distance of a Metro station. That could have been redeveloped into some pretty pricey housing....

What happened to it?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, it got torn down a few years back,
wait till you hear about Ebbets Field!
It’s become “Affordable Housing”https://theparksdc.com/ you know, “1 room” starting at $1,300 month, and not a 1 bedroom apartment, 1 room in a 3 bedroom apartment. It’s funny, for a “Military” Hospital, the old Walter Reed was a friggin disaster, holes in the wall, equipment left willy-nilly everywhere except where it was supposed to be, the Civilian employees umm, mirrored the “DC Demographics” if you get my race-ist drift, once in a while they’d get the blood stains off the OR floor (it was in their contract that the Janitors didn’t have to clean up blood) while Bethesda was as nice as any private hospital in an upper income Suburb, which is what it was,

Frank

[Absaroka]

"When I worked it was part of my benefits, now I am on Medicare, a program I paid into through my working career. "

In fairness, the medicare tax is a straight percentage (2.9%) with no income limit, so Bob who makes $10k pays $290 and Alice who makes $100k pays $2900. They both get the same benefits, though, so Alice is subsidizing Bob.

[Defenderz]

More like Bob and Alice are subsidizing Jamal, Shaniqua, Ahmed, and Consuelo.

[grb]

What about Carol and Ted?

[Commenter_XY]

They're subsidized too. 🙂

[Moderation4ever]

That is a one-dimensional analysis of the problem. The wealth difference between Bob and Alice is large and life expectancy is directly proportional to wealth. So, while Bob and Alice get the same benefits, Alice will likely get them longer.

[Absaroka]

"Alice will likely get them longer."

So, things will even out if Alice lives 10 times longer? Income and longevity may be correlated, but I don't think that correlated.

[bernard11]

She doesn't need to live ten times longer. (BTW, I think you mean spend ten times as many years on Medicare). As she gets older her annual medical costs will increase.

And it's plausible, at least, that those who die younger are more likely to die suddenly - heart attacks, accidents, whatever - while those who live longer die tend to die of lengthy expensive diseases, and have a lot more treatment for non-life threatening matters along the way.

I'm not claiming that makes up the difference, because I don't have data to support that. (AFAICT, no one making claims here has provided supporting data.) I do think logic suggests that the ten times standard is too high.

[Nelson]

“In fairness, the medicare tax is a straight percentage (2.9%) with no income limit”

The is an income limit and there always has been. Your claim that there isn't one is absolutely false.

The Medicare portion of the FICA tax (15.3%) is 2.9%. That is split between your employer and you (or it is all your responsibility if you are self-employed). There is absolutely a cap. For 2023 it is $160,000.

More importantly, it is ONLY wage earners who pay FICA. Unearned income doesn’t pay any of it. So investment income is not only taxed at a lower rate than wages (15%), it isn’t taxed at all for FICA.

So the top 25% of earners, who account for over 90% of individual investors, pay a lot less than the poor and middle class. And FICA isn’t refundable, so even the poorest worker is paying 7.65% of their income in taxes.

I pay nothing into FICA. I retired 8 years ago and live off of my investments (and retirement accounts, once I reach my 60s). I have 40 quarters of Social Security contributions, so I will get a full SS payout.

If you want to know who the freeloaders in the SS system are, it’s the investor class. There eis no way for anyone making earned income to avoid FICA. There is no way for the investor class to pay in. It’s why the rich get richer, they don’t pay as much in taxes. Middle class wage earners pay the vast majority of FI A taxes. And that shouldn’t happen.

This is why I think there should be no cap and all income should pay FICA, not just earned income from workers. Fair is fair.

Means testing for benefits is way more complicated and would require a lot of new federal employees to manage it. My way is easier, cheaper, and deals with the largest sinkhole in the entire US budget.

A flat tax would be best, but that’s never going to be acceptable to the wealthy or the poor.

[David Nieporent]

“In fairness, the medicare tax is a straight percentage (2.9%) with no income limit”

The is an income limit and there always has been. Your claim that there isn’t one is absolutely false.

The Medicare portion of the FICA tax (15.3%) is 2.9%. That is split between your employer and you (or it is all your responsibility if you are self-employed). There is absolutely a cap. For 2023 it is $160,000.

What are you talking about? The SS portion of the tax is capped at $160,200. There's no cap on the medicare portion, though.

[not guilty]

The plaintiffs in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), asked for determination of abortion rights on a state by state basis. In every statewide referendum conducted since that decision, the pro-choice position has prevailed, including in red states such as Ohio, Kentucky and Kansas.

Like the prophet Hosea said of the Northern Kingdom of Israel during the Assyrian captivity, Republicans have sowed the wind, and they are now reaping the whirlwind.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’m all for free speech — as long as it’s equally free speech, i.e. “save the whales” or “bleep the whales, save the lobstermen” being equally free speech. Content neutrality and all of that stuff.

I think my opinions on the Middle East are pretty well known (“Nuke Gaza”) but I’d support the right of people to support bloodthirsty terrorists to the same extent that people have the right to support, say, White Supremacy and what happened a few years back in Charlottesville, VA.

I’m talking about the Tiki Torch parade, which, while both sophomoric and somewhat dangerous to the participants (those aren’t designed to be carried while lit), was otherwise harmless. They were going across an empty field at night, and the *only* reason there was trouble was another group (that disliked their message) choosing to go out and pick a fight with them.

Every participant was “doxed”, with those who attended private schools being expelled, and those attending public ones not only because of the pesky First Amendment, but otherwise their academic careers (and job prospects) destroyed. I, myself, was once doxed for participating in a “Fry Mumia” rally which was in response to a ‘Free Mumia” rally — not “commute his sentence to life imprisonment” or even “give him a new trial” but arbitrarily pardon him because, well he is a good leftist who hates AmeriKKKa.

That is the standard that the Left wanted for free speech in this country.

Fine — and why shouldn’t the Left expect it to apply to them as well?

Most decent people consider beheading babies and raping hippies to be inherently wrong — mala in se. I know that is a value judgement, but (a) it’s also true and (b) that’s what the concept of mala in se is based on. Most decent people also consider Hitler to have been doubleunplussgood or may I dare to express a value judgement and call him evil.

So while the Hamas Fan Club has every right to support beheading babies and raping hippies, what exactly is wrong with them being “doxed” as well? If the names of E-Boards (officers) of College Republican and Young Americans for Freedom chapters is public information (and it is) then why shouldn’t the same rule apply to the chapters of clubs supporting Hamas?

I’m just asking for a level playing field — true content neutrality.

The purgatorial cesspool known as UMass Amherst was once described as”the most politically correct college in the country.” The UMass Hillel chapter sponsored a rally in support of the 240 taken hostage by Hamas. Taking civilian hostages is a violation of International Law, it is something that the Nazis did, and Hillel’s event included a Shabbat ceremony, a religious ceremony.

There is (or once was) a consensus in this country that you don’t mess with other people’s religious ceremonies.

An International student from Turkey went out and punched & kicked one of the Hillel kids, allegedly waving a “foot long butcher knife. The interim Vice Chancellor, who came out of advocacy group support, said “Antisemitism, Islamophobia, or any form of bigotry have no place in our community” — not that physical assault was unacceptable…

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/11/06/umass-student-charged-allegedly-punching-jewish-student-spitting-on-flag/?amp=1

OK, let’s be politically neutral here and say that an Orangeman — a Protestant from Northern Ireland was attending UMass Amherst (I wouldn’t recommend it) and did the exact same thing — went out and punched/kicked one of the Newman kids. All hell would break loose and everyone knows it.

Now let’s be political — a International student from Israel (and there are some at UMass) did the same thing to one of the Pro Hamas groups. They’d have to call out the National Guard….

Whereas here, I think the only reason the perp even got arrested was that there were community members (i.e. “townies”) at the Hillel event, and hence UM couldn’t ignore the assault.

Where the hell is the “content neutrality”?

[David Nieporent]

The purgatorial cesspool known as UMass Amherst was once described as”the most politically correct college in the country.”

The only hits on the entire Internet for that are from you.

[OtisAH]

That’s funny.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, he never specified who once described it that way…

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was said in 1995, when the web was still wearing diapers -- 3 years before Google even existed.

[bernard11]

And not at all since, except by you, apparently.

[John F. Carr]

Police tend to be more conservative and will put up with less liberal troublemaking than college administrators. Next step – is the Northwestern District Attorney's Office going to back the police or the puncher? When Rachel Rollins took office in Suffolk County she made waves by immediately freeing liberal protesters arrested at a protest against a conservative rally.

[Defenderz]

They still haven't stopped lying about Trump's "good people on both sides" comment.

[bernard11]

Nobody's lying.

He said it, and it was false. There were no good people among the Neo-Nazis and racists at the rally.

Good people don't participate in a Neo-Nazi rally, and good people who naively believe the Lee myth and show up to support keeping the statue will leave pretty quickly when they find out who's behind it.

[shawn_dude]

" The interim Vice Chancellor, who came out of advocacy group support, said “Antisemitism, Islamophobia, or any form of bigotry have no place in our community” — not that physical assault was unacceptable…"

I thought your initial premise was content neutrality. Here the Vice Chancellor is stating that quite clearly and you mock them for it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Where the hell is the “content neutrality”?

You realize your argument is:

1. A student did a very bad thing in response to others’ (pro-Israeli victims’) speech and got arrested for it and likely also university imposed (or soon to be imposed) discipline.

2. But you imagine that he wouldn’t have if “townies” hadn’t been there.

3. You imagine it would be different if an Irish person had done the same thing (which is to say, the same thing would have happened, but your imaginary counterfactual wouldn’t have been true for the Irishman).

4. You imagine it would be even more different, possibly including martial law, if a foreign Israeli student did the same thing to a “pro-Hamas” student (which is to say, the Israeli student would also have been arrested and suffered university-imposed consequences, but, and this is key, in your imagined situation where there weren’t the same sorts of witnesses (i.e. townies), the Israeli student still would have been arrested, unlike, in your imagination, where the actual student in those imaginary circumstances would not have been arrested, but, in reality, was arrested).

Do you see how the student who did the very bad thing is, quite justly, having legal consequences, but you’re super angry because you imagine various ways the actual situation could have turned out differently?

Basically, your imagination is doing literally all of the work to gin up outrage here. Maybe, if the forces you imagine are so pervasive and malevolent, you could just point out these horrible discrepancies when they actually do happen instead of just making up some examples that “everyone” knows is what would have happened except they didn’t happen.

Just a thought.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Good points — I *am* angry and didn’t explain the context of my anger — it is that I have seen UMass respond to Constitutionally-protected speech with far more vitriol than they are responding to a far more serious criminal assault. I saw the lives of nine students ruined for a cartoon drawn, in private, on a whiteboard.

See https://www.thefire.org/news/send-out-clowns and for more google “KKK-9” and other versions of that.

I’m mad because UMass is responding to this in the context of all things socially just and that is bullshyte. “Islamophobia” didn’t motivate this assault, but the university sanctioned hatred of Jews *did* — and I remember when parties unknown attempted to steal the statute of Metawampe (a Nonotuck Chief) and managed to drag it a couple hundred yards down a sidewalk (memory is that it weighs something like 450 lbs).

The angst and furor was beyond belief. Again it was a criminal act perpetrated by a few individuals — I’m guessing three because I doubt that two would have gotten it as far as they did, and four likely would have been able to lift it into a vehicle, which is what I think they were trying to do.

I was present at the meeting regarding the KKK-9, something I described as being “a ringside view of a lynching.” What more can you say when students start chanting “Fuck the First Amendment” and the administration panders to them…

Even if the cartoon drawn on a whiteboard wasn’t protected speech, there is an inherent quality of difference between that and physical assault. A BIG difference…

It’s like executing people for running red lights, and then taking a nonchalant attitude toward an OUI fatal crash. No, the OUI crash is in a different dimension than running red lights….

[Dr. Ed 2]

And as to martial law, I saw that essentially happen at UMass in the Spring of 2000 in the midst of the rape hoax hysteria. It was all police but there were so many police cars on campus that they literally ran out of places to park them and the main road through campus became one lane because of all the police cars.

This is when an individual, whose name I am not legally allowed to mention, cut herself in the face with a knife and then falsely claimed to have been attacked by the mythical (nonexistent) campus pond rapist. In the middle of an anti-rape rally.

She told one version to the fire department's EMTs, and a completely different version to the police --- and if she hadn't attempted to twice commit suicide twice before on campus (that I knew of) they quickly realized that she was fabricating the whole thing. Memory is they also had reasons to believe the wounds were self-inflicted, something about angles or something.

So her lawyer threatens to sue UMass for defamation if UM doesn't say that she was attacked by this mythical nonexistent white male. Not merely say nothing, but UM had to affirm and publicize her statement. I don't know how public this is, but I am not making it up.

She then recants a month or so later. That *is* (or was) public.

But attending class was declared to be optional by the Faculty Senate, cops of all kinds everywhere, UMass was essentially under martial law...

[Noscitur a sociis]

Most decent people consider beheading babies and raping hippies to be inherently wrong —

But that doesn’t stop Dr. Ed from defending it!

[Dr. Ed 2]

For the record, I consider it indefensible.

[Guardian253]

AI & the Courts
I noticed Lexis is now touting AI in their legal research. To what extent will courts require disclosure since it appears AI is invading every aspect of legal research.

See generally, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths

[bernard11]

Everybody is touting AI in their products.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone started selling AI toilet paper.

Few seem prepared to explain what the AI does, and why that's better than the former way of doing it.

[shawn_dude]

Natural Language Models, which is one of the larger forms of AI out right now, is good at searching for equivalent text; it's less literal. That might be a benefit in legal research. (IANAL so I've had little need to do legal research.)

[ReaderY]

I am starting to get fed up with this blog. I joined it around two decades ago not long after it first started and have been a regular commentator. But I find its quality has significantly deteriorated. Major scholars like Oren Kerr have either disaffiliated or now post only rarely. And in general, those who arrived have been more advocates than scholars, especially single-issue advocates on conservative causes I mostly don’t care all that much about, like guns. Vaping litigation has gotten huge and undererved coverage.

Professor Volokh seems to have retreated from commenting on major issues, focusing on interminable posts on minor libel and pseudonymity cases.

When Trump came on the scene, most Conspirators opposed him, but he is now rarely discussed, even though he is now involved in a series of precedent-setting legal cases. My best guess is that the Conspirators who initially opposed Trump are now either reconciled or intimidated by him.

Perhaps the reason for all the silence, the shift to either reliable red-meat conservative or piddlijg issues, is there is no longer a career path for anti-Trump constitutionalist conservatives. Perhaps Conspirators are afraid that if they speak out against Trump and the subversion of democratic institutions, they won’t have job prospects, and since they can’t talk about anything of real consequence without the elephant in the room coming up, they will reconcile themselves to keeping to their little corner, talking about specialized minutia, and staying out of trouble.

And the wuality of commentators has sharply diminished. Comments are screed fights far more often than they are anythjng resembling a reasoned argument.

Perhaps the entire species of constitutionalist conservatives who think seriously and maintain serious intellectual standards and a ethics of fairness and integrity, who are committed to preserving the Republic, whose first goal is not power for its own sake, is endangered, and this blog is simply a canary in a coal mine indicating their demise.

At any rate when I scan the posts these days, I am increasingly feeling I am wasting time and could be doing something better than commenting here. Perhaps the reason why there seem to be fewer and fewer interesting commenters and more and more screeds is that the interesting people, commenters as well as posters, reached the same conclusion earlier and have already checked out.

This blog seems to be following a sort of Gresham’s Law. It is, arguably, an experiment in the consequences of libertarian absolutism. The results do not look favorable.

[Sarcastr0]

There is nowhere else to go that I could find.

If you do find a place of conservative intellectual ferment, please leave one last post saying where it is!

[SRG2]

Time was the "American Conservative" site was it, but then Rod Dreher was seduced by Orban and was suffering from acute fear of Teh Gayz and that was the end of it.

[Kenneth Almquist]

“The American Conservative” opposed the Iraq War, which guaranteed that their audience would be small and unrepresentative of typical conservatives, but the site has changed over time to become more mainstream conservative. In my opinion, Dreher was their best writer, but he became increasingly extreme because he (like our own Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland) concluded that social conservatives like Dreher are headed for defeat. Dreher's blog was funded by a donor to the site, and was discontinued when the donor decided to stop funding it.

As for comments, the site decided a while back that only paid subscribers could comment, and now very few articles get any comments at all.

[Longtobefree]

Well, bye.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet here you are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Well, bye.

Should notes from UCLA professors and administrators to departing colleagues be made public like this?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But I find its quality has significantly deteriorated.

Perhaps that would improve if you'd drop your habit of posting long-winded "analysis" of cases and posts that you clearly have never read nor really know much of anything about.

[ReaderY]

Yawn. Another screed.

