Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

SCOTUS has granted certiorari in United States v. Fischer, 64 F.4th 329 (D.C. Cir. 2023), a consolidated appeal of three District Court cases construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The sole question presented in the cert petition is:

Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering”), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?

That does not portend well for holding the January 6 rioters accountable for breaching the Capitol.

[Kazinski]

Well as we all know the law is the law. That's why I've conceded that the firearms charge against Hunter violates the constitution, as much as I think he's guilty of his tax crimes and money laundering.

The rule of lenity should be enough in itself to reverse all the "obstruction" charges. I'm not aware of any previous prosecutions for obstructing an official proceeding against any one disrupting hearings, state of the union speeches, or even pulling a fire alarm to disrupt a vote.

[Commenter_XY]

The rule of lenity should be enough in itself to reverse all the “obstruction” charges.

Kaz, could you explain this? Not because I am being a smartass, but because I read about the rule of lenity here at VC, but do not read about actual instances where it was applied in a court of law.

How does this rule of lenity work in the real legal world, day to day?

[Armchair]

If you have powerful friends in government...lenity.

If you don't...then the law will be re-interpreted to punish you.

[Bwaaah]

"If you have powerful friends in government…lenity."

Yes. And that explains why so many otherwise poor, nameless, powerless street criminals in New York City have been getting so much lenity in the past few years.

I've learned a new word.

Here's my new word used in a sentence: "The reason crime has risen in U.S. cities lately is a whole lot of lenity."

Or, "George Soros helps finance prosecutors who will employ lenity in their treatment of street criminals."

[jb]

“The reason crime has risen in U.S. cities lately is a whole lot of lenity.”

I assume you mean "The reason crime has decreased in the U.S. for the past two years is a whole lot of lenity?"

Fortunately cities are now getting the Trump crime surge under control.

[Bwaaah]

And this is the game of misleading statistics. You use, 2020 as your comparative basis, because that was the WORST year in many years. Whey not compare to 2019, *before* the recent surge in crime? You're statement is VERY false.

Per NYPD crime data:

In 2019 in New York City, around 315 people were murdered. This year, so far, 373 people were murdered. So murder up 18% since 2019 (i.e. before the "racial awakening").

Felonious assault is 26,300 so far this year compared to 20,522 in 2019. That up 28%.

Shoplifting stats are a joke now. Most retailers don't even waste their time reporting thefts. Police won't even respond. (You can fill out a complaint and get a police report number for your insurance company, though.) There's no cash bail even if they grab somebody. Perps walk same day. For the police, an arrest is a waste of time.

You're trying to put lipstick on a pig, just like the New York Times does. As a city-dweller, your "crime is down" statement is so visibly false, and your use of statistics to try to obscure that fact is deceptive and manipulative.

[Sarcastr0]

NY is an outlier on crime. And kinda wonky statistically.
https://jabberwocking.com/crime-is-up-only-slightly-in-new-york-city/

[Bwaaah]

NYPD has good crime data tracking, and I've been watching it for years. NYC has much less crime than other cities.
The article you cite is over a year old. On what do you base your statement that "NYC is an outlier?" I'm not aware of there even being good national historical data on which to base such a claim.

You think Chicago, or St. Louis, or San Francisco, or Baltimore, or Portland, or Minneapolis, or Seattle are doing better than NYC? Speaking informally, that's not what I've heard.

And they're all doing "criminal justice reform," which means keeping criminals out of jail. New York State's prison population has been cut in half since around 2012. I wonder what all those former prisoners are doing now. I hope they're not committing crimes, because that would make crime go up. Oh. It has. And Democrats just wonder what's going on, or cover it up with b.s. stats and claims.

Crime *is* going down, but it's still *way* up from before the "racial awakening."

[Sarcastr0]

You think Chicago, or St. Louis, or San Francisco, or Baltimore, or Portland, or Minneapolis, or Seattle are doing better than NYC?
Yes, that's what I meant when I said NYC was an outlier. And why I linked a story that says exactly that.

I did a search on Minneapolis from Jan 01 2019-Sept 01 2023:
https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/government-data/datasource/crime-dashboard/

I can't seem to figure how to get an exact number of the change, but the yearly numbers don't show any kind of marked increase

And they’re all doing “criminal justice reform,” which means keeping criminals out of jail
Sure, that's what you've been told. Have you checked?