Sir, have you ever considered offering a reasoned reply to something, anything, rather than simply always, each and every time, saying the person you are replying to doesn’t know what he’s talking about and just expecting people to rely on your word for that?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Have ever considered offering a reasoned reply to something rather than simply always, each and every time, saying the person you are replying to doesn’t know what he’s talking about and asking people to rely on your word for that?

Way to make my point for me (unless you’re adding outright lying to your repertoire). I usually offer evidence…or at the very least a reasoned argument…about why someone is wrong, including the many times I've pointed that out to you. So here you are once again commenting on things you’ve clearly not read.

[Nelson]

"I usually offer evidence"

That will come as a shock to anyone who can read your posts.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That will come as a shock to anyone who can read your posts.

Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated your own inabilities in that area, you'll never know.

[Nelson]

I post links with spaces in the middle to circumvent the "one link only" rule that Reason has because I support my foundational ideas as well as.my conclusions.

I often support with links, but I also post my reasoning, not just my conclusion, when I post.

Except for the snarky comments. Those stand on their own.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

By the way, it's also worth noting that whenever anyone (myself included) does offer a reasoned argument and/or evidence of why you're wrong, your response is almost always to run away and ignore it. So your whining here is not only factually inaccurate, it is highly disingenuous.

[Krayt]

They seem to be in a holding pattern, waiting for Trump to retire or croak.

It's ironic that, had the Democrats not gone after him so viciously, he might have done so. Now the silly game continues.

Thanks everyone!

[Nige]

'had the Democrats not gone after him so viciously,'

'If only he was allowed to break laws all he wants!'

[Sarcastr0]

Krayt's like our little Chamberlain.

Appeasement is the key to peace!

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol

[David Bremer]

I second this comment. In general, the comments took a big step back with the move to Reason, though I understand the decision to leave WaPo. As time has gone on, we've gone from thoughtful libertarian legal analysis to a lot of bogus right-wing talking points. I don't care about today in Supreme Court history, especially when so many of the anniversaries are utterly meaningless (e.g., today is the birthday of President So-and-so, who appointed some inconsequential justice).

Meanwhile, the comments have continued to deteriorate, as the thoughtful people have left and been replaced by a mix of openly racist or homophobic cranks ranting, interspersed with Rev. Arthur Kirkland's long-tired schtick.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

As time has gone on, we’ve gone from thoughtful libertarian legal analysis to a lot of bogus right-wing talking points.

So…advocacy for constitutionally protected rights and Somin’s non-stop calls for open borders are “a bunch of bogus right-wing talking points”?

[Nelson]

I think he's probably referring to the anti-trans and pro-book ban stuff.

So the opposite of "advocacy for constitutionally protected rights".

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think he’s probably referring to the anti-trans and pro-book ban stuff.

So, he can hear the voices in your head?

[Nelson]

No, it's easy to understand what he is referring to as “a bunch of bogus right-wing talking points”.

Well, it's easy for reasonable people. You may struggle to identify them.

[shawn_dude]

Reason.com hasn't changed since the VC migrated here. It's always been the 4chan-style kiddie pool on the majority of the site. Moving the VC here essentially dropped the clean baby into the cesspool. What did anyone expect?

I got a lot of value out of the VC when it was on WaPo. The entire debate about legalizing same-sex marriage here helped shape my opinions on a number of related topics. I could not imagine that level of quality on today's VC.

I use the "mute user" feature to silence the worst actors here and then evaluate a thread based on how much of it is obscured by grey blocks. Too much grey and I move on. That's becoming more and more common.

[Drewski]

Kirkland actually used to be a valuable commenter, consistently favoring academic progressive stances but defending them with some rigor. He only gradually became the troll he is now, although after Volokh singled him out he took a sharp turn. I'm sympathetic - I used to post more thoughtfully but eventually decided that the poor quality of responses made that a waste of my time, so now I mostly just take an occasional sarcastic jab and never read the replies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You would prefer I advocate progressive positions more frequently and stop addressing this blog's ceaseless bigotry, cowardice, and hypocrisy?

Why?

[Kazinski]

Of course you are wasting time here and could use it more productively, we all could. This blog is mainly for entertainment purposes.

This has never been a politics blog, in terms of topics the conspirators post on, we just try to make it about politics.

This blog has always been focused on first, second and fourth amendment law, and administrative law. Trumps cases don't really intersect with those areas, except of course the gag order which implicates first amendment law. And you can't say the 14th amendment section 3 issue wasn't thoroughly covered.

In short its you not them.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Even were you right about the topics, there is far less content from the most accomplished scholars (or they've left entirely). And, to the extent Eugene is anywhere near the same weightless as Orin Kerr, he does avoid huge First Amendment issues in favor of pseudonymity litigation, threats to kill dogs, and the like. He's writing whatever articles he's writing, but he does look like someone trying not to stick his head out for fear of his professional prospects.

And the quality of the comments has deteriorated dramatically from the WaPo days.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy's focus has been transgender parenting, drag queens, Muslims, lesbians, transgender rest rooms, white grievance, Black crime, transgender sorority drama, and the like for some time (with plenty of gun absolutism and special privilege for superstition, too).

That's partisan lathering (from the bigoted perspective), not high-minded constitutional inquiry.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It wasn't always like this. But you are right, it is now.

[Nelson]

Hearing the more substantive posters reminisce about the WaPo days makes me sad I joined after that. I get excited when I see a thread with nuance and cites because it's usually a good one.

[ThePublius]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

That's what she (UCLA) said.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If you don't like a UCLA prof quoting racial slurs in judicial opinions, what 'till you find out what a Moorpark College professor did...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many were quotations from judicial opinions, you bigoted rube?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're the one that keeps track, you ridiculous twerp.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And you are the one who gets a thrill from seeing vile racial slurs published by a blog.

This is a reason your political preferences have no medium- to long-term prospects in an America that continues to improve against your wishes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And the quality of commentators has sharply diminished. Comments are screed fights far more often than they are anything resembling a reasoned argument.

Prior to the wapo, the proprietors used to spend a lot of time moderating the comments, so in addition to free-riding on the posts, those of us who enjoyed the comments were also free-riding on the conspirator's moderation efforts. At wapo, it was the wapo staff doing the moderation. It would appear that after the move to reason, the conspirators decided not to spend any more time on what must be an unpleasant and thankless task, and who can blame them.

[Absaroka]

"what must be an unpleasant and thankless task"

I (well we, there are a couple of us) have run a list for hobbyists for years, and I can vouch that we hate moderation with a passion. And the good news is that we don't have to do a whole lot of it. One thing that helps, I'm sure, is that the hobby in question is just less flameworthy than political issues. But people are people, and the occasional flame war flare up. We extinguish those right away.

The software helps - we (the admins) can flag individual users to have their posts moderated before posting. We have a policy - if you get into a flame war, whether you start it or not, you get set to moderated status. That means when you post something, it actually shows up on the list in a few hours when we get around to approving it. Or a few days, if the admins are out of town or whatever.

That's if we think your post is acceptable (i.e. vaguely on topic and not using words like 'stupid fuckwad'). If we don't think it's acceptable, we'll reject it with an explanation ("Say 'I disagree', not 'stupid fuckwad'"). That courtesy will last for a few posts; if you just rant on, we just start quietly round filing your posts. Over the years I think two people have been ticked enough to leave; the others learn, and we eventually unmoderate them.

When a flame war happens, we post a 'sorry for the flame war, a couple of people have been put in moderated status', mostly so people realize there are consequences.

I hate even the little bit of moderation, but it isn't actually very workload intensive; people realize that polite disagreement is welcomed, but flame wars aren't.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

At wapo, it was the wapo staff doing the moderation.

What causes you to accuse the Washington Post of imposing the censorship at the Volokh Conspiracy during that period?

What causes you to ignore the Conspirators' role in that censorship?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Recently I’ve gone back 20+ years in time and checked out one of my old haunts, Eschaton, which is still going strong. The comments (it’s a left wing blog) are funnier, happier, and when they get into substance, more thoughtful and less predictable.

See for example today’s “Happy Hour” open thread, from commenters who seem to be mostly sober.

https://www.eschatonblog.com/2023/11/happy-hour_01154014299.html#disqus_thread

There was also the “other” Roger Ailes (his real name), a left wing blogger whom I miss.

And of course Steve Gaillard (R.I.P.), Media Whores Online, Balloon Juice, TBogg, Alas, a Blog, Wonkette (the original), Lindsay Berenstein, Echidne of the Snakes . . .

[bernard11]

Perhaps the entire species of constitutionalist conservatives who think seriously and maintain serious intellectual standards and a ethics of fairness and integrity, who are committed to preserving the Republic, whose first goal is not power for its own sake, is endangered,

I think it's gone beyond endangered to "nearly extinct." IMO, a very large percentage of conservatives are at least complicit in the rise of Trump. They would gain a lot of credibility in my eyes, at least, if they conceded that.

But they don't, and that includes some of the conspirators.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

They would gain a lot of credibility in my eyes

LOL!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"no longer a career path for anti-Trump constitutionalist conservatives"

No. Trump is a product of the times and not the creator of them.

There's been a wave of populism building in this country since the days of Screaming Howard Dean, and that was 20 years ago. To understand Trump, you need to look at three past waves of populism -- the Jacksonian Democracy, the Know Nothing era, and the Populist/Progressive era of the late 19th/early 20th Century.

The latter is often confusing because where Progressives were urban, the Populists were rural and hence not as well documented/reported. But look into both the Granger Movement and the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) which started as the Union veterans of the Civil War and then became quite powerful around the turn of the 20th Century.

Populism is inherently dangerous -- read John Adams for all the reasons and he was merely predicting. But I don't think it actually wants to destroy the Constitution, not the basic stuff.

[Nelson]

"No. Trump is a product of the times and not the creator of them."

Holy shit, I have to agree with Dr. Ed. I feel shame.

Of course, he took what existed and super-sized the irrationality, shamelessness, and anger that the GOP embodied after 8 years of Obama.

Par for the course, he didn't build anything. He just lied and said he did.

[M L]

I suspect the pro-life movement is just getting started. An editorial in National Review points out:

Advocates of same-sex marriage suffered a string of 32 losses at the ballot box before succeeding for the first time, in the bluest of states, in 2012. We disagreed with their objective, and both sides are more entrenched on the abortion issue, but their success serves as a reminder that a string of defeats at the ballot box is no reason to believe a cause is lost.

32 straight referendum losses is quite something.

[Brett Bellmore]

The advocates of SSM had a major advantage, though; At the same time the courts were steamrollering the other side, so that those losses didn't matter. You can lose 32 times in a row and still prevail, if you've got the courts handing the victories to you after each lost vote anyway.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It also has the major advantage of being morally correct to support SSM. While forcing ten year olds to give birth is morally wrong.

[Defenderz]

If it was morally correct to support SSM, then nature would have intended it that way for reproductive purposes. You people are sick and evil.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Call it sick and evil as much as you want, but most people don’t reduce the human experience to reproduction. Things like happiness and love matter too.

[Defenderz]

Most people don't consider abusing the digestive system to be part of happiness or love either.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Weird way to talk about kissing, but okay.

[Defenderz]

So would you be okay leaving Obergefell in place but overturning Lawrence? If not, why not?

[NOVA Lawyer]

No, because having the government police what happens in a bedroom between two consenting adults is the extraordinarily creepy Big Government.

I understand you like Big Government monitoring bedrooms for wrongsex, but most of us don't like Big Brother and, even less so, if Big Brother is a peeping Tom.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I know, right? Prostitution should be legalized immediately.

[NOVA Lawyer]

There's a definite argument for that. But, among other distinguishing features, prostitution is a financial transaction. The two individuals are free to have sex for free, so the sex is not really the issue. Relatedly, this isn't two people giving free consent, prostitution arguably involves some degree of coercion which distinguishes laws against wrongsex.

*wrongsex - sex in positions Big Brother doesn't like.

[Defenderz]

So we're not talking just about kissing, now are we?

[TwelveInchPianist]

So having the government police what happens in a bedroom between two consenting adults is the extraordinarily creepy Big Government, except when it's not?

"Relatedly, this isn’t two people giving free consent, prostitution arguably involves some degree of coercion which distinguishes laws against wrongsex."

It's her body, why shouldn't she be able to charge for it? There's no coercion. You're the same as anybody else. It's creepy to police wrongsex, except for the wrongsex you want to police.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So having the government police what happens in a bedroom between two consenting adults is the extraordinarily creepy Big Government, except when it’s not?

I said it’s not a good analogy, not that it’s creepy. But, yes, monitoring private romantic encounters is creepier than monitoring financial transactions. Pretend otherwise all you want.

There’s no coercion.

Citation needed for such a blanket statement. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn’t.

You’re the same as anybody else. It’s creepy to police wrongsex, except for the wrongsex you want to police.

In a pathetic attempt to win an argument, you just make up things. I never said I wanted to prohibit prostitution. I'm fine with not doing so, in fact, I favor not doing so. I just said laws against prostitution have a different basis than laws against private, consensual sex that are not commercial.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But, yes, monitoring private romantic encounters is creepier than monitoring financial transactions. Pretend otherwise all you want."

I suspect that you'd find banning the sale of sex toys "creepy" even though it's a financial transaction. I also suspect you're just making up distinctions to justify your biases.

"Citation needed for such a blanket statement. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn’t." Huh? I suppose if a guy puts a gun to her head and says, "screw me for $100" then sure. But the financial aspect isn't inherently coercive. Talk about a pathetic attempt to win an argument.

"In a pathetic attempt to win an argument, you just make up things. I never said I wanted to prohibit prostitution."

Sigh. No, but you've made it clear that you don't think such prohibition is "creepy" in the same sense that regulations you disapprove of are.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What is a license?

A license is governmental permission to do something -- and it inherently includes the governmental right to revoke that permission. That's the problem with gay marriage....

When marriage was about creation and raising of children, it was one thing as while we will disagree about the extent and how it should be exercised, I think we all agree that the state has some right to supervise the welfare of children.

But once children were taken out of it, i.e. gay marriage, it became only about the right to live together and care/love each other and that I don't think the state should have the right to prohibit.

Yes, prohibit. And if states can revoke driver's licenses for unpaid child support, why not marriage licenses? And the LBGT+ community could wind up worse off than it was before all of this. I don't want the state regulating the lives of two consenting adults.

[Defenderz]

Agree, the problem began when we allowed easy divorce and separated marriage from the child-bearing aspect. Same sex marriage is the symptom of the problem, not the cause.

[Magister]

Marriage licenses represent authorization to get married; once you're married, they no longer matter - they expire but you don't have to renew them no matter how much longer your marriage continues. Revoking a marriage license might be relevant between the time obtained and getting married (but in some states you can immediately sign it and be married, so government action would more likely be to deny the license than to revoke it). And many states have common law marriage, so there might be no marriage license at all.

And of course marriage affects a lot more than children or "the right to live together and care/love each other". Some of those were extended to "domestic partners" before gay marriage was legal, but not all, and no guarantee that other states would recognize them.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The following represents the single biggest false premise of the entire SSM debate:

Marriage licenses represent authorization to get married

No, actually, it represents state recognition and sanctioning of marriage. Historically, the creation of a marriage itself has always been the purview of the community and, more often than not, local religious institutions. Marriages existed independent of the state's blessings thereon, even though the latter did get involved after the fact when it came to legal matters involving the institution.

And before I get the predictable stupid responses based on nothing but ignorant assumptions, I have...for most of my adult life...favored state recognition of SSM. But not because I thought there was some basic human "right" to that recognition (there isn't, not even for conventional marriages), but because I think it's good public policy...which is why I objected to the Obergefell decision, and wanted to see that accomplished via legislation.

[Martinned]

not because I thought there was some basic human “right” to that recognition (there isn’t, not even for conventional marriages)

Is there a right to equal treatment before the law?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Is there a right to equal treatment before the law?

Are you going to offer any actual thoughts on any of these issues, or are you just going to stick with the hyper-simplistic stupid questions?

[Defenderz]

Yes. Everyone had the equal right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Any argument otherwise is unadulterated bad faith.

[Magister]

I mentioned that some states have common law marriage, so no marriage license needed there. Read the long list of benefits available only to married people, and those follow from state recognition of marriage. After getting married, the marriage license persists as a record of being married, but it doesn't expire and can't be revoked by the government that issued it.

Obergefell was correct and necessary to resolve the issue of states having to recognize marriages legally entered into in other states.

[Absaroka]

"After getting married, the marriage license persists as a record of being married, but it doesn’t expire and can’t be revoked by the government that issued it."

At considerable risk of being overly nit-picky, isn't the license the paperwork you get before the wedding (which typically expires eventually), whilst the marriage certificate is the post-wedding permanent record that the wedding actually happened?

(I just googled the rules for Kentucky, because that was where we were married, and that seems to be the procedure there: the license is good for 30 days, after the wedding you give back the license with the witness signatures and so on and they send you a certificate.)

[Magister]

Absaroka appears to be correct. Thanks for the information!

[Zarniwoop]

A masterclass on admitting you don’t know anything about evolutionary biology without actually saying so.

[Nige]

Or more accurately, correctly treating it as completely irrelevant.

[SRG2]

If you resort to arguments from nature, you've lost.

[M L]

Pro-life has the advantage of being even more morally correct. Killing humans without justification is morally wrong.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The problem with this is that the people articulating this message tend to countenance a lot of death and suffering in other areas of life. And they don't seem to think that the health and well-being of a woman or girl is a justification for abortion. You can't win the moral argument by being hypocrites who lack empathy.

[Defenderz]

What is "health and well being?" A few months of inconvenience?

[LawTalkingGuy]

You've never talked to a pregnant women have you? Especially one with complications?

[Defenderz]

Yeah, my wife decades ago. It really isn't that big of a deal. Killing your baby because you're too cheap and selfish to bring it to term is the height of evil.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Yeah, my wife decades ago."

Well you probably weren't paying attention.

"It really isn’t that big of a deal."

Yeah. That's easy for you to say. It's not your body and health at risk. Pregnancy and childbirth are incredibly dangerous.

[Defenderz]

No, they're really not. It's very rare that there are any serious complications. Using that as a justification for abortion is like justifying stealing based on starvation.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If it's so rare then you shouldn't have a problem with leaving these issues to the discretion of doctors and women. And yet republicans seem to have an issue with that!

[Defenderz]

So you're saying that because of health risks all decisions should be made by women, in the absence of health risks? Is that logical?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m saying that the moronic landlords that constitute right-wing legislatures shouldn’t be making these decisions.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"The problem with this is that the people articulating this message tend to countenance a lot of death and suffering in other areas of life."

To be fair, they generally countenance a lot of death and suffering in this area of life too. There are numerous examples of pregnant women being denied timely abortions for life-threatening, non-viable pregnancies because doctors were afraid of the law. They generally support exceptions for rape and incest which, while morally better from our or any reasonable point of view, kind of admits the whole "it's killing a human" is bullshit. They generally support, or at least don't oppose, in vitro fertilization which necessarily creates extra embryos ("humans" to them) to be killed.

And if you subtract out the people who would also outlaw IVF and who would not allow exceptions for rape and incest, you're left with a fraction of a fraction of the population. Which is maybe why they prefer to grab power by any means they can, democracy be damned.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

They generally support exceptions for rape and incest which, while morally better from our or any reasonable point of view, kind of admits the whole “it’s killing a human” is bullshit.

The childishly simple-minded nature of that claim couldn't be more obvious. Are you really that fundamentally ignorant of the concept of balancing of rights? Do you think that supporting the use of deadly force in self-defense means that the supporter thinks that doesn't involve "killing a human"?

Just as obvious is the hypocrisy of you complaining about the declining quality of comments here while simultaneously posting idiotic drivel like the above.

[Martinned]

So which rights are being balanced when a state makes an exception for rape or incest?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So which rights are being balanced when a state makes an exception for rape or incest?

The rights of the impregnated woman and the rights of the unborn human.

How obvious and simple does something have to be before you don’t need it spelled out for you?

[Martinned]

I'm a big fan of recognising the rights of "impregnated women", but you don't seem to be, so I thought I'd ask.

But let me see if I got this straight: You are, in fact, in favour of recognising a right to abortion? Because otherwise your response doesn't make sense.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I’m a big fan of recognising the rights of “impregnated women”, but you don’t seem to be

If it doesn't seem that way to you then you're every much the fool you so routinely make yourself out to be.

But let me see if I got this straight:

Given your history, the odds of you ever getting anything straight are vanishingly small.

You are, in fact, in favour of recognising a right to abortion? Because otherwise your response doesn’t make sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because your approach to the matter is so ridiculously simple-minded that it should embarrass the average middle-schooler. I favor a woman's right to not be responsible for something that has been forced upon her, or when she has received something that she lacked the ability to consent to, including when that right is at odds with another's rights. That is very, very different from a generalized "right to abortion" just because you feel like it.

[Martinned]

I favor a woman’s right to not be responsible for something that has been forced upon her, or when she has received something that she lacked the ability to consent to, including when that right is at odds with another’s rights.

Where does it say that in the constitution?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Where does it say that in the constitution?

The same place that it references a right to not be raped, or be forced to pay for your neighbor's groceries, or...

You really are a dumb as a bag of hammers.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Wuz,

First, it’s notable that you entirely avoid condemning IVF or providing any justification for not treating those embryos as the “humans” you believe they so evidently are.

But to the points you attempted to make:

Are you really that fundamentally ignorant of the concept of balancing of rights?

Of course not. But most abortion opponents are not interested in balancing the rights of a pregnant woman against those of the state in “protecting” an unborn fetus. Meanwhile, that balancing is exactly what Roe did and what abortion regimes that don’t attempt outright bans do.

Do you think that supporting the use of deadly force in self-defense means that the supporter thinks that doesn’t involve “killing a human”?

No, but, of course, this analogy is gonna fail for you.

1. The self-defense exception to using deadly force against another is based on preserving your own life against threats to it being carried out by another.

2. The rape or incest is completed, so aborting the embryo is not a defense against that crime against the woman.

3. Consequently, you are acknowledging that the woman’s life and well-being is threatened by the fact of pregnancy.

4. Thus, vis a vis the woman and the “child”, their relative moral positions are the same regardless of how the embryo ended up in the woman. The “child” is blameless, the mother bears threats to her life and well-being by being forced to carry it to term.

5. As a result, the moral calculus between the two of them is no different regardless of how she ended up in that situation. The threats to her life and physical well-being are precisely the same in either case. The pregnant woman is defending her body against the same threats by a “perpetrator” with the same moral culpability in both instances.

6. If she is morally entitled to self-defense against an embryo resulting from rape or incest (i.e., she can kill a human to avoid the threat to her life and health from that human), then she is morally entitled to defend herself against any embryo in her womb.

7. In this thread, you try to avoid 6 by claiming that she is morally blameworthy in cases other than rape or incest, such that she gives up the right to defend herself from the embryo, because she chose to have sex.

8. There is no analogy in the laws of self-defense that permits a person to intentionally kill an innocent person. See, e.g., Commonwealth vs. Fowlin, 551 Pa. 414, 420–421 710 A.2d 1130, 1133-1134 (1998) (in holding self-defense provides immunity to unintentionally injuring/killing innocent bystanders: “Leisurely assessment of the circumstances and the danger to others is almost never a feature of such an assault, and most often, the best the victim can do is to mount a defense which hopefully will preserve his life. In many cases, the victim has only seconds to act in order to avoid injury or death.”). Key factors are that the person has to make a split second decision so that they have no time to avoid harm to innocent persons.

9. The time element is important. Consider carjackings. You may defend yourself with deadly force against a carjacking. You may not, however, a few weeks after the carjacking, approach the bona fide purchaser for value of your stolen car (an innocent third party) and kill them to get your car back. The law of self-defense doesn’t work that way. Similarly, you can’t kill an innocent third person days, weeks, or months later to protect yourself from the consequences of rape.

10. There is no other principle in the law that allows a person to intentionally kill an innocent person. See, e.g., R v Dudley and Stephens 14 QBD 273, (DC) (1884) (a seminal English case establishing that necessity is not a defense to intentionally killing an innocent person).

11. Your analogy fails because, accepting abortion as the killing of a person, self-defense principles (nor any other principles) do not allow the intentional killing of an innocent human (who doesn’t want to die, e.g., assisted suicide). The competing interests of the pregnant woman and embryo (treated as a person) are identical no matter the circumstance resulting in that “person”. What you apparently advocate is a license to murder an innocent person unless the murderer has committed some “sin”.

Conclusion:

If an embryo is a human person, then you can’t really support exceptions based on rape and incest. At least not via a self-defense analogy.

If, instead, you recognize that there are competing interests of two “people” such that it is sometimes okay to intentionally kill one of the innocent pair, then your objection that abortion is murder is empty. You just don’t like the balancing of interests other people are doing to achieve the same “murder” you advocate in some, but not all, circumstances (just as 99.9% of pro choice people advocate what you call murder in some, but not all, circumstances). You are fine with killing innocent "humans" to protect the life and health of the pregnant woman, you just disagree on where to draw the line permitting those cold-blooded (in your view) killings. But you don’t actually see it as, you can’t actually see it as, murder.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

First, it’s notable that you entirely avoid condemning IVF or providing any justification for not treating those embryos as the “humans” you believe they so evidently are.

No, what’s notable here is the fact that you have no what you’re talking about. That the fertilized ova is a human organism (being alive and possessed of a complete human genome) is a biological fact, not my belief. I’ve also said nothing at all to suggest that I ought to be condemning IVF (or anything else) in order to remain consistent.

But most abortion opponents are not interested in balancing the rights of a pregnant woman against those of the state in “protecting” an unborn fetus.

That you think you’re so omniscient that you have any idea what “most abortion opponents” are/aren’t interested in is self-delusion of the most pathetic sort. That said, even if your assumption were true it would still be absolutely irrelevant with regard to anything I’ve said. I’m here representing my own views, not those of “most abortion opponents”. As such your arguments here are nothing but a misdirection strawman.

Do you think that supporting the use of deadly force in self-defense means that the supporter thinks that doesn’t involve “killing a human”?

No, but, of course, this analogy is gonna fail for you.

1. The self-defense exception to using deadly force against another is based on preserving your own life against threats to it being carried out by another.

2. The rape or incest is completed, so aborting the embryo is not a defense against that crime against the woman.

Here I’m not certain whether you’re being intentionally disingenuous, or are really that incapable of understanding simple English. My quote that you’re responding to here was itself a response to this ridiculous comment from you (I even directly quoted it to make this easy for you, but you still failed to understand it):

They generally support exceptions for rape and incest which, while morally better from our or any reasonable point of view, kind of admits the whole “it’s killing a human” is bullshit.

My response illustrated the asinine nature of your conclusion that not objecting to some instances of instances of zygote/embryo/whatever termination does NOT equate to admitting that “it’s killing a human is bullshit”. While the justification for use of deadly force in self-defense is different from the aforementioned abortion exceptions, it still involves “killing a human”, which is generally objected to…except in certain circumstances. Ergo, you can make such exceptions without abandoning the notion that what’s being killed is human. I even noted the basis for those exceptions was something quite different, but apparently you didn't bother to read/understand that. That all this was too difficult for you to understand should give you pause to refrain from commenting further. But I know it won’t.

3. Consequently, you are acknowledging that the woman’s life and well-being is threatened by the fact of pregnancy.

See my previous explanation. I never said, implied or in any way suggested that the justifications for deadly force in self-defense had anything at all to do with the justifications for certain exceptions to a general prohibition on abortion.

The remainder of your verbose rambling can be dispensed with, as it is all predicated on the strawmen above. Perhaps if you’d take the trouble to bother reading and understanding what someone is saying BEFORE rushing to comment you could save yourself (and anyone bothering to read your posts) a lot of time and effort foolishly tilting at windmills.

[Nelson]

Wuz, even if it is "killing" by any legal definition (dubious at best), it would be the "killing" of a potential human.

A fertilized egg has approximately a 27% chance of being born. It has less than a coin-flip's chance of successfully implanting in the womb (which happens at 3 weeks). It doesn't have any major organs until the heart forms at 10 weeks. It has a 0% chance of surviving outside of the womb until 21 weeks (and at 21 weeks, only one fetus in history has survived to become a baby).

If you want to reduce things to a balance of rights, the fertilized egg's rights should be weighted at .27 to the pregnant woman's 1.0, right?

You seem comfortable saying something that has a small chance of happening should be treated as if it is an absolute certainty. Why is that?

[grb]

M L : “Pro-life has the advantage of being even more morally correct”

Close, but no cigar. “Pro-life has the advantage of being morally easy” is a much more accurate statement. You see, it has the advantage of being the most consumer-friendly form of righteousness available in the marketplace today. No other available Virtue™ is so user-ready, free of needless complications, difficult moral reflections or irksome sacrifices. Wanton sluts vs cherubic proto-baby zygotes. What could be simpler?

If you want to get in some Virtue™ (say just after doing a few miles on the treadmill) there’s no difficult ethical thought required. Sure, you may destroy the lives of tens of thousands of women yearly, but they probably wouldn’t be in the predicament if the weren’t such irresponsible selfish harlots. The effrontery of women can’t be a bar to you getting the Virtue™ you need!

Best of all? If the woman unaccountably happens to be your sister, daughter, or mother - and (amazingly!) not an irresponsible slut after all, they can always have the procedure quietly leaving your Virtue™ intact. There are examples of that beyond count.

[Nelson]

"The advocates of SSM had a major advantage, though"

The moral high ground?

[Sarcastr0]

I believe the kids call this copium.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, that was snappy. 🙂

[LawTalkingGuy]

The problem with this comparison is that in the end it was easy to convince people that gay people should enjoy the benefits and joys of marriage. It was an easy bigotry to soften because everyone knows gay people and most people want their friends and family to be happy. And in the end, the only people who feel negatively affected by same sex marriage are mean-spirited assholes.

By contrast, abortion proponents have to convince people that governments forcing people to give birth in extreme circumstances is a good thing. That's just not going to happen any time soon. You can convince people culturally or through government incentive to likely forgo elective abortions. But using the threat of criminal punishment to make ten year olds give birth, to wait for health conditions to become so dire that a woman has to risk death prior to terminate a pregnancy, or forcing a woman to give birth to a nonviable fetus and then watch it suffer and die is just not going to work. And its especially not going to work when the people who are trying to do the convincing are liars, hypocrites, and perhaps most importantly, old men who are never ever going to be confronted with these difficult scenarios.

[Josh R]

Your point about why SSM was accepted after 32 stinging defeats is spot-on correct. When enough gay people came out, the majority changed their mind because they accepted that being gay is a trait, not an immoral behavior.

And while you are correct there is no analogy to forcing people to give birth in extreme circumstances, nor is there an analogy to proscribing elective abortions at least up to 15 weeks, and perhaps up through 20-23 weeks as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was accepted after 32 stinging defeats that the courts flatly refused to let be binding, because resignation set in. People gave up and accepted that it simply didn't MATTER what the voters thought, wasn't going to be allowed to matter, so what was the point?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Resignation doesn't explain years of consistent supermajority support and republicans even working to protect it in light of the dicta in Dobbs. People are genuinely enthusiastic about it even though the courts moved faster than the voters. It's not resignation, it's genuine support.

[Defenderz]

How much of that support is fear of being canceled?

[Krayt]

0%, in the voting booth.

[Defenderz]

Yeah, and in the voting booth, same sex marriage failed badly, every time it was put up to vote.

[bernard11]

I’m surprised a dedicated libertarian like you opposes SSM, and thinks it should be up to legislatures to decide whether it’s OK or not.

Does SSM either pick your pocket or break your leg?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You can't reason with bigotry.

You can't reason with superstition.

You can't reason with belligerent ignorance.

It is pointless, perhaps even counterproductive, to try.

[M L]

Is it a very "libertarian" thing to be ruled by an oligarchy of 9 judges?

[Krayt]

Sorry I accidentally flagged. Someone should invent an un-flag button 🙁

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes, if they strike down laws that improperly, from a libertarian perspective, infringe on personal liberty. Which is what these courts did.

Just complaining about unelected judges doesn't work for the "but is it libertarian?" argument.

[Life of Brian]

if they strike down laws that improperly, from a libertarian perspective, infringe on personal liberty.

Of course it's more complicated than that: married couples get substantial tax and other financial benefits that ultimately come out of others' pockets. So the courts are actually going a good deal beyond personal liberties (and in so doing are infringing on the personal liberties of those who sincerely don't give a rat's behind about what consenting people choose to do but also have no desire for society at large to fund it).

Civil unions would have been a fine middle ground that retained everyone's liberties, but unfortunately that wasn't enough for the SSM movement.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Civil unions would have been a fine middle ground that retained everyone’s liberties, but unfortunately that wasn’t enough for the SSM movement."

This is not consistent with libertarianism or fairness. Separate but equal is never about equality. The government has no business endorsing some unions over others for religious reasons, which is all separating out "civil unions" from "marriage" was ever about.

[Life of Brian]

Separate but equal is never about equality.

Apparently we've now shifted from personal liberties to some ill-formed notion of equality. The original heartthrob story was that same sex couples just wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital &c. Civil unions supported things like that just fine.

The government has no business endorsing some unions over others for religious reasons

Who said anything about religion? And in any event, it's not clear what you mean by "endorse" beyond the financial benefits I mentioned at the outset, and why that would suddenly be a problem here given that governments routinely provide fiscal incentives to all sorts of groups and behaviors.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

This is not consistent with libertarianism or fairness. Separate but equal is never about equality. The government has no business endorsing some unions over others for religious reasons, which is all separating out “civil unions” from “marriage” was ever about.

Well, no...that's your simple-minded caricature version of what that was about. If you stop and think for a moment about the reasons that the state got involved in the first place with sanctioning marriage and providing that situation with benefits that non-married individuals don't enjoy, the reason why your argument is baseless should become pretty clear.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Life of Brian,

Your position as articulated so far is incoherent.