[Bwaaah]

And they’re all doing “criminal justice reform,” which means keeping criminals out of jail

Sure, that’s what you’ve been told. Have you checked?

Not in all of those specifically. But this is the first time I've heard anybody suggest that criminal justice reform, including bail reform and "diversion programs," haven't been widely deployed around the country.

That's really nasty to pretend that hasn't been going on for years. If you don't want to look up the prosecutors names (Chesa Boudin, Larry Krasner, Kim Gardner, etc.) who have led these efforts, well then don't pretend you're interested in criminal justice reform.

That's really dishonest.

[Absaroka]

Something to be careful of with crime stats: the DA announces he will no longer prosecute, for example, shoplifting cases < $500. Arrests for shoplifting under $500 plummet, yay!

There are two explanations:
1)crooks say 'well, heck, if I won't go to jail for it, I'm not interested in doing it anymore'
2)knowing this, the police stop making arrests for <$500 thefts, and knowing that, store owners stop calling the police for <$500 thefts.

I'll leave which is more likely for people to decide according to their political priors.

(lived in Seattle for decades, lotsa friends still there, so I get their perspective. Most of them are pretty progressive, because Seattle is mostly progressive. And most of them are of the 'we don't bother calling because nothing ever happens when we do' camp)

[Randal]

Hey guess what libertardians, this is what you want.

Us big blue cities decided that we're tired of paying high taxes just to subsidize retailers' operations and business models in the form of police, prosecutors, courts, public dedenders, and prisons dedicated to deterring shoplifters. It wasn't worth it. Retailers, feel free to invest in your own security. If that's not viable, then your business isn't viable. We'll just shop online thanks.

It's the free market at work!

[Sarcastr0]

From the same blog, more general crime stats are pretty normal, GOP caterwauling aside:

https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-crime-is-back-to-pre-covid-levels/

After hearing Republicans tonight talk about the supposedly epic crime wave turning America into a hellhole, it occurred to me that maybe the NCVS had been updated through 2022. And it has! Given the current parlous state of the FBI's crime figures, it's the best source we have for national crime statistics. Here's the latest:

Crime has been down lately but spiked back up in 2022. It's now at about pre-pandemic levels.

[Bwaaah]

Another pretty graph, with no actual crime data. You didn't find the source suspicious? The "National Crime Victimization Survey". It's a survey of how people feel about crime.

Gimme a break. You're not even trying.

[Sarcastr0]

The graph literally says 'Crime in the US per 1000 people/household' how could you think it was about perception?!

"This dashboard enables you to examine information from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the nation’s primary source of data on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to police. The NCVS collects information on nonfatal victimizations against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. These sample estimates are then weighted to represent the population. "

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: READ the source. Look it up. It's NOT crime data. It's a self-reporting victim survey.

[Sarcastr0]

The NCVS collects information on nonfatal victimizations against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households

These are "crimes reported and not reported to police" that happen to those surveyed. It is not, as you said: "how people feel about crime."

Are you saying that this method of getting crime data is inaccurate because they aren't filing a police report or something?

[Dr. Ed 2]

When will vigilantes appear?

[jb]

https://counciloncj.org/mid-year-2023-crime-trends/

It's true that the Trump crime surge was very big and that in some cases we're still recovering from it, but other than motor vehicle thefts basically every major crime statistic is trending down, and many are now lower than your 2019 baseline (see the graph near the bottom of the page which does this comparison explicitly).

[Bwaaah]

2019 was Trump. 2020 was Biden.

You're full of it.

[Bwaaah]

I take that back. Anyway, it's not a Trump/Biden issue. It has nothing to do with federal law or enforcement. It's all local, and though bail reform had been going on for years, the big spike began with the riots (which I wouldn't attribute to either party).

[Bwaaah]

Quite simply: in 2020, with the riots, Democrats across the country withdraw any visible support of police departments across the country. Police were hung out to dry as the pariahs who kill black people. All the cops pulled back, because any encounter caught on camera in which a black person was hurt was treated as a cause celebre. Even now, it takes 6 cops to make an arrest because the most important thing is that the perp doesn't get injured. The injuries, of course, only occur when the perp resists. So it takes 6 cops, and very careful efforts, to make one arrest.