Who said anything about religion? And in any event, it’s not clear what you mean by “endorse” beyond the financial benefits I mentioned at the outset, and why that would suddenly be a problem here given that governments routinely provide fiscal incentives to all sorts of groups and behaviors.

How is a civil union different than a marriage if it confers all the same financial and other legal benefits as marriage?

What reason other than religious objection to SSM "marriage" is there?

If a civil union is fine with all the financial benefits, then you've not articulated and its not clear how you could articulate that a SSM civil marriage is not also fine.

[NOVA Lawyer]

If you stop and think for a moment about the reasons that the state got involved in the first place with sanctioning marriage and providing that situation with benefits that non-married individuals don’t enjoy, the reason why your argument is baseless should become pretty clear.

Nope. It was primarily government endorsement of a religious institution.

To the extent there were non-religious reasons the state got involved in marriage, all of the reasons extend to SSM: share and distribution of property upon death, raising children and parenting rights, promoting stable households, etc., etc.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Your position as articulated so far is incoherent.

Given how badly you've managed to misinterpret plain English so many times (either due to intentional dishonesty or literacy problems on your part, or both) you really ought to refrain from such accusations. His position has been quite clearly and coherently stated.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Nope. It was primarily government endorsement of a religious institution.

To the extent there were non-religious reasons the state got involved in marriage, all of the reasons extend to SSM: share and distribution of property upon death, raising children and parenting rights, promoting stable households, etc., etc.

Give the ignorance-based bullshit a rest. State involvement in marriage for the purposes above predates marriage licensing by millenia, dating back to at least the Code of Hammurabi. But government involved itself in the union of man and wife AFTER it was formed, not before. For the overwhelming vast majority of human history the formation of a marriage was a private contract between families (at least in Western cultures), with local religious powers getting involved at some point along the way. And even then, up until around the 16th centry most Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage based on nothing more than a declaration of such by the couple involved.

You really don't have a clue.

[Life of Brian]

Your position as articulated so far is incoherent.

Or, you're bending over backwards looking for it to mean something other than my simple and straightforward opening post. To wit:

How is a civil union different than a marriage if it confers all the same financial and other legal benefits as marriage?

I said no words at all that would lead a reasonable person to believe I was proposing that. As I think is also crystal-clear to the non-opportunistic reader, I was speculating what you could possibly mean by "endorse" in the text I quoted: "endorsing some unions over others." Since civil unions address all of the stated inequities I'm aware of OTHER THAN fiscal ones, I couldn't imagine what else you might be alluding to.

If you'd like to clear that up, feel free. But if you're just here to straw-man me, save your keystrokes.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Wuz,

"But government involved itself in the union of man and wife AFTER it was formed, not before. For the overwhelming vast majority of human history the formation of a marriage was a private contract between families (at least in Western cultures), with local religious powers getting involved at some point along the way."

Which makes my point, not yours. Marriage was religious first, then government got involved. You posed the question as to why did government get involved, the reason is intimately tied up with religion. You helpfully pointing out that marriage predated government and religious involvement predated government involvement is what is referred to as an "own goal."

[Nelson]

"Is it a very “libertarian” thing to be ruled by an oligarchy of 9 judges?"

So you don't understand the rights-protecting role of the Supreme Court? That tracks.

[Krayt]

On the other hand, making laws leads people to think there’s some justification for the law. The longer that goes on…

It’s a good sign all these states are stepping up and passing abortion guarantees.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"On the other hand, making laws leads people to think there’s some justification for the law."

Funnily enough, every time some state passes a maximalist ban people tend to understand the justification for Roe and Casey.

[Defenderz]

Are you a homosexual?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Is this something you ask of people in regular conversation?

[Defenderz]

When someone is this fervent in their leftist beliefs, yes.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So I'm guessing you spend a lot of time in HR?

[Krayt]

If he said yes, are you interested?

[Kazinski]

What you are missing is that the courts set back SSM by about 20 years. It was the courts that caused the 32 referendum losses.

When Hawaii, then Massachusetts state courts tried to impose SSM judicially, the reaction around the country was to block the courts from deciding the issue by putting provisions in state constitutions hence the 32 referendums to impose a constitutional ban on SSM.

If a handful of liberal courts hadn't tried to impose their will then their never would have been any state constitutional bans and the issue would have been decided democratically much sooner in most states.

[Nelson]

That's an amazing crystal ball you have there.

I always get a chuckle when someone posts "if things didn't happen the way they did ..." followed by a simplistic and unrealistic scenario, usually based on "those people" doing the wrong thing.

[shawn_dude]

Movements to expand personal rights shouldn't be compared to movements designed to take them away. 32 failures to extend the institution of marriage to millions more Americans is an optimistic vision of the country's future. Forcing women to give birth against their will, even at the risk of death, is not.

[Defenderz]

One can just as easily argue that expanding marriage to SS took away the rights of people already married the normal way.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What rights?

[Defenderz]

The right to participate in a stable Western tradition free of perversion. That also goes for no-fault divorce laws.

[SRG2]

One can equally argue that anything one doesn't like violates the right to have things as one likes. It is stretching the term "right" to breaking point and beyond.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you think your marriage is only valuable as part of a "stable western tradition free of perversion" and doesn't have inherent value in its own right?

[Krayt]

Doesn't God marry you? What do you care if a corrupt, rogue, Satan-dominated government recognizes gay marriage with scratchings on a paper? Those aren't real marriages regardless of gay or straight.

[not guilty]

“One can just as easily argue that expanding marriage to SS took away the rights of people already married the normal way.”

Uh, no. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), was decided on June 26, 2015. Every couple who was married or eligible to marry on the day before the decision remained married or eligible the day after the decision. (Save for couples whose divorce was granted the same day as the decision was rendered.)

[shawn_dude]

More zero-sum thinking on the Right. They'd should've been celebrating that they reduced the number of people "living in sin" such that it bolstered their own conservative institution even if they weren't fond of the people it helped.

[Krayt]

All marriages except those recognized by God in a proper ceremony of your one, true denomination are living in sin, as they are fake marriages!

And getting married down at the courthouse, geeze, might as well shout Hail, Satan while you're at it!

[Sarcastr0]

Hawt.

[shawn_dude]

American couples that get married in a church need a secular (court house) license. So they're hailing God and Satan? I'm going to assume that, if you're married, that you never bothered to get a marriage license as that's Satanic and hypocritical and stuff. Right?

[Nelson]

"One can just as easily argue that expanding marriage to SS took away the rights of people already married the normal way."

How could anyone argue that in a sane manner?

[Nige]

'is just getting started'

They've had a couple of decades of warming up, is all.

[Kazinski]

I doubt it. While I support the Dobbs decision on constitutional grounds, as a libertarian I generally think Abortion should be available without many restrictions through the first 12 weeks.

I think it will sort itself out in the states in the next couple of years, with some degree of legal abortion in 3/4 of the states.

[shawn_dude]

Why 12 weeks? That’s well before any form of viability.

With Republicans in control of the majority of state legislatures in the country, why do you think 37 states will support legal abortion? I might buy the practicality argument where the GOP finally comes around to figuring out that plank is rotten and abandon it in favor of something equally cruel and authoritarian. Or are you trying to hide a near-ban within “some degree” and thus claim a 6 week ban with almost no exceptions (Ohio) would still be technically legal abortion even if few women would be able to make use of it?

[Nelson]

"I generally think Abortion should be available without many restrictions through the first 12 weeks."

What is your rationale for 12 weeks? I mean this seriously. I am always interested at where (and why) people draw the line for themselves.

As a follow-up, is there a difference between the point which you believe elective abortion is justified and the point which you believe government restriction is justified?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I suspect the pro-life movement is just getting started.

. . . in getting its ass bombed back to the Bronze (or Iron) Age*, sure.

* which, coincidentally, constitutes the "good old days" for which our vestigial clingers still pine

[Moderation4ever]

Any thoughts on the Minnesota Supreme Court tossing the challenge to keep Trump off the primary ballot using the 14th A argument? It makes sense to me because the nominee is not guaranteed to hold the office. Political parties are private entities that have a right to select their candidate. The rub comes in if they pick a candidate only to find their candidate is not ballot eligible for the general election where the winner potentially will hold the office. This kind of set a landmine for the Republican Party does it not.

[John F. Carr]

I have not found the decision. AP quotes from it:

There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office.

I can buy this. Presidential elections are legally unique, both during the primaries and at the general election. If Trump is disqualified by a final decision of the U.S. Supreme Court next October 31 the Republican electors can vote for somebody else. In most states they can vote for somebody else simply because they changed their mind, or because Trump is in prison without being disqualified.

[Voize]

Gotta google harder.

[not guilty]

The order is here. https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2023/ORA231354-110823.pdf A punt that the late Ray Guy would envy.

The most important takeaway is the finding (slip op. p. 2) that the petitioners have standing.

[not guilty]

I read the order to indicate that the petitioners can renew their claim
if and when Donald Trump is nominated as a candidate for the general election ballot.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

They don't give any explanation about their decision on standing. Does their decision make sense? What is the injury in fact suffered by the plaintiff here?

[Commenter_XY]

I used to see him on TV as a child = Ray Guy 🙂

(I remember)....the punt comment made me chuckle.

[Brett Bellmore]

The real landmine here is attempting to disqualify a major party candidate on a basis that that party's members don't think is legitimate.

It would be one thing if they were to charge Trump with insurrection, and convict him after a full trial. While there would still be a lot of griping, a lot of people would at least agree that due process had been satisfied.

But the effort seems to be to get it done with the absolute minimum amount of process possible. How do you do that and expect the candidate's own supporters to think it was legitimate?

[David Nieporent]

It would be one thing if they were to charge Trump with insurrection, and convict him after a full trial. While there would still be a lot of griping, a lot of people would at least agree that due process had been satisfied.

I think it's quite clear based on the reaction to the various criminal prosecutions (and civil suits) against Trump that are currently going on that — as a first approximation — zero MAGA would agree with any such thing.

Perhaps if they charged Trump in — what's some place that has only Republican white people on their juries? Maybe South Dakota? — South Dakota, and had a judge appointed by Trump overseeing the trial, and the prosecutor was Rudy or John Eastman, then maybe one or two MAGA would agree that due process had been satisfied. But probably not even then.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're going to move some people, quite a few people, on the margins. Trump supporters aren't clones run off on some machine somewhere to exacting tolerances, they have a full range of views from "just about but not quite had it with him" to "would help him reload if he shot that guy on 5th avenue."

It's really easy to say, "I don't have to prove my case in court, because the other side won't care anyway." But in the end it's just an excuse for not proving your case in court, because you're not confident you could, and an acquittal would be the end of your effort to disqualify him.

[Sarcastr0]

This is hostage taking and it's not going to fly.

'My side will get angry and violent if you don't do it their way' is a childish tantrum; it is not an argument that deserves much attention in civil society.

[Krayt]

Turning the power of government against a political opponent, then claiming hoi polloi officials can keep him off the ballot is beyonf childish.

It is the kind of bullshit the founding fathers tried to prevent.

"We're so right, so god damned right, we can just keep him off the ballot!"

What a great country.

[Sarcastr0]

Again - to the Constitution, facts matter.

[Nige]

'We’re so right,'

Apparently that does actually matter. Y'know, right and wrong.

[Commenter_XY]

No, it is more like: When the shoe is on the other foot, don't bitch.

[Sarcastr0]

No. If Trump goes after some scalps on the left based on clear pretext, and you say 'well it's just how it goes' you will be a bad person enabling bad things.

Truth matters. I don't care how sincerely you're wrong about Trump being wrongly persecuted.

You are wrong. I don't fucking care how angry you are; facts matter and they are not on your side.

I know you are pissed because Employment Division v. Smith is still good law. If that drives you to endorse authoritarianism, that's a moral stain on your soul, no matter what else got you mad.

[Commenter_XY]

When the shoe is on the other foot - and it will be because politics is a strange business - don't bitch.

[Nige]

Authoritarian facist right here!

[Sarcastr0]

I will bitch as the facts demand.

You, it seems, plan to remain silent as your factionalism demands.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, if it were the same shoe, I would not complain. But MAGA types promise to retaliate regardless of what kind of footgear their target wears. It’s all, “Prosecute our guy for crimes, and we will prosecute your guys no matter what.” And then you scream that turnabout is fair play, and, “You brought it on yourself.”

So I plan to bitch about that now, and to keep bitching. America-hating would-be totalitarians mean to tear this nation down, and to seize power by any means available. This nation is in the throes of its most dangerous crisis since the Civil War.

By the way, Commenter_XY, power-mad corporatists who have planned so long, worked so hard, and spent so much, to organize their ongoing coup attempt are relying on dupes like you. And for that matter, relying on dupes like Trump, to give them cover, and to make government overthrow look like routine politics.

Try to do better. You could start by recognizing that identity politics advocates—as tiresome as they may be, and as wrong-headed as their politic often are—are nowhere near as powerful, nor as dangerous, as the people you support, and provide cover for.

The so-called culture war is not about leftists attacking America. It is about corporatists mobilizing bigots to assemble a political base for insurrection.

Giving you credit for apparently sincere advocacy, you ought to be looking for political allies among folks you seem to hate. Like any ordinary citizen, you have a lot more in common with them than you do with the people attacking them, and attacking this nation.

[David Nieporent]

Whoosh! As always, you miss the point. "The other side won't care anyway" is not a hypothetical; Trump's being prosecuted (and also sued) right now for multiple things in multiple places, and the only things we hear are "witch-hunt," "election interference," "political prosecution," "Democrat jurors," "Democrat judge," etc.

They've already pre-delegitimized the trials by declaring that he can't get a fair trial in the places he's being tried and that any conviction is inherently invalid.

[Josh R]

I wonder if there are enough people on the margins who aren't MAGA who would be persuaded to vote for Biden rather than Trump if Trump is convicted.

[shawn_dude]

Current polls are showing more loyalty for Trump among conservative independents than liberal independents for Biden. Trump voters are polling support even if he's in jail.

[Defenderz]

Every Trump case has a judge that is not even pretending to hide their biases.

[apedad]

You are including Judge Aileen Cannon and the US v. Trump, classified documents trial, right?

[David Nieporent]

I mean, that one's arguably true! (Though presumably not what he meant.)

[Kazinski]

If Jack Smith thought he had evidence to successfully prosecute Trump for insurrection then he would prosecute him in DC.

But its pretty obvious he doesn't think he's developed the evidence for that charge so there is an effort to deem Trump guilty without due process.

[not guilty]

Jack Smith charged Donald Trump strategically in both federal cases. The charges Trump is facing carry harsher penalties than a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 for rebellion or insurrection, and they are probably easier for a jury to understand, so where is the need for overkill?

No one is trying to deem Trump guilty without due process. As SCOTUS opined in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348-49 (1976), the essence of procedural due process is the requirement that a person in jeopardy of serious loss be given notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it. All that is necessary is that the procedures be tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard, to insure that they are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case.

Who, and in what proceeding(s), is anyone trying to deprive Donald Trump of due process? Please be specific.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Perhaps he thought it wasn’t clear beyond reasonable doubt. For a criminal case that’s a must. But for the same reason, there should be no exclusion from office, either.

We often hear the whole “BRD is only used for criminal cases, you only use preponderance for civil cases”. Aside from that trope being factually inaccurate, it misses the mark, as disqualification is a unique case that has to be appreciated in its own light.

The primary interest to be protected in settling an eligibility question is not that of the candidate but that of the people themselves. It is they who are entitled to the clearest of proofs before they are denied. Convicting an innocent man harms both him and the conscience of the polity. Leaving it to just a few to decide who can and cannot be put in office threatens the polity itself. Which is why, if it is to be given to anyone to remove another from office, there should be no rational doubt the person is ineligible.

[not guilty]

The standard of proof by a preponderance of evidence is actually better suited to yield an accurate result than requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter, more rigorous standard applies to criminal cases because the consequences of convicting an innocent person far outweigh the gravity of letting a guilty person escape punishment. A criminal trial is not a search for truth -- it is a test of the government's evidence.

Apologies to those who still believe that O. J. Simpson did not murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Now explain why that standard should not apply to disqualification.

[not guilty]

Disqualification from federal office under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 is not a criminal sanction. (Disqualification imposed as a criminal penalty, e.g., for 18 U.S.C. §§ 2383 or 2071(b), is a different matter.) No civil proceeding requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as I explained above, the preponderance of evidence standard of proof is more accurate.

[Life of Brian]

No civil proceeding requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What a beautiful half-truth. Many civil proceedings employ the heightened burden of clear and convincing evidence: a bit lower on the scale than beyond a reasonable doubt, but far beyond the 50+% preponderance.

And as I explained above, the preponderance of evidence standard of proof is more accurate.

You didn't explain anything -- you just said so. Coin-flip odds get you coin-flip outcomes. That's precisely why there's a heightened burden of proof in both criminal and civil matters when liberty interests are at stake.