The world changed, and it was all on camera, and you saw it, and you don't want to admit how pervasive the effects have been.

[Randal]

You have no data for this. It's just the Fox News narrative.

Here's what I see: Trump cut federal support for jobs, housing, and services, resulting in a homeless spike. At the same time, his horriffic, denial-based approach to COVID exacerbated that crisis, resulting in more people out of work and even more homeless in the ensuing recession.

The increase in unemployment and homelessness under Trump predictably resulted in a crime surge that Biden is getting under control. It started with the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021.

[Nige]

'All the cops pulled back, because any encounter caught on camera in which a black person was hurt was treated as a cause celebre'

If true, a lot of black people avoided getting hurt or killed. Well done BLM.

[Bwaaah]

More to the point, the crime surge began, unequivocally, in spring of 2020 at the onset of the George Floyd riots. Pretend it's something else.

[Nige]

A massive failure of policing and breakdown of trust in police.

[Nelson]

"You use, 2020 as your comparative basis"

2020 makes sense if you are comparing Trump years and Biden years. Why would you use 2019? Maybe because it confirms your priors? Maybe?

"i.e. before the “racial awakening”)"

What does this even mean?

If you want to see the consistent decrease in crime in the last 30+ years, here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

I understand that conservatives want to claim that crime decreases under Republicans and increases under Democrats, but it just isn't true.

[Bwaaah]

Nice graph. Read the footnote. It looks relevant:

"In addition, due to the FBI's recent transition to a new crime reporting system in which law enforcement agencies voluntarily submit crime reports, data may not accurately reflect the total number of crimes committed."

FBI doesn't even have nationwide reporting. It's voluntary submissions. That's BS data.

[Nelson]

So data is BS, but your belief that crime is worse is valid?

That seems dubious, especially when dealing with a 30+ year sample size and the downward trend it shows.

[Bwaaah]

"So data is BS, but your belief that crime is worse is valid?"

The FBI's data is extremely incomplete due to purely voluntary reporting. And they don't represent it as being any more than that. They've made so many changes to the definitions of individual data points that your "30+ year sample size" point is irrelevant. Sample of what? Is "homicides" meaningful when it includes suicides? Is murder the same as homicide? Are "rape" and "sexual assault" the same? The FBI is only now trying to make the definitions of their data uniform.

I choose NYPD data because it has been consistent for years, it tends to be quite complete/accurate when counting "murders" (which have a strong propensity to be reported and recorded). So, no, data isn't BS. But FBI crime data is extremely incomplete, inconsistent in it production, and not a good way to total up crime across the country. The FBI is clear about that. You and Sarc aren't.

[Nelson]

And yet you still don't provide even incomplete or voluntary data to support your sweeping generalization about skyrocketing crime throughout the country. Your opinion isn't a valid data point.

In a choice between incomplete data and no data, incomplete data wins.

[Bwaaah]

And what I mean by "before the racial awakening" is before the riots of 2020, the onset of the "defund the police" moniker, and the start of the major crime surge that began in 2020.

You guys must not live in a city. This fact of the huge increase in crime, and that it started in 2020, is not significantly disputed by city dwellers.

[Bwaaah]

The closes you'll get from the city-dwelling people who don't want to admit it (taking one for the team) is to say, "Well. I don't think it's as bad as they say."

[Nelson]

"This fact of the huge increase in crime, and that it started in 2020, is not significantly disputed by city dwellers."

Really? All the city-dwellers you know say so? But the data tells a different story, so you want to ignore the data and just accept your belief?

I basically live halfway between New York and DC, in the most densely populated part of the country. I visit major cities regularly and have friends and colleagues who live in most of them, including Atlanta, New York, Philly, Chicago, Houston, Orlando, and Dallas. The only ones who think crime is worse have a specific political viewpoint and one of those lives in Chattanooga, which is more of a large town like Portland or Jacksonville.

If you have to say "the exact opposite of what the data says is true" to make your argument, especially when the data shows a decades-long trend, it's pretty obvious you are just refusing to accept the most likely conclusion because it doesn't fit your priors.

But let me guess. You think BLM is a criminal organization and the George Floyd protests were universally violent riots. Probably while also believing that Jan. 6th wasn't a violent riot. And there is a vast, multi-decade, multi-jurisdictional conspiracy to falsify police data to hide the truth, which is that we are living on a crime-ridden hellscape.

Is it so hard to just say, "crime is down, but it could be even lower" or "let's not get complacent, we should keep working to lower crime even more"?

[Bwaaah]

Walk into any major chain drugstore in NYC and see how they locked up a lot of the product behind plexiglass barriers. You have to find, and wait, for somebody to unlock the product for you. That's in *all* neighborhoods in NYC now. All those barriers were added in the past 2 years as retailers try to get control of the problem.

In a CVS last week, I watched a person walk past the registers toward the door with whatever he could scoop up in his arms. All major retailers have instructed their employees to not confront these people. A cashier said, "Sir...you have to pay for that," as he walked toward the doors. He stopped for a moment, yelled "Fuck you!!!" And then he walked, slowly, out the door with all of his stuff. Around 10 people watched. It's the third time I've seen that in the past 6 months. Prior to 3 years ago, in my 40 years here, I never saw anything like that.

[Nelson]

"All those barriers were added in the past 2 years as retailers try to get control of the problem."

What are you talking about? Those were there when I was in college in the 90s. Unless you're talking about all the OTC cough medicine that they started putting behind the pharmacy counters instead of on the shelves, but that's been the case for about a decade now and has nothing to do with large-scale crime rates, but the specific products that people were using to make drugs (meth, I believe).

[Bwaaah]

"You think BLM is a criminal organization"
No, I don't. It's a very broadly used moniker that is applied to a mix of organizations and political beliefs. Because of its wide range of meanings, it's as poor a term to use as "terrorist."

"George Floyd protests were universally violent riots."
No. Better understood as a protests, and overwhelmingly protestors, that included the participation of an unfortunately significant number of rioters.

"Probably while also believing that Jan. 6th wasn’t a violent riot."
It was mainly a protest that had a small amount of "violence" (I don't consider speech to be violence)

"And there is a vast, multi-decade, multi-jurisdictional conspiracy to falsify police data to hide the truth, which is that we are living on a crime-ridden hellscape."
No. No conspiracy. No false data. Just *very* incomplete data. The FBI doesn't misrepresent its crime data like you are doing. And lets remember that the long-term trends of crime, nationwide and particularly in NYC, have been steadily downward and it's nowhere near as bad as it was in the 1980s/90s. Your strawmen are nonsense.

[Bwaaah]

The thieves used to run out with product, because if they didn't, employees and customers would grab them and the product and hold them for the police.

Now? They walk. Because everybody knows how the system works now. Like I said. Bail reform. It's "just a misdemeanor." There's no penalty in the game anymore.

Haven't you guys heard about this? I'm sure you have. You're just pretending it's a "Republican" thing. Again...you must not know city-dwellers (who are overwhelmingly Democrat, and see it just like ALL of us).

[Sarcastr0]

You are saying stuff without authority, and poo-pooing every statistic but the one you provided. That's a signal of narrative talking, not the truth.

Look up retail shrink since 2019. It's not in keeping with your story about widespread shoplifting.

[Bwaaah]

"You are saying stuff without authority"

I have my own eyes on the ground. And I've been researching this for years. And I've explained myself.

And you're just googling something like, "crime data," and looking for a pretty graph that goes down.

2020, baby. George Floyd riots. Urban crime turned to shit around the country, and it's only slowly pulled back some since then. Use 2019 as the basis.

[Bwaaah]

"Look up retail shrink since 2019. It’s not in keeping with your story about widespread shoplifting."

Are you kidding me? You're probably referring to the New York Times article that said they're exaggerating the numbers after an industry trade group restated their number downward. But even after restating the numbers, retail shrink is WAY UP. (And the New York Times wouldn't even state the actual numbers in that article; only that the trade group "overstated shrink.")

You're pretending the cries of giant retailers are false. Wow.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.retaildive.com/news/retail-shrink-theft-changed-little-in-2022-nrf/694844/

Retail shrink, theft changed little in 2022
But more retailers are concerned about escalating violence in stores, which experts say carries other costs beyond shrink.

Inventory loss from theft and operational or other errors, known as “shrink,” has fluctuated little in 7 years
::graph::
Shrink as a percentage of retail sales, 2015-2022'
Source: National Retail Federation

Anecdotes are not generalizable; humans just think they are (particularly if they align with our priors).
And NYC is anomalous.