Now, feel free to actually make your case for why permanent disqualification from political office shouldn't employ such a heightened standard.

[not guilty]

As hesitant as I am to cast pearls before swine, (Matthew 7:6,) did O. J. kill two people or not? (Fred Goldman is the only white man over the age of 40 to be awarded the Hiesman Trophy,)

As SCOTUS opined in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348-49 (1976), the essence of procedural due process is the requirement that a person in jeopardy of serious loss be given notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it. All that is necessary is that the procedures be tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard, to insure that they are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case.

Identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. Id., at 335.

A State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies. Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 733 (1974); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972). The state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App'x 947 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch, J.)

A preponderance standard minimizes the frequency of erroneous deprivations -- the consequences of wrongly ruling for the challenger or for the candidate are equally weighty. As SCOTUS has opined:

The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to "instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication." In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). The standard serves to allocate the risk of error between the litigants and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision.

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 (1979).

The Supreme Court has mandated a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both "particularly important" and "more substantial than mere loss of money." Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982), quoting Addington v. Texas, supra, 441 U.S., at 424. Civil proceeding applying this intermediate standard include cases involving involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, Addington, supra, final termination of parental rights, Santosky, supra, deportation, Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 385 U.S. 276, 285 (1966), and denaturalization. Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 353 (1960); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 159 (1943).

Whatever liberty interest Donald Trump has in running for office pales in comparison to the rights at issue in the categories listed above. "The right to run for office is not a 'fundamental' right." Plante v. Gonzalez, 575 F.2d 1119, 1126 (5th Cir. 1978). Far from recognizing candidacy as a "fundamental right," the Supreme Court has held that the existence of barriers to a candidate's access to the ballot "does not of itself compel close scrutiny." Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 963 (1982) (plurality opinion), quoting Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143 (1972); Hatten v. Rains, 854 F.2d 687, 693 (5th Cir. 1988) ("There is no fundamental right to be a candidate.")

The election of an insurrectionist president is a grave evil which is to be fervently avoided. The risk of loss here favors the state's right to exclude an ineligible candidate from the ballot.

[Life of Brian]

Hmmm. So you didn't at all "actually make your case for why permanent disqualification from political office shouldn’t employ such a heightened standard." You instead filled the screen with a cloud of table pounding about why you believe one particular person doesn't deserve a heightened standard. As is often the case with you, it seems there's just no productive discussion to be had with someone with such partisan tunnel vision.

That said, there's one particularly silly point I wanted to flag:

A preponderance standard minimizes the frequency of erroneous deprivations — the consequences of wrongly ruling for the challenger or for the candidate are equally weighty.

Respectfully, this is horsepucky. The challenger could be (and in the recent wave of Trump test cases, typically is) a single person or small group of people who are just as rabidly partisan as yourself if not more. The harm particular person(s) might feel if the candidate were on the ballot simply doesn't translate into a generalized harm to the nation overall.

So in reality the balance of harms is heavily weighted toward both the candidates and the voters who support them. Quite rightfully, then, should the challenger face a heightened burden. To do otherwise would turn this latest sui generis Trump attack into a generalized weapon that will engulf the political process with a blizzard of suits where the merits are poor-quality but not quite frivolous under a preponderance standard.

[not guilty]

LoB, what is your authority that Donald Trump appearing on a particular state’s ballot is anywhere near the magnitude of the liberty interests as to which due process mandates a clear and convincing evidence standard in civil cases, such as commitment to a mental institution or final termination of parental rights?

Please provide your citation(s).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

what is your authority that Donald Trump appearing on a particular state’s ballot is anywhere near the magnitude of the liberty interests

A bunch of poorly educated, disaffected bigots really really really want to vote for him -- and Jesus told them to do it?

[Life of Brian]

Ah, here comes the swaggering, chest-thumping ima-LAWYAH routine you always pull out when painted into a corner. Classic.

You're the one saying this particular liberty interest can be stripped based on only a preponderance standard, so I'll take your cite(s) to that effect first.

And to hopefully save you the effort, more "Tump SUX" blather doesn't count a whit.

[Life of Brian]

A bunch of poorly educated, disaffected bigots really really really want to vote for him — and Jesus told them to do it?

As much as it irks you to the core, Artie, religious beliefs, convictions and practices are indeed a fundamental liberty interest.

Now go rub that butthurt with one of your frozen Costco hot dog buns and see if that helps.

[not guilty]

“Ah, here comes the swaggering, chest-thumping ima-LAWYAH routine you always pull out when painted into a corner. Classic.”

IOW, you got bupkis. And I am by no means painted into a corner.

I cited the leading Supreme Court procedural due process decision as to evaluate what process is due in a particular case. Casetext reports that Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), has been cited in 15,430 federal and state judicial decision.

As I have cited, Mathews teaches that the essence of procedural due process is the requirement that a person in jeopardy of serious loss be given notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it. All that is necessary is that the procedures be tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard, to insure that they are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case. Id., at 348-49. In the challenges to Donald Trump’s eligibility appear on various states’ ballot as a candidate for president, a preponderance of evidence standard, combined with other procedural safeguards designed to ensure Trump’s right to present his case to the appropriate tribunal, easily satisfies due process.

I have cited numerous categories of cases where SCOTUS has recognized that the individual liberty that the government seeks to deprive is of such gravity that it requires a clear and convincing evidence standard to lessen the risks of a wrongful deprivation. Trump’s interest here is not even close. As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the others.

The petitioners in the challenges are proxies for the respective states’ interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process by excluding from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. Nothing about a political candidate’s interest in appearing on the ballot despite the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 prohibition outweighs that state interest.

I realize that nothing I say will persuade you and others who have their heads stuck far up Donald Trump’s hindquarters. I write this rebuttal for the benefit of other commenters and readers.

[Life of Brian]

IOW, you got bupkis.

Other than you desperately needing a distraction, it's not clear at all why I would need "bupkis" right now, since you're just spewing out multiple screenfuls of hopeful word salad instead of actually making a coherent case for your whackadoodle theory. You know and I know that this is, as is so often the case with the modern-day "GIT 'im" crowd, a matter of first impression.

Denying someone -- for life -- the ability to participate in the political process is about as severe of a stripping of fundamental rights as it gets. You can prance and dance around with your procedural due process analysis all you want, but at the end of the day you're just casting shadow puppets on the wall trying to distract from that simple and inescapable fact. In that vein, Mathews itself (as I hope you know) says nothing whatseover about the standard of proof.

I realize that nothing I say will persuade you and others who have their heads stuck far up Donald Trump’s hindquarters.

You're the frothing partisan in this equation, my friend. You really need to step back and think objectively -- to the extent that's possible -- about what happens if you get your wish and this becomes the latest lawfare tactic in the political process. Only you and your foolishly short-sighted colleagues think this issue is remotely close to only being about Trump.

[not guilty]

LoB, I cited upthread my authorities that running for office is not a fundamental right:

Whatever liberty interest Donald Trump has in running for office pales in comparison to the rights at issue in the categories listed above. “The right to run for office is not a ‘fundamental’ right.” Plante v. Gonzalez, 575 F.2d 1119, 1126 (5th Cir. 1978). Far from recognizing candidacy as a “fundamental right,” the Supreme Court has held that the existence of barriers to a candidate’s access to the ballot “does not of itself compel close scrutiny.” Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 963 (1982) (plurality opinion), quoting Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143 (1972); Hatten v. Rains, 854 F.2d 687, 693 (5th Cir. 1988) (“There is no fundamental right to be a candidate.”

What countervailing authority, if any, do you have? Please provide citations.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Life of Brian.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

"The preponderance of evidence standard of proof is more accurate." Accuracy isn't the only issue. When it comes to all heightened standards, from convicting someone of a crime to finding statutes unconstitutional to committing someone for insanity to certain bail decisions in many jurisdictions, to prerogative writs - the standards used in these circumstances all reflect a basic truth: Between two different errors sometimes one is worse than the other - sometimes greatly so.

Being accurate with respect to not convicting an innocent person is more important than being accurate with respect to not acquitting a guilty person. We could say the same things in all the other cases. And the question of how sure one should be is normative.

"No civil proceeding requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. "
1. Not true. Courts, generally, are supposed to only hold statutes unconstitutional when it is clear beyond reasonable doubt. Does "beyond reasonable doubt" in this context equate to the standard to lock someone up and throw away the key? Probably not, and some judges have said they simply prefer the term "clear".
Still, 49 out of 50 state supreme courts use this language, and it appears in U.S. Reports many times.
2. Just because it's not used much doesn't mean that isn't the appropriate standard here. I don't know if you are a lawyer, and I hope you will not be offended in any case, but I think your argument to be very "modern lawyer brained" inasmuch as it attempts to treat a rubric as if it had the determinism of a statute. These standards of proof did not fall from heaven on a stone tablet, they weren't "proclaimed" by judges (or your professors). They are simply a manifestation of what I described above: unequally bad errors. The question is what the standard should be here.

[not guilty]

"Courts, generally, are supposed to only hold statutes unconstitutional when it is clear beyond reasonable doubt."

If that language "appears in U.S. Reports many times", it should be simple for you to provide some citations. How about it?

Courts often say that a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative Act is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid. E.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). That, however, is a different concept than a quantum of proof.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nameless But Highly Opinionated, not guilty has given you a skilled lawyer's advice. You ought to pay attention. But that doesn't mean not guilty exhausted the case to make Trump ineligible. There is also the question where that issue stands in light of American constitutionalism. The case there is even stronger than the strictly legal case.

As you have been told, there is no right to office, and no right to run for office. But you, and many others, still insist that, somehow, due process must be required. Required by who or by what you cannot say.

In fact, as surprising as it might seem to folks accustomed to being ruled by courts and the legal system, the law is not the last word on such questions. The Constitution is. The Constitution is not merely a law. It is more than a law. It is a decree, founded on the arbitrary power of a sovereign to rule at pleasure and without constraint.

The sovereign cannot permit itself to be constrained and remain sovereign. Neither due process nor anything else can be permitted to constrain sovereignty. Because it has ceded power to whatever constrained it, sovereignty constrained ceases to exist.

Thus, American constitutionalism insists that the courts, and all their rules, including due process, are powerless to constrain the sovereign on any question the sovereign has settled by decree. The sovereign is not required to deliver due process.

As it happens, some questions relating to what the founders termed, "the gift of office," have been settled by decree. Qualifications for office are among those. The 14th amendment includes an unambiguous decree, already in existence, denying the gift of office to insurrectionists. That ought to be the end of it. The civil officials normally empowered to decide ballot eligibility questions have thus been empowered to decide questions about insurrectionists.

Unlike the courts, nothing those civil officials decide can be read to constrain the sovereign. If the courts try to do it instead, by invented legal reasoning, and by evaluating Trump's case according to whatever standards the jurists posit, the courts will inevitably either narrow or enlarge the scope of the Constitution's decree. That would not be a constitutionally legitimate thing to do.

It may be that for practical political purposes the language of the amendment is too ambiguous, and that to avoid political strife it needs to be corrected. As with the question of Trump's eligibility, to decide that in court cannot be a legitimate judicial function. The jointly sovereign People themselves will have to do that, if it is to happen at all.

[Sarcastr0]

The real landmine here is attempting to disqualify a major party candidate on a basis that that party’s members don’t think is legitimate.

That's not Constitutionally material.
Facts matter, not people's delusions.

[Krayt]

Asserting this rises to the constitutional level may or may not be a delusion, but asserting so when half the country doesn’t think so, so you can throw him off the ballot in a few purple states, well, we love democracy, except for this one cool trick!

[shawn_dude]

If he doesn't legally qualify for the ballot in any particular state, how is that a "cool trick?" If there is no legal way to keep him from being listed on the ballot and a state figures out a way to do it anyway, then I'd agree it's a "trick." There *are* constitutional provisions for disqualifying people for office based on crimes and other activities so it isn't like this is just an out-of-the-blue notion someone came up with. Whether it applies to the presidency is an open debate at the moment.

As others have mentioned, the number of Americans who agree or disagree with this is irrelevant when reading current law. It's very relevant if there's an attempt to pass an amendment or other legal instrument to change or clarify current law. That wouldn't be a "trick," either.

[Sarcastr0]

It does not matter to the Constitution how many people in this country are wrong.

It is the law in the Constitution, and how it applies to the real facts that matter.

Ad popularum all you want, it doesn't make your argument any more than thuggery. And the Constitution is a lot better than that.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Maybe we shouldn't have section 3 at all. We have to follow the law, but wait... that includes that last sentence of section 3, too.

Using section 3 is like amputating your leg. If it's gangrenous you have no choice. But if every time you suffer a paper cut or bruise you're removing a limb simply because it might get infected, you won't last very long.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it's strong medicine. Thus you would need a state person to act and then the judiciary to adjudicate the inevitable challenge.

But it being serious does not mean Trump does not satisfy it.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

We have a constitution to keep the country together. If it were plainly working against that, we should dispense with it.

Cessante ratione legis...

[bernard11]

The real landmine here is attempting to disqualify a major party candidate on a basis that that party’s members don’t think is legitimate.

By that argument the disqualification clause is a nullity. If the party members think it's OK to disqualify someone for some reason, then that person is extremely unlikely to nominated to begin with.

[Brett Bellmore]

The disqualification clause was added to the 14th amendment to retroactively legitimize what the Radical Republicans had done during the Civil war without any constitutional basis. It's not an accident that it has had essentially no application outside the case of the Civil war, where the victors were doing whatever they felt like to the losers.

So, yeah, it might as well be a nullity in peace time, it's not going to have any application that's consistent with civic peace. Treating the other party like they just lost a civil war, when you didn't win a civil war, is not the sort of thing you do and expect politics to just go on like normal.

[Sarcastr0]

Have you ever offered any facts to back up this story?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Regardless of the motives of the framers, it's in there and it says what it says. You write a lot here criticizing changing the constitution without amending it, and that is exactly what you are advocating now. If Trump engaged in insurrection, he is ineligible to be President, full stop. Whatever type of skullduggery you believe the Radical Republicans were up to in the late 1860s is immaterial.

It is certainly within constitutional bounds to debate whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. That is what section 3 demands we do. But to advocate that we simply ignore section 3 or any other part of the constitution isn't a legitimate argument.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If Trump engaged in insurrection, he is ineligible to be President, full stop.

OK. When was he convicted of insurrection?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He wasn't. So what?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When was he convicted of insurrection?

When was the conviction requirement placed in the Constitution?

[Ben_]

"How do you do that and expect the candidate’s own supporters to think it was legitimate?"

They don’t care. They’ve been in full totalitarian mode for 6 or 7 years now.

Pretending it’s legitimate is to fool the small percentage of Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters who still remember legitimacy and process and haven’t gone full Stalin.

And because they always pretend everything and they have forgotten how to be genuine on anything.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

The real landmine is attempting to disqualify someone, period. We're not talking about something objective like whether someone is 32 or was born in Japan or would be serving a third term. There's no requirement that someone be kept off a ballot, and it shouldn't be done. While the law has to be followed, no one in particular is bound to enforce section 3, or even inquire into whether another is eligible. States should simply specify that section 3 isn't a basis for ballot removal, and leave enforcement - if there is to be any at all - to Congress.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That might be a good argument for not ratifying section 3, or for wording it differently. But it is there now and it says what it says. Regardless of how subjective the requirement is, it exists and must be dealt with. In all states election officials swear an oath to uphold the US constitution. If their state laws demand that all requirements to hold office must be met in order to appear on the ballot, they are required by their oath to decide if section 3 applies. Nothing in 14A limits the enforcement power to Congress.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

I meant that state legislators should do the specifying.

Answering both this reply and the one above to Brett, there is that last sentence (removal of disability by Congress). Seldom does any legal provision admit of being set aside that way, but this one does.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, I take your point there. Section 3 is silent on who is eligible to appear on a ballot. It is up to the states to decide if only constitutionally qualified candidates can appear on a ballot, and not requiring that would be a neat way to duck this whole particular briar patch. Indeed that seems to be exactly what Minnesota just did, at least as far as primary ballots.

[Ben_]

If blue states take Trump off the ballot, red states should take Biden off the ballot.

They can agree amongst themselves that Biden participated in an insurrection. Base it on any story or reasoning they like.

[Nige]

That does sound like something red states would do.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I suppose that's true. Of course any action like that would have to survive being challenged in court.

[not guilty]

"It would be one thing if they were to charge Trump with insurrection, and convict him after a full trial. While there would still be a lot of griping, a lot of people would at least agree that due process had been satisfied."

The Minnesota Supreme Court has paved the way for the challenge to Donald Trump's eligibility to be refiled if and when the Secretary of State places Trump's name on the general election ballot as a candidate for President of the United States. The procedures enacted by the Minnesota legislature will then afford Trump a full measure of due process.

The essence of procedural due process is the requirement that a person in jeopardy of serious loss be given notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it. All that is necessary is that the procedures be tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard to insure that they are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348-49 (1976). The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Id., at 333.

Identification of the specific dictates of due process in a particular case requires consideration of three factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail. Id., at 335.

The docket sheet in the Minnesota action that was dismissed without prejudice on Wednesday is here. https://mncourts.gov/A23-1354-Joan-Growe,-et-al-,-Petitioners,-vs-Steve-Simon,-Minnesota-Secretary-of-State,-Respondent.aspx The petitioners filed a detailed 84 page petition as an original action in the Minnesota Supreme Court, setting forth in painstaking detail the factual and legal bases for their claim that Trump is ineligible to serve as president if elected. Trump quite obviously understood the nature of the claim; his attorneys filed a comprehensive 28 page response joining issue as to numerous factual averments and legal issues.

It is foreseeable that when the petition is refiled after Trump is placed on the general election ballot, the factual and legal issues to be raised by the petitioners will be substantially similar. Trump cannot be heard to complain that he lacks notice of the nature of the petitioners' claims.

As with the initial petition, any preliminary legal issues which are potentially dispositive will be heard by the state Supreme Court at the outset. If the petition survives this initial review, the Court will appoint a referee to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact, which are reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Minnesota Rules of Evidence will apply. It is possible that the parties will be permitted discovery. The standard of proof is the preponderance of evidence.

Trump will have the right to be represented by counsel. His attorneys may cross-examine witnesses against him, and he will have compulsory process for the appearance of witnesses that he chooses to call.

The action of the Minnesota Supreme Court will be a final judgment or decree rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, potentially reviewable by the United States Supreme Court by writ of certiorari pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).

How on earth does that not comport with procedural due process guaranties?

[Stephen Lathrop]

How on earth does that not comport with procedural due process guaranties?

Well, not guilty, it arguably illegitimately assumes due process guarantees apply to the gift of office, bestowed at pleasure and without constraint by the jointly sovereign American People.

[not guilty]

Well, appearing on the ballot or not does affect First Amendment rights of a candidate and his supporters. See, e.g., Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983).

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, your reply relies on a misunderstanding of American constitutionalism so widespread, and of such long standing, that it can hardly be considered an error. But it is a misunderstanding nevertheless, and in modern constitutional analysis it leads to a lot of confusion and paradoxical interpretations.

The Constitution was premised on a notion of a continuously active popular sovereign, empowered with arbitrary control over every aspect of government—but especially over the constitutive power—which was during the founding era regarded as the defining power of sovereignty. Here is founder James Wilson on the subject:

There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable . . . Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions . . . This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is, that in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitution, control in act, as well as right. The consequence is, the people may change constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.

For those insights, Wilson relied upon pre-founding era political thinkers including Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, and Sydney, plus a host of others stretching back many centuries. Among the founders, Wilson was joined in that view by at least Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and Thomas Paine, to name a few who left records attesting their views on the subject.

To greatly compress a historically and philosophically complicated argument, the notion of a court empowered to balance the 1A against the sovereign People's collective power to constitute government traduces their sovereignty, and must thus be regarded as ultra vires.

Of course I get that those founding era concepts have mostly been forgotten, or disregarded as either too inconvenient, or too politically reckless. So in any decision about Trump's eligibility to again serve as President, I do not expect the modern Supreme Court to give so much as a nod to quaint notions about the People's sovereignty. Nor, for that matter, do I expect this Court to give any insightful consideration to what actually is politically reckless.

[John F. Carr]

In the name of equity, Boston exam schools will not accept students from the highest income census tracts. Formally there is a point system that gives boosts to people from poor neighborhoods, residents of public housing, etc.

Seventh grade Charlestown resident Grace Nothnagle, for example, said she had a perfect GPA and high scores on the admissions test, but did not get into the exam schools last year.

“As a tier 7 student from a nonbonus point school, I had no chance of admission to Boston Latin as the cutoff was 100.2,” Nothnagle said. “This was an impossible score.”

The score based on merit tops out at 100.

Some are still disappointed that rich families in middle-income neighborhoods were able to get their kids into a good school. Neighborhood income is used instead of family income.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/11/06/metro/boston-bps-exam-schools-admission-bonus-points/

[Ben_]

Will people in Massachusetts figure it out though? Or just keep supporting Marxist "equity" ideas and keep wondering how everything got so messed up?

[Krayt]

It’s been a long time pointing out that a fraction of the money used to make sure every last clown can count change, devoted to the intellectual elites, advancing them, would certainly have serious bang for the buck.

“But elites!”, spits the venomous politician, looking for votes, so they can be corrupt.

[Ben_]

Democrats ban books:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/hudson-booksellers-blocks-america-1st-authors-mtg-levin-kari-lake-judge-jeanine

[Zarniwoop]

Non-gov’t company declines to stock certain books. FTFY. From the article:

An email from the company shared with Secrets claimed that its “selection is highly subjective” and based on “sales history.” It said, “Our stores are small and our shelf space is limited so we have to make tough decisions about our title mix.”

And FFS, there are GQP folks who assert that removing books from government-run libraries isn’t a ban, because people can still buy them elsewhere. Such a delicious double-standard when you want to invoke a “buh-buh-but DEMS!!1!” shibboleth.

[Ben_]

Democrats told us that removing a book from a selection was a book ban.

If you want to, you can say Democrats are/were despicable liars on the subject of book availability and what’s a ban. Or you say that this is a book ban by Democrats and Democrats should be ashamed because they are book banning.

Dumb, dishonest pretense is annoying. You could all stop doing it and stop rewarding it any time.

[Zarniwoop]

Government action limiting access to books is distinguishable from a private enterprise not stocking books on their shelves.

This isn't rocket surgery.

[Ben_]

A different book ban is still a book ban.

Why do you want young children to have pornographic books?

[Nige]

Moms For Liberty got trounced, too, didn't they?

[Zarniwoop]

I support the ability of any and every bookstore to chose what books to stock on their shelves, and what not to carry. Politics, sex, 22-dimensional quantum mechanics, whatevs.

I don’t think that business decision is even remotely close to a “book ban”, no matter how much you yammer.

You’re being stupidly, bad-faith obtuse so you can bleat ineffectually about “Dems” and “libs”. Are you 14 years old?

[Ben_]

You support book banning then.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Ben_'s argument here is dumb, but really no dumber than saying that a school library declining to put a certain book on its shelves amounts to a "book ban".

[Nige]

Libraries being forced to remove books because a hard-line minority of Christo-fascist white supremacists have hysterics about young people learning about sex and that slavery is bad is, in fact, book banning.

[Nige]

'Democrats told us that removing a book from a selection was a book ban.'

No they didn't. They told you that forcing the removal of books is a book ban. Liar.

[Krayt]

I'm willing to bite there's been massive hostility in the past to private book bans, so any evidence? I'm lazy.

[bernard11]

Ben hates private enterprise.

[Defenderz]

Nobody who supports public accommodation laws has any business commenting on private enterprise.

[bernard11]

Why don't you just slither back to the main Reason comments section, or whatever rock you crawled out from under?

[Zarniwoop]

He sounds a lot like BCD's latest alias to me. Complete with the odd ... fixation on the sexual habits of gay folks and digestive tracts. (yo, see a therapist, dude!)

But they are also kinda uncreative and repetitive, so who knows for sure?

[apedad]

BCD!

"Now there's a name I've not heard in a long, long time." (scratches beard)

[not guilty]

Be grateful for small favors, apedad.

[Defenderz]

Good response!

[Ben_]

Why are you defending book banning?

[Nige]

Why are you lying so cravenly?

[apedad]

Divisions over US support for Israel deepen at State Department

Josh Paul resigned Oct. 18 from his position at the State Department, where he worked on arms transfers to Israel. He said others at State have reached out to him since his resignation.

“I’m hearing essentially two strands of argument, or of concern,” Paul said in a call with The Hill. “One is, what you might call a moral stand — where people joined government to do good, and they don’t like facilitating the massive death of civilians, and they don’t like when there is no space for policy debate about these basic human rights issues.”

The other argument Paul said he’s hearing is concern that the Biden administration’s approach toward Israel is isolating the U.S. in the region and undermining America’s position on the global stage.

Dissent channel memos are considered sacrosanct in the State Department and are supposed to remain private. The channel allows staff at any level to raise concerns to senior officials, in particular the secretary of State, on opposing views to administration policy.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4300571-divisions-over-u-s-support-for-israel-deepen-at-state-department/

Good read if you want to get some insight on the inner workings of the State Dept.

[mydisplayname]

There is also a technical discussion. If a NATO member -- say Türkiye or France -- opens a diplomatic mission in Gaza and Israel attacks such mission, should the US dutifully respond by attacking the party (Israel, in this example) who violated the NATO member's sovereign soil?

A similar question arose last year when Russia was accused of striking a Polish diplomatic mission.

[John F. Carr]

When the United States was trying to dig Noriega out of an embassy in Panama there was an argument that technically there was no treaty obligation to respect embassies in foreign countries. The U.S. had an obligation to respect the embassy of the Holy See in Washington. Noriega was in Panama City.

The U.S. dropped bombs close to an overseas French embassy in 1986. The pilots were tired after being forced to make a long detour around France on the way to Libya.

[Absaroka]

Somebody oopsied the coordinates and we bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in the late 90's as well. The Chinese were ticked off, as one might imagine, but I don't think it's generally considered a casus belli.

My googling didn't find any examples, but it's hard to imagine some embassies in Berlin (or London or Warsaw or ...) didn't get flattened in WWII.

[Commenter_XY]

Reading the article makes it sound like there is a 'Hamas Caucus' in the State Department. Lovely. Their moral compass appears to have gone awry.

Nations have interests, no friends. I understand that too.

[John F. Carr]

Donald Trump has been ordered to reveal by January 15 whether he will defend himself in the D.C. case by saying "Eastman told me I could do it!" If he does choose to defend based on advice of counsel he must provide by that same date all relevant attorney-client communications, both exculpatory and inculpatory.

[not guilty]

Here is the opinion and order. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.147.0_5.pdf

As I have said before, unless he testifies at trial, I am not sure how Donald Trump could adduce evidence before the jury of what advice from counsel he claims to have received. The attorneys who encouraged Trump's antics have heavy criminal exposure themselves -- some are charged in Fulton County, Georgia to have criminally conspired with Trump -- such that they can assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Written documents such as memoranda and emails are not self-authenticating, and it is unclear whether Trump in fact read them (absent his testimony).

Out of court declarations made by Trump's co-conspirators, if made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, can be offered by the prosecution as non-hearsay under Fed.R.Evid 801(d)(2)(E), but not by the defense.

If an attorney who advised Trump is called to testify and asserts his/her Fifth Amendment privilege as to the advice given Trump, the witness's statements could arguably be offered as statements against penal interest under Rule 804(b)(e). (That would make for an interesting Rule 104 hearing as to admissibility.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Prediction:

Trump will claim 'advice of counsel' as his defense, and will not simultaneously turn over the required evidence.

[Zarniwoop]

That strikes me as a high-risk option because an entirely plausible sanction is that the defense would be stricken (can't blatantly sandbag the prosecution that way), for conduct that is squarely within Trump's control and would thus be hard to reverse appeal.

My prediction is that he'll wait until the last minute of whatever the applicable deadline is, then try an interlocutory appeal* to delay, delay, delay in the hopes of pushing the trial date.

*If it's available. I'm not sure on that point and lack the time to go down that particular rabbit hole.

[loki13]

I mean, he could always try the SBF defense.

"I am not going to use the advice of counsel defense, instead I am going to use the ... um ... taking comfort in having attorneys around defense."

[Zarniwoop]

ugh edit window. "hard to reverse on appeal"

[not guilty]

"My prediction is that he’ll wait until the last minute of whatever the applicable deadline is, then try an interlocutory appeal* to delay, delay, delay in the hopes of pushing the trial date."

Interlocutory appeals are greatly circumscribed in federal criminal prosecutions. In Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 (1984), a unanimous SCOTUS listed three categories of cases where it had entertained interlocutory appeals by criminal defendants pursuant the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949): (1) an order denying a motion to reduce bail may be reviewed before trial; (2) an order denying motions to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy; and (3) an order refusing to dismiss an indictment for violation of the Speech or Debate Clause. 465 U.S. at 266.

Some courts of appeals have entertained interlocutory appeals from orders denying dismissal of an indictment where the accused claimed that he is constitutionally immune from being prosecuted. See, United States v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842, 844-45 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 829, 105 S.Ct. 113, 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984) (federal district judge indicted for bribery prior to impeachment); United States v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706, 708 (11th Cir.), stay denied, 459 U.S. 1203, 103 S.Ct. 1188, 75 L.Ed.2d 434 (1982) (same). See also, United States v. Myers, 635 F.2d 932 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956, 101 S.Ct. 364, 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980) (entertaining pretrial appeal of congressman based on separation of powers claim).

Any ruling by Judge Chutkan precluding an advice of counsel defense can be reviewed posttrial in the event of cconviction, so no interlocutory appeal by the defense would lie.

[Zarniwoop]

Any ruling by Judge Chutkan precluding an advice of counsel defense can be reviewed posttrial in the event of cconviction, so no interlocutory appeal by the defense would lie.

Thanks! That makes sense, with the remedy being a new trial allowing the defense to be introduced?

[not guilty]

If the reviewing court found that the error was prejudicial to the appellant, that would be the remedy. Before ordering a new trial, the appellate court would conduct a harmless error review.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Thank you for the response.

I am not a lawyer, so if you'll allow me to rephrase my theory in laymen's terms:

He will request that defense, and attempt whatever he and his lawyers can come up with to simultaneously delay the proceedings further. An 'innocent mistake' here and there, or some other kind of legal bullshit that miraculously will prevent him from complying on-schedule.

Delaying, abusing, and attempting to avoid accountability is all he's good at.

[not guilty]

"Trump will claim ‘advice of counsel’ as his defense, and will not simultaneously turn over the required evidence."

Team Trump may try that, but doing so would risk being barred from asserting the defense at trial.

[Zarniwoop]

I went down a little bit of a rabbit hole on courtlistener after reading not guilty's linked doc above. This Nov. 7 order is also indicative of Judge Chutkan's low (but non-zero) tolerance for continued attempts by Trump to delay, delay, delay:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.146.0_5.pdf

For example, asking to delay discovery because the gov't productions were allegedly "not well organized" because emails are not compiled with their attachments and replies, Judge Chutkan wrote:

Most of those arguments are unpersuasive. First, the government points out that the sole organizational defect cited by the defense was actually a best practice—rather than compiling the
email materials themselves, the government provided those materials in a format that would easily allow the defense to compile them in their preferred manner, see Opp’n to Motion, ECF No. 137, at 4—a point to which the defense does not respond, see Reply in Support of Motion, ECF No. 144.

[John F. Carr]

I noticed among the docket entries that Trump wants classified documents related to foreign influence in the election. This strikes me as fishing but the documents could be relevant to Trump's mental state, specifically whether he believed he lost the election.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Proof will be overwhelming that Trump did believe he lost the election. It will include multiple witnesses who heard him say it, and who also heard him say it was information which had to be concealed from his political supporters.

[Defenderz]

As someone who supports legal abortion, I think it's pathetic how the political left has made it the most important issue, ahead of all else.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don't think its pathetic to put government interference in the most personal of issues ahead of all else.

[Defenderz]

Yeah, maybe if you were consistent on that point. But outside of sex, I don't see those people trying to stop the government from interfering with anything else.

[shawn_dude]

This may be a result of where you're looking and not what's actually happening. Broaden your news sources?

[Defenderz]

Your side supports anti-gun rights laws, laws against "hate speech," laws against economic freedom, and nearly everything else. The only rights you support are the pelvic rights.

[Moderation4ever]

Agree here. The fact is that reproductive health care access whether that be birth control, abortion, or gynecological care can have real big impacts on women's lives. Much greater than if egg prices went up 50 cents a dozen.

[Defenderz]

Being killed by illegal aliens or career criminals released by Soros DAs have a big impact on those people's lives too.

[Moderation4ever]

you are kidding, correct? It is estimated that one in four women will have an abortion in her lifetime. What are the odds of what you suggest?

[Defenderz]

How many of those women would have needed to have an abortion had an anti-abortion scheme been in place? In other words, what percentage of women who ultimately get abortions are negligent in getting pregnant in the first place because they know abortion is an option?

[Moderation4ever]

Again, are you kidding? Do you think an abortion is pleasant? Why would anyone go that route if they have better options like BC.

[Defenderz]

I think they know it's not that big of a deal or expense, so they take fewer precautions, yes.

[shawn_dude]

I’d ask what a “Soros DA” is but it’s very easy to spot anti-Semitism. The amazing thing with us liberals is that we can spread our attention across multiple issues at once. So abortion today and then we’ll move on to creating better paths for immigration and keeping career criminals in jail. (Good news! on that last one, too. We’ve got a career criminal indicted (well, he got himself indicted, really) and standing trial in four jurisdictions for multiple crimes. So keeping up the good work there too while fighting for women’s right to decide their own health outcomes. Woohoo! Multitasking. )

[Defenderz]

A Soros DA is one who lets criminals free because he hates America.