You cannot appeal to your own authority and expect anyone else to be convinced.

[Bwaaah]

If you actually dig into that very source that you cited, which is based on National Retail Federation data, inventory shrinking (which is not just shoplifting) went from about $60 billion in 2019 to $112 billion in 2022.

See graph in this article:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/target-cfo-shrink-or-retail-theft-is-still-a-significant-obstacle-for-the-retailer-194228980.html#:~:text=In%20previous%20quarters%2C%20Target%20said,million%20hit%20from%20the%20issue.

And NRF press release here:
https://www.retaildive.com/news/retail-shrink-theft-changed-little-in-2022-nrf/694844/

I didn't realize how shallow you are in doing what you call "research." Your supposed to try to find good, valid sources of data, and then try to make your best estimate from that data. Instead, you're just trying to prove yourself right, and looking for sources that confirm that.

Again, if you live in a city, you know about how bad this problem is. Not by data (which can be misleading), but by observation. It's visible, in the stores, and on the streets. All urban retail employees across the country are coping with it day in and day out. TALK TO JUST ONE. ANY ONE. (You're looking for authority? No you're not.)

I guess you haven't seen all the tents out on the west coast, or you think they bought those shopping carts and all the stuff that's in them. Those people eat every day, with little or no income and little patience for standing on food lines. 80%+ are addicted to drugs or suffer from significant mental illness. And yet they consume food, clothing, etc. Figure it out, Sarc.

I talk to these people, Sarc. They're not animals. They're people. And they live "unsavory" lives. But they're people, and when they're not needing their next fix, they can even be downright honest about stuff. Even the drug addicts don't deny the nature of their existence like you do.

I ain't got no more time for this.

[Sarcastr0]

I live in a city. You don’t seem to dispute the data with…data or issues with methodology.

Just abuse and appeals to your own authority.

I’d venture most of the commenters here taking issue with your no stats just vibes rampage live in cities.

Enjoy your unearned confidence. But what it comes from is a bunch of human cognitive fails when it comes to large numbers and people. That is why we lean so hard on stats - they keep us honest.

[Nige]

Your anecdotes aren't data, and your dismissals of data are spurious, but believe what it suits you to believe.

[Nige]

Also your assertion that homeless people = criminals belies your pontificating about their humanity. If increased homelessness does not lead to equal increase in crime you simply can't believe it. There are loads of homeless people with jobs. How do you suppose homeless people get treated by the cops even when they haven't done anything criminal? Their lives are precarious enough for most of them.

[Absaroka]

"I live in **a** city" (emphasis added)

You are doing the blind men and the elephant thing[1]. There are lots of stores closing explicitly because of crime (REI in Portland is an example). I'd give you Seattle examples, but those mostly happened a few years ago. The stores were very explicit about why they closed - a combination of direct theft and that what had been the downtown upscale shopping district had sidewalks filled with street people that made customers decide they didn't want to go downtown. It's now happening here in Spokane - we used to have a nice downtown. We'd go down to Riverfront Park and walk around, visit the funky bookstores and so on. But it's not a pleasant place anymore. This isn't a minority sentiment. The stores and restaurants that made it a fun place to go are closing one by one as shoplifting gets worse and their customers decide downtown is becoming an unpleasant place.

And while I'm a fan of hard data, you have to realize its limitations. Nationwide shoplifting numbers don't mean that there aren't cities where shoplifting is closing businesses. As the old saw goes, a man with his feet in a snowbank and head in a fire is, on average, perfectly comfortable. The stores putting laundry detergent in locked cabinets is a clue that all is not as universally rosy as you seem to think.

[1]in the unlikely event someone has never heard if, a bunch of blind men go up to an elephant. One finds a leg and says 'Aha, an elephant is like a tree!. Another finds the tail and says 'No, an elephant is like a rope!'. Yet another finds the trunk and says 'You're both wrong, an elephant is like a snake!'. The take home message is: your local conditions may not be universal.

[Sarcastr0]

At the scale of cities there aren't many limitations to statistics; you want to talk a specific city, they probably keep crime stats. You want to talk nationally, there are stats.