[M L]

https://babylonbee.com/news/new-gta-game-will-have-unlockable-soros-da-mode-where-all-crime-is-legal

[shawn_dude]

It's like The Onion only if all it's editors were regulars on 8Chan.

[M L]

Criticizing Soros, and the many radical district attorneys whose campaigns he has funded, is not antisemitic.

[Bwaaah]

Well it's not racist, and it's not misogynistic, and it's not anti-LGBTXYZ. So what standard label do you use to imply that Defenderz is a person whose ideas are not worthy of consideration?

Most people on the Left don't really know about Soros and his [successful] efforts to install prosecutors who empty the prisons. (They don't even know how many people have been let out of prison, and if they do, they just look away and wait for you to shut up when you mention how much crime is up in just the past few years.) Many who have heard about the "Soros thing" think it's just another right-wing conspiracy theory, or a Jews-control-the-world conspiracy theory. So you get the standard Talking Dummy (e.g. name calling) responses when you mention him, like here.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Well it’s not racist, and it’s not misogynistic, and it’s not anti-LGBTXYZ. So what standard label do you use to imply that Defenderz is a person whose ideas are not worthy of consideration?"

"Also, I support legal abortion because 70% of those aborted are non-white. That’s a good thing."

Your serve.

[David Nieporent]

efforts to install prosecutors

I was not aware the U.S. Constitution had been amended to allow George Soros to appoint district attorneys.

[Bwaaah]

BrotherMovesOn: I didn't read that line. Game, set, match: yours.

[Bwaaah]

DN: My use of the word “install” was overreach. That said, Soros was able to put a lot of money into the kind of tertiary prosecutor campaigns that typically receive little attention. His funding had an unusually large effect, and many of his candidates won. More problematic is that “decarceration” seems to have been a primary objective, but was not clearly stated. The shock of their non-performance of function resulted in significant popular blowback. See Chesa Boudin/San Francisco, Kim Foxx/Chicago, Kim Gardner/St. Louis, Rachael Rollins/Boston, Marilyn Mosby/Baltimore. Those are just the ones who flamed out after they demonstrated their anti-prosecutorial craft. One person, George Soros, had a HUGE effect on crime in America, and many of the destructive people freed as a result of his initiative are now roaming our streets and doing as they do.

[Martinned]

@Bwaah: It's almost as if electing DAs and having no laws that restrict campaign funding are both terrible ideas.

[Defenderz]

No, what's a bad idea is allowing low information types to vote.

[bernard11]

Sure you support legal abortion.

[Defenderz]

I do, simply because I don't think something should be made illegal if at least half the people aren't supportive. Crimes should have near universal support.

Also, I support legal abortion because 70% of those aborted are non-white. That's a good thing.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That’s why Trump had positive things to say about Planned Parenthood—they hand out free birth control like candy in “urban” neighborhoods. 😉

[not guilty]

"Also, I support legal abortion because 70% of those aborted are non-white."

Thank you for your candor. I have long wondered why Republican culture warriors want to encourage greater childbirth among demographic groups that are statistically likely to breed additional Democratic voters, if they vote at all.

[Defenderz]

The reason is that I love diversity. Whites were 25% of the world's population in 1900, and are now a tiny fraction. I don't want to hurt diversity more than it already has.

[Krayt]

One beats the drum on issues, in hopes one gets enough support so you can get elected so your family fortunes can skyrocket as your spouse mysteriously manifests Gregory House levels of latent investment savant genius.

If I have left out anything utterly irrelevant to this core process dominating the planet, like health or war policy, let me know, and I will include it as an addendum in a well-formatted table of blabbery memes to voters.

[Frank Drackman]

Atlanta girl serving in the IDF killed in Jerusalem.
https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/11/07/dunwoody-high-grad-who-became-israeli-police-officer-killed-in-jerusalem-knife-0
(actually murdered by a Palestinian Terrorist (redundant I know) , but it's Pubic Broadcasting), you know, like the old Jewish guy in LA who "died of injuries sustained in an altercation"
I heard they tried to get Miss Piggy to anchor the nightly "PBS News Whore" but that whole Moose-lum/Pork thang...
Any chance her family gets a visit from Parkinsonian Joe? Common-Law Harris-Brown? Maybe Pete Booty Judge could use some of his frequent flier miles> How about a moment of silence in our Parliament of Whores?

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

May her memory be as a blessing: Rose Lubin

[M L]

Deflation and Liberty

https://mises.org/library/deflation-and-liberty-1

This monograph addresses a critically important issue: the prevailing view that deflation (falling prices and/or falling money stock) is a catastrophe that must be stopped. Jorg Guido Hulsmann shows that deflation is nothing to fear. The government should permit it to happen as a path to economic recovery and even as a tool to reform. Institutions that are liquidated in deflation need to be liquidated, and that includes banks and other financial institutions as well...

"Deflation is not inherently bad, and that it is therefore far from being obvious that a wise monetary policy should seek to prevent it, or dampen its effects, at any price. Deflation creates a great number of losers, and many of these losers are perfectly innocent people who have just not been wise enough to anticipate the event. But deflation also creates many winners, and it also punishes many "political entrepreneurs" who had thrived on their intimate connections to those who control the production of fiat money.

"Deflation puts a break--at the very least a temporary break--on the further concentration and consolidation of power in the hands of the federal government and in particular in the executive branch. It dampens the growth of the welfare state, if it does not lead to its outright implosion. In short, deflation is at least potentially a great liberating force. It not only brings the inflated monetary system back to rock bottom, it brings the entire society back in touch with the real world, because it destroys the economic basis of the social engineers, spin doctors, and brain washers."

[bernard11]

So here is an idiotic idea - deflation is good - put forward, with zero supporting evidence, analysis, or logic, by an Austrian crackpot, and ML sees fit to post it.

[Defenderz]

Hulsmann is ten times the economic that troll faced Yellen or traitor Bernanke are.

[M L]

I’m no economist, but it seems plausible to me. Anyone who favors big government might be a little biased on this topic.

“Milton Friedman long ago recognized slight deflation as the “optimal” monetary policy, since people and businesses can hold lots of cash without worrying about it losing value.”

Who’s Afraid of a Little Deflation?

https://www.cato.org/commentary/whos-afraid-little-deflation#

[shawn_dude]

"Who’s Afraid of a Little Deflation?"

Well, people who don't have cash to hold onto, for one. So something in excess of half the country?

[M L]

Wages are sticky, so they get a pay raise in effect and can afford more.

[Armchair]

Yes....but no.

There are many reasons deflation is problematic. While wages are "sticky", most people have substantial debt of one sort or another (mortgage, student loans, etc). So, that debt is essentially more costly as well.

In addition, deflation makes job creation much slower, so if the individuals lose their jobs, they are especially screwed. There's a reason deflation is often associated with recessions or depressions.

[M L]

See below re debt.

Why does deflation slow job creation? Because the government isn't spending tons of cash to dig holes and fill them back in or ?

It is argued that deflation is not really very correlated with depressions and not causal.

https://mises.org/library/deflation-and-depression-wheres-link

https://mises.org/library/deflation-and-economic-growth-great-depression-great-outlier

[Armchair]

"Why does deflation slow job creation"?

Because it lowers investment.

The reasoning basically goes like this. Creating jobs generally requires investment, at either the government or the private level. People invest their money, expecting a return on it. Inflation (at low levels) offers a soft push in that direction. Those who don't invest their money will slowly see it decrease in value.

On the opposite side of that is deflation. There, people just need to hold onto their money to see its value increase. Why invest, when you can just hold onto your money and see it buy more later?

Consumption is a second side to that coin. People buy stuff sooner, rather than later, because with inflation it will cost more later. But with deflation, items are cheaper later. So, why buy it now, when you can wait a year and it will be cheaper then? Of course, increased consumption drives the economy. So, deflation acts as a second level here to drive the economy slower.

[M L]

Ok, but isn't there another side to the story? For investments that offer a good expected return, a few annual percentage points won't make the difference. Meanwhile, the recent story of monetary policy seems to be one of increasingly drastic bubble cycles. Vast sums are torched on speculative "investments" premised on nothing but the next sucker buying in higher, on all sorts of government social engineering, sinecures and many other things. The point being, it seems like one big broken window fallacy. All of it comes at a cost, weighing down or foreclosing more useful or creative opportunities that might have been pursued. As for consumption, our economy seems too focused on it. The majority has nothing or virtually nothing for retirement.

I don't think I agree with using gold or bitcoin as put forth in this article, but these parts seemed interesting. https://www.profstonge.com/p/the-deflation-is-bad-myth

"Golden Ages in history are deflationary, not inflationary. Because deflation happens when the stuff grows faster than the money. All else equal, if your economy is making 10% more than last year and the money hasn't changed, each dollar is worth 10% more. It cost 10 bucks last year now it only costs 9 because we’re richer....

there’s another kind of deflation, the bad kind, where you’re not making 10% more stuff, instead it was the number of dollars that suddenly plunged. Fewer dollars chasing stuff will also give you deflation. The problem is why exactly money suddenly shrink....

[A more fixed money supply] returns us to the healthy deflation that built the United States -- that built the entire West -- into the richest societies mankind had ever seen. We would invent things we can't imagine -- in fact our greatest golden age, the Victorian Era, was literally known as the “long deflation.”"

[Stephen Lathrop]

M L, wages may be sticky, but job tenure has proved all too slippery.

[bernard11]

I’m no economist,

True.

[bernard11]

Some of Cochrane's assumptions are dubious.

Wages are sticky? Not for those who lose their jobs.

Increased productivity will help to maintain wages? You're going to have a hard time increasing productivity if prices are falling.

Deflation is good because people can hold a lot of cash? I don't buy it. How does an economy grow (and increase productivity) if everyone holds onto their cash tightly?

[M L]

He says that the fact wages are supposedly sticky is cited as a reason for why deflation is a problem. And then casts doubt on that reasoning.

It's not that they hold onto cash tightly. It's that they aren't figuratively setting it on fire for warmth, creating huge debt loads and endless speculative bubbles always premised on the next sucker buying in even higher, as money is kept cheap and losing value.

Out of curiosity, are you an economist?

[Armchair]

One of the issues with deflation is that most people have debt of one sort or another. And deflation essentially makes it more expensive.

[M L]

Sure. And it seems to me our current policies incentivize debt far too much. Some changes that don't incentivize debt so much would be good.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Robot—perform an abortion on that woman.

BOOM!!

[bernard11]

Out of curiosity, are you an economist?

Depends on your definition.

I don't hold a doctorate in economics, or work as an economist. OTOH, I have considerable post-graduate training in economics and finance, as well as a long career dealing with financial aspects of small businesses.

So, whatever your definition, I know a lot about the subject, many times what you know.

[Martinned]

If it helps, I do hold a doctorate in economics, and this whole "deflation is great!" story is so weird it's not even wrong. You have my blessing to spread some enlightenment in the world, but I think I'll pass. I spend enough time arguing with lunatics on the internet as it is.

[Krayt]

Deflation is bad because it makes government borrowing money tougher, cutting into how much can be borrowed, thence cutting into how much can be spent, thence cutting into how much can be lavished to buy votes, thence cutting into getting elected, thence cutting into corruption of tit for tat, thence cutting into family fortunes mysteriously skyrocketting.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We had deflation in 2020…it’s why we were always going to have high inflation in 2021.

[M L]

Right. And of course the magical money tree/theft mechanism is needed to finance lots of wars and the military industrial complex, the basket weaving gender studies, etc. So many things.

[Sarcastr0]

There it is.

You like deflation because it aligns with your stupid windmill tilting at a smaller government and broken union.

[M L]

No, that's not true.

You dislike deflation because it doesn't align with your stupid windmill tilting at supposed horrors of smaller government and stupid preference for big government spending.

[Sarcastr0]

The issues with deflation have been discussed above. Lots of things beyond government spending,

It’s virtues…well, you just explained them and they are a bank shot for your out there ideology.

[M L]

The issues with the idea that deflation is always bad have been discussed above. Lots of things beyond government spending.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dylan Byers@DylanByers
NEW: The Associated Press says it is “no longer working with Hassan Eslaiah, who had been an occasional freelancer for AP and other international news organizations in Gaza.”
Meanwhile, CNN says it has severed ties with Eslaiah: “We had no prior knowledge of the October 7th attacks. Hassan Eslaiah, who was a freelance journalist working for us and many other outlets, was not working for the network on October 7th,” a spokesperson tells me. “As of today, we have severed all ties with him.”

[Commenter_XY]

My, my. One wonders if the AP and CNN would have done anything at all had this not come to light. It is revealing they seem more pissed about being 'outed' as opposed to the moral monstrosity of their hired help participating in the Simchat Torah pogrom, and documenting it.

How many others are the same way?

[Krayt]

Time for early planning for the Butlerian Jihad. Even if the West, through some miracle, fends off some mastermind sending waves of robots across the landscape, there are other large, wealthy, technologically capable countries whose leaders...aren't so circumspect, or amenable to arguments against the dangers.

[shawn_dude]

There were some surprising results from this week's elections but I don't recall any state legalizing psychedelic mushrooms.

[Moderation4ever]

Maybe you are reading a little too much Frank Herbert. Might be good to change up, try a Dick Francis mystery.

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, the first time I read Dune I thought the Butlerian Jihad was a pretty off the wall concept. But I'm coming around to the idea that it's a plausible event.

Really, we're getting closer and closer to a circumstance under which a rogue AI actually COULD do enough damage to trigger something like that.

Doesn't mean it will happen, we might thread that needle. But we're not guaranteed to.

[Sarcastr0]

There's a *ton* of work on AI ethics and safety.

Turns out AI researchers often read sci-fi.

[Krayt]

Asimov's 3 Laws were so ingrained in positronic brain development for centuries it was functionally impossible to remove them.

That covers it for stories.

For the real world, what about dictatorships that have no such concerns? They need only keep up, a decade slower if necessary.

They steal a lot, develop a lot, and manage to make atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, intercontinental ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, land things on the moon.

Yeah...they'll be good at ethical AI, as will their scientists.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Robot, perform an abortion on that woman.

ERROR

ERROR

ERROR

[Sarcastr0]

Above you were worried about emergent behavior.

Now you are worried about hostile action by other humans via AI. Which is a different problem with different solutions.

I will note that these evil dictatorships that have nukes haven't used them, so why would they be somehow more suicidal with AI?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Because everyone is more suicidal with AI. It's protean technology which no one understands very well.

It seems the folks who understand it better fear it the most. The folks who know nothing about it are the biggest fans.

Where AI most threatens to get out of hand is in any situation which implicates both human survival and information intensive analysis—stuff like climate issues, agricultural policy, and global ecology. The prospect of an AI empowered to gather its own data, posit its own ecological theories, and then implement policies to achieve ecological goals it creates on its own deserves as much alarmed attention as any question of public policy ever.

The meta-question of how to manage globally the agency and initiative of all the people capable to experiment with AI seems itself to be an almost unsolvable problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There’s a *ton* of work on AI ethics and safety."

And better than half of it is devoted to making sure AI is 'woke', not safe.

[Sarcastr0]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I'll generously assume you're conflating research with commercial products, and not just pulling fact free white resentment out of your ass.

[shawn_dude]

If by "getting closer and closer" you mean our technology is reaching that described in Herberts' (father and son) fictional novels, sure. But we don't need a "rogue AI" for any of that to happen and all the major powers have nukes. Who needs an army of robot killing machines? And, rogue AI led autonomous robot killing machines need raw materials and factories--all of which is vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction. AI is just a tool like a tank or a missile. It's a guidance system or an automated intelligence-gathering system or maybe a digital sabotage toolkit.

[Sarcastr0]

Our AI also isn't very intelligent yet.

ChatGPT is dumb as hell, it just looks smart.
Our current limits with respect to generalizable cognition are pretty narrow, which means emergent behavior is itself going to be pretty limited.

It's absolutely something to think about, but we're nowhere near there, even if ChatGPT is a surprisingly useful tool.

[Commenter_XY]

You are way off base if you think AI isn't very intelligent yet.

The proposed AI regs just put out are not encouraging. There are, right now as I write, thousands of lawyers poring through those proposed regs, looking for the loopholes their clients gave political donations for. That is the damned truth of the matter.

[Sarcastr0]

No, where we are in LLMs and machine learning is indeed really dumb. Like the way and AI chess is not cognitively doing much if anything at all.
To AI researchers we are still in pattern finding and that’s it. And to the consumer the applications remain limited by the fact that the underlying functionality is still really narrow.

Looking smart and being smart are two different things.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with saying that LLM's and machine learning are really dumb, is that humans make a lot of mistakes, too. The machines look dumb at least in part because they make different mistakes than humans would make. OTOH, they can also accomplish things humans aren't good at accomplishing.

The machine intelligence is a different sort of intelligence from ours, with different strengths and weaknesses. The problem for us is that it's advancing rapidly, and we're not. So, eventually, and I think "eventually" is on the order of a decade or two at this point, not centuries, it's going to backfill its weaknesses to human level, while retaining its strengths. At which point it simply will be superhuman.

Will we keep control of it at that point? Maybe, maybe not.

[Sarcastr0]

Dumb does not mean error free, Brett. You're using way the wrong metric.

[Nige]

'The machine intelligence is a different sort of intelligence from ours'

It's not intelligence at all.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, we're a bit past LLMs. Why do you think there are hundreds (if not thousands) of lawyers right now in Silicon Valley poring through those proposed AI regs. It is the back-end integration with other data and independently created heuristics is where the action is (meaning, what I am seeing).

[Nige]

Regulatory capture, mostly. People have been designing AI ethical guidelines for decares. They’re worthless. They don’t apply to what we are currently calling ‘AI’ except as a function of hype to inflate their importance and a drive to get people to take them seriously in a way that is irrelevant to them while failing to regulate what they’re actually doing. Thank goodness for unions. They want them to be treated as a potentially vital part of our lives instead of an incredibly expensive set of algorithms looking for an existing industry to gut and take over before the money runs out.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sure, but looking smart and being dumb can prove surprisingly destructive.

[Nige]

'You are way off base if you think AI isn’t very intelligent yet.'

You're way off base if you think AI is exhibiting a characteristic we recognise as 'intelligence.'

[Nige]

'under which a rogue AI'

Will what, break free of its programming and post something racist online? They aren't AI in any meaningful sense. There is no AI.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Dick Francis, excellent recommendation! I have no interest at all in horses or horse racing, but those books are fantastic!

[M L]

Nikki Haley Stumped When Debate Moderator Asks Her To List Some Countries She Wouldn’t Invade

https://babylonbee.com/news/nikki-haley-stumped-when-debate-moderator-asks-her-to-list-some-countries-she-wouldnt-invade

[Bored Lawyer]

A silly question. Any country that threatens the US potentially would be a candidate for invasion. That's how she understood the question, as a hypothetical.
Of course, many countries in the world do not threaten us, and many of those are allies.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's the Babylon Bee.

[Commenter_XY]

Bored Lawyer...unrelated question.

Ungar's or A&B? (I snagged both)

[Bored Lawyer]

I like Ungar's. It's a matter of taste, though. Try both and see what you like.

[Commenter_XY]

I am doing Ungar's tonight; Baked, herbed gefilte fish (Jaime Geller).

I went back and forth between Jaime Geller and Tori Avey recipes. They all look phenomenal, but this recipe seemed like a good one to learn with. Fewer steps, and fewer things to mess up. This is my inaugural attempt at doing it myself. It looked pretty easy. I'll report back. 🙂

This is the recipe link.
https://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/baked-herbed-gefilte-fish-51230410

[Zarniwoop]

I went and read Hunter Biden’s defamation complaint against Patrick Byrne (former Overstock.com CEO and a paramour of Russian honey-pot Maria Butina). It’s pretty wild what some GQP folks will believe, apparently.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.904869/gov.uscourts.cacd.904869.1.0.pdf

The defamatory statements appear to be pretty cut-and-dried statements of fact that are capable of being either true or false. So if Byrne wants to rely on “truth as a defense”, it seems to me that he’s going to have to put up … or shut up.

I suspect he will have to STFU with extreme prejudice, and fork over some not-small amount of dollars to Hunter.

[Zarniwoop]

article from TheHill with some more accessible reporting:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4302572-hunter-biden-sues-former-overstock-chief-alleging-defamation/

[not guilty]

A public figure suing for defamation has a steep climb, but I wonder how this defendant will avoid summary judgment as to liability following discovery.

[Bored Lawyer]

Summary judgment on actual malice for the plaintiff is not that easy to get. Although this clown might just make it.

[Martinned]

Is Hunter Biden a public figure? I mean, his dad is, but what has Hunter Biden ever done to merit being treated in law as a public figure?

[loki13]

At a minimum, he would be a limited-purpose public figure, and it would be considered a matter of public concern. See Gertz.

[Zarniwoop]

It's unclear to me how that would come out if directly litigated. Hunter hasn't done much to affirmatively try to be a public figure, but he has been repeatedly attacked and put under a microscope for years. Does repeated nigh-defamation itself transform a person into a public figure? As far as I know that's kind of a gray area.

As others note, Mr. Biden might have a pretty good shot at meeting the actual malice standard; his complaint seems to assume that will be the operative standard, and pleads accordingly. Good drafting of the complaint. But in his lawyer's shoes I'd not simply concede the point to the court, either.

I guess we'll see how that issue develops, since Mr. Byrne seems to want to double down on his crazypants accusations rather than STFU and retract his bat sheet claims.

[Bored Lawyer]

The Washington Post posted a cartoon online that depicted Hamas using children and one woman as human shields. You can see it here:
https://instapundit.com/616225/#disqus_thread

Unbelievably, the Post took it down because some complained its "racist." The Executive Editor circulated an obsequious email:

"Dear colleagues,
Given the many deep concerns and conversations today in our newsroom, I wanted to ensure everyone saw the notes sent out tonight by The Post’s opinions editor, David Shipley, to Post readers and to his staff in opinions.
My best, Sally"

Apparently, WAPO is full of Hamas sympathizers, who can't bear the thought that someone is calling out their organization for war crimes. And, it seems that "racist," no matter how ill-fitting, is still a potent weapon to shut down an opinion.

If anyone thinks WAPO still has credibility, check into a mental hospital.

[Sarcastr0]

Apparently, WAPO is full of Hamas sympathizers, who can’t bear the thought that someone is calling out their organization for war crimes.

That is...quite a leap. Could you perhaps think of other reasons why they want the cartoon taken down? You quoted one right in your comment, whether it is correct or not.

Personally I think the cartoon is bad, because my takeaway is not 'OK shoot the kids, it'll be this guy's fault.'

The people here really eager to go full 'you love Hamas' on a hair trigger are not doing Israel any favors.

[Commenter_XY]

No, not quite a leap. And yes, there are a cadre of people working at WaPo (not just WaPo, NYT as well) who are sympathetic to Hamas, and who are anti-semitic.

What you evidently object to is shining a spotlight on it, and forcing a high degree of transparency. That's the part you don't like, Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

My objection is not that you're shining the spotlight on anything, it's that you are accusing the Washington Post of having a large number of Hamas sympathizers - a serious charge - without backing it up.

As I said, that kind of hair trigger is not only fucking insane, it's alienating to those who would agree with you. Even if you think you're right, do the work to back it up before you pop off.

[Commenter_XY]

I accuse WaPo (and NYT) of employing a cadre of people who are sympathetic to Hamas, and are anti-semitic, because that is objectively true. Just ask Bari Weiss. Then take a look at their social media accounts 🙂

[Nige]

'Just ask Bari Weiss.'

Right, so still just a baseless accusation.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

[Nige]

It's Bari Weiss, though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bari Weiss has been a misfit since her teens; as I recall, her relationships with organizations have ended badly since college (or was it high school?), with her whining about persecution and betrayal, her leaving in a loud huff, and the organization (and it members) regretted ever meeting Bari Weiss.

She is a disaffected loser who has apparently learned how to monetize that dysfunction with subscriptions from other alienated malcontents and grievance junkies. Good for her, I guess. Losers need community, too.

[Bored Lawyer]

Ah, yes, the typical RAK deflection-by-personal-insult.
Perhaps Ms. Weiss did not want to be part of an organization that hires someone who posts this:

“How great you are Hitler”
and
"[I was]in a state of harmony as Hitler was during the Holocaust.”

Must suck to be you, knowing that the side you think will prevail admires Hitler.
I won't tell them about your posts here. To me, they are just silliness that I laugh at. To them, they are capital crimes. Don't worry, they'll eliminate the Jews first. Then they will get to the heretics and God deniers.

[Armchair]

Sarcastr0's gotta defend his anti-semitic friends....

[Bored Lawyer]

Speaking of the NY Times, the NY Times staff had a freak attack when it allowed Sen. Tom Cotton to post an op-ed, and a high-level person was forced to resign.

Then, the NY Times hired a free-lance journalist who has posted on social media that he admires Hitler. He posted "How great you are Hitler" and that he, the journalist, was “in a state of harmony as Hitler was during the Holocaust.” Staff reaction: crickets.

That's what you need to know about who runs the NY Times. They are finer with a freelancer for their newspaper admiring Hitler and comparing his good feelings to how Hitler felt about the Holocaust.

Can't wait to read Sarcastro's gaslighting on this one. Let me guess: It's not Hitler's hatred of Jews they admire, it's his vegetarianism and love of dogs.

(Can you imagine what the reaction would be if Fox News hired a freelancer who Tweeted that he admires the KKK and they do good work?)

[Sarcastr0]

Doing a great job proving Hamas support here.

Oh wait, you've switched to liberal media whinging.

And continued abuse of the word gaslight. I thought you were better than this. But I guess the current conflict has a lot of people showing what kind of character they have.

[Bored Lawyer]

Objecting to a cartoon that targets Hamas is strong evidence of support of Hamas. Must be really hard to understand that.

As for the “liberal media,” you said that, not I. I guess admiring Hitler is now not a disqualification from being liberal.

Your bad character has been well exposed for some time. Back to muting for you.

As for the term "gaslighting," if you prefer, use "deceptive dissembling." Amounts to the same thing.

[Sarcastr0]

If a cartoon supports Hamas, then no one can object to it in good faith.

Listen to yourself.

And then you call me a bad person and a liar. Note that I never called you a liar. I did get pissed off when you accused me of stuff that I wasn't doing.

At which point you doubled down and flounced off.

Deal better with dissent.

[Commenter_XY]

But I guess the current conflict has a lot of people showing what kind of character they have.

Indeed Sarcastr0. I happen to agree with you wholeheartedly. I find it illuminating.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Could you perhaps think of other reasons why they want the cartoon taken down? You quoted one right in your comment, whether it is correct or not."

The "other reasons" are reasons that could only be argued in bad faith. The cartoon depicts the head of Hamas, and is even labelled "Hamas." The notion that this is "racist" is absurd, and, the people asserting it don't believe it. They are just reaching for a verbal cudgel they know will do the job.
Anyone with an ounce of honesty looking at this cartoon understands that it is directed at Hamas, not at a race. That so many people at WAPO are discomfited by pointed (and true) criticism of Hamas sheds light on who they really are.

[Sarcastr0]

Hamas is not a race. If someone depicted a violent black gang using stereotyped features and language that would also be seen as racist .

You've found bad faith via telepathy.

[Bored Lawyer]

Once more, you engage in gaslighting. There are no "stereotyped" images here. The man in the cartoon is modeled after the head of Hamas, and is even labelled "Hamas." You admit Hamas is not a race, and this is a pointed criticism of Hamas, not Arabs or any race.

It's not telepathy, it's common sense. When educated people cry "racism" over something that is in no way racist, they are acting in bad faith. The judicial system regularly infers bad faith and fraudulent intent from people's actions. That's what I did here.

[Nige]

'When educated people cry “racism” over something that is in no way racist,'

Oh, my.

[Armchair]

When someone consistently engages in gaslighting to defend anti-semitic behavior, one wonders if they are anti-semitic themselves

[Sarcastr0]

I don't actually think it is racist. But that doesn't mean their argument is clearly in bad faith.

Fuck off with the gaslighting. I know you know what words mean, so I can only presume you're lying about my post.

[mydisplayname]

An initial capitulation by Israel!! The Israeli Colonialists have conceded to the international demand for periodic humanitarian cease fires. https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-humanitarian-pauses-b8fc613ffd8b9351c0dc37b90b6e10dd

This is truly a glimmer of hope for all of the disfavored people forced to suffer under the boot of the Israeli regime: perhaps this chink in the Iron Wall will someday widen into a cleft through which the entire world can watch the Colonialists fully yield to international law and common decency.

[Commenter_XY]

If Israel is a genocidal, bloodthirsty regime, they are sure doing a shitty job at committing genocide. /sarc

[Nige]

A few thousand here, a few thousand there, it all adds up.

(It's really kind of scary when this argument is trotted out, as if you see genocide as *easy* to carry out, logistically. We won't mention morally.)

[Commenter_XY]

Take it up with Hamas, who can end the war today, by:

-- unconditionally releasing the hostages
-- surrender to Israel to face Israeli justice

[Nige]

I’ll take it up with Netanyahu, who’s killing the children, and people like you who think it’s good, actually, to kill children. Kill enough children, it’s a genocide.

[Martinned]

Yes, peace in the Middle East is just around the corner!

https://twitter.com/YehudaShaul/status/1722948435320442960

[Don Nico]

" Israeli Colonialists "
You sure show your true colors. Israel did not march in and seize Gaza and the West Bank. Those areas were lost after their countries declared war on and attacked Israel.
You lose you war, you lose your property. Is that so hard for you to understand?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/09/appeals-court-confirms-judge-gets-no-immunity-for-personally-searching-someones-house/

On September 26, 2019, Kyle Lusk, the attorney for Mr. Gibson’s soon-to-be-ex-wife, filed a Petition for Contempt, alleging defects in the property disbursement. On March 4, 2020, a hearing was held on this contempt petition. Judge Goldston sua sponte halted the hearing, requested Mr. Gibson’s home address, and ordered the parties to reconvene at Mr. Gibson’s home in ten minutes without explanation as to why the home visit was necessary.

Mr. Gibson informed Judge Goldston that she was not going inside his house without a search warrant; she replied, “oh, yes, I will.” Judge Goldston continued, “let me in that house or [the bailiff] is going to arrest you for being in direct contempt of court.” Judge Goldston admitted to threatening Mr. Gibson with arrest if he refused to allow her and others into his home.

More at the link.

[David Nieporent]

That was in last week's Short Circuit post, plus it might have been a separate post from EV as well.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Didn't know that. Thanks for the notice.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump yesterday filed his principal brief on appeal regarding the partial gag order in the D.C. proceeding. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208569217.0_1.pdf

It is more of a political screed than a legal brief. I haven't gone over the brief with a fine toothed comb, but on first reading I noticed discussion of only two cases (each from other circuits) regarding a pretrial gag order on a criminal defendant.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I noticed discussion of only two cases (each from other circuits) regarding a pretrial gag order on a criminal defendant."

An indication that it is a very uncommon occurrence?

[Nige]

Is Trump's sort of behaviour a common occurence?

[David Nieporent]

I noticed discussion of only two cases (each from other circuits) regarding a pretrial gag order

I wouldn't read much into that aspect of the brief. Gag orders are rarely imposed, and sane defendants follow their lawyers' advice and shut up anyway, so there's little cause to appeal them.

[Paladin_44]

Interesting the references to “President Trump” throughout this, yet others, like Pence, are referred to as “former” VP, AG, Chairman JCS.
Oops - meant this as a reply to not guilty's post from 10 hours ago.

[Martinned]

It's a weird American habit, addressing former office holders by the office they used to hold.

In fact, even for present office holders it seems unpleasantly subservient for a democracy.

(Interestingly, this was a topic of conversation on yesterday's The Rest Is Politics podcast, where Alastair Campbell said that he always called Blair "Tony", both while Blair was the Prime Minister and since, while Rory Stewart called office holders by the office, e.g. "yes, Prime Minister", and "No, Secretary of State". This came up because they interviewed Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Campbell called him Arnie or Arnold, and Stewart called him Governor.)

[David Nieporent]

It’s a weird American habit, addressing former office holders by the office they used to hold.

While that is often done (and generally wrongly, in my opinion), this is specific to the MAGA cult. They don't admit that he legitimately lost in 2020, so they call him "President Trump" to vice signal that.

[Bored Lawyer]

I am not part of the MAGA cult. But it is a long-established American habit. Bush, Obama and Clinton all are addressed that way.

[David Nieporent]

Not in court filings.

[David Nieporent]

So even Judge Cannon has largely rejected Trump's pathetic arguments to delay his trial.

[apedad]

Well not fully rejected; more like a decision to decide in March whether to delay (and I'm betting she will).

[Stephen Lathrop]

I read it as advance notice to Trump's lawyers that if they drag their feet on getting organized, she will take that later as evidence to justify delaying the trial.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I found it interesting that there were two opposite reactions to Judge Cannon's slap down of prosecutors when they informed her in a lengthy filing of Trump's lawyers actions in the DC case. Andrew Weissman said that such filings were done as a matter of course, and he had done it many times while prosecuting Paul Manafort. He felt it was evidence that either Judge Cannon was in the bag for Trump, or she was completely incompetent, or both. However Ken White found the filing petulant, and thought Judge Cannon's response was correct.

[Estragon]

Uh, not really— she’s just put off the decision.

There is no way this trial is happening before the election. Just the way she has set up the CIPA process alone is a hint. Her decision may even be somewhat defensible, when she makes it.

[David Nieporent]

.

[Voize]