Bwaah is making a national statement about crime, so we should use national stats. You can even modulo them to be about cities only! What you can't do is filter for the bottom 4 cities and then essentialize them. What you also can't do is put forth anecdotes and generalize them. Especially given the human tendency to lean into confirmation bias even when speaking anecdotally.

He's not making a statement about himself. That would be something not amenable to statistics. As I used to say in grad school statistically I'm an Asian girl. But he's talking policies and politics.

Cities have cycles. DC is about to go through it with their downtown anchor arena losing some quite large clients. SF is indeed not doing great with their homeless. But it's not like there's not cities improving (the stats indicate there have to be) we just don't see them get national coverage.

Bottom line, this isn't about stats it's about narrative.

The right's been pushing a lawless cities. You have a whole thing about crime being up when it's not, due to democratic policies when that causality is not clear, and cities being hellholes when they are at best losing a vibrant downtown but still function fine.

It's nonsense. It's *appealing* nonsense that feels true. Especially to rural voters, who want their living situation validated and also liked 1990s action movies.

There are think pieces about meeting unhappy conservatives where they are, even if their valid feelings are based on invalid perceptions. IMO that way lies madness. The way to appeal is not to discard social science and reality, but to meet them where they are, validate their feelings and push back on their nonsense disguised as facts.

[Drewski]

In federal courts it basically is a dead letter. The last big hole that lenity filled was erased by the good faith exception to warrant requirements. Now it's a doctrine of last resort.

[Commenter_XY]

Too bad, really. We could all use a little lenity.

[Kazinski]

The Rule of Lenity is definitely still a thing, it was raised in the 6th Circuit in striking down the Bump Stock Ban just a few months ago:

"Sixth Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman wrote Tuesday that the 1934 law must be interpreted according to the "rule of lenity," which requires ambiguity in a criminal statute to be resolved in criminal defendants' favor.

"Because the relevant statutory scheme does not clearly and unambiguously prohibit bump stocks, we are bound to construe the statute in Hardin's favor," the judge wrote."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/another-appeals-court-rules-against-us-ban-gun-bump-stocks-2023-04-25/

More here:

https://pacificlegal.org/daily-journal-bump-stocks-machine-guns-and-the-rule-of-lenity/

[Commenter_XY]

Wow! Thx for those links. I really do not understand why that rule of lenity is not used more, in an explicit manner. It could end a lot of disputes early in the game.

[Nelson]

"as much as I think he’s guilty of his tax crimes and money laundering"

The tax crimes, definitely. But did I miss something? I don't remember any evidence of money laundering, let alone charges. Has he been charged with money laundering?

[shawn_dude]

No charges that I could find (IANAL) but two Murdoch properties (FOX and WSJ) are reporting on concerns from a bank investigator looking at Chinese deposits related to an equity firm Hunter was setting up on their behalf. The claim is some of this money was spent by Hunter Biden to pay off the truck loan his dad helped him with.

[Nelson]

Anything less tenuous than that?

[myself]

Maybe, but I see a difference between an attempt to disrupt and an attempt to forcibly prevent by storming a building.

The first disruption is a heightened force of protest, ie you can proceed but you can't do it while keeping the protestors out of sight.

The Jan 6 breach attempted to stop the certification via force, that's something that can and should be prosecuted.

[Dr. Ed 2]

At what point is totally incompetent crowd control relevant?

[Tom for equal rights]

Kazinski 9 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Well as we all know the law is the law. That’s why I’ve conceded that the firearms charge against Hunter violates the constitution,"

concur - since the crimes are not violent crimes, then under bruen , the firearm law violations would be unconstitutional. An agruement that the firearm violations were constitutional because the risk of violence is high with tax evaders would be dubious. (very dubious).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well what about the cert on the other law which 300+ Jan 6 folk are charged with? What happens if you plead guilty to a law that SCOTUS then declares unconstitutional?

[not guilty]

The constitutionality of the statute is not at issue on this appeal; the District Court dismissed one count of the indictments in each of three cases because the facts averred in those counts did not bring them within the ambit of the statutory language as the judge construed the statute.

[Nelson]

"a law that SCOTUS then declares unconstitutional"

What law has SCOTUS declared unconstitutional that relates to Jan. 6th?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Treasonable conduct should be charged as treason, with the case made or defeated on the bases of the law which applies to that crime, and the evidence which applies to the cases charged.

The notion continues to strike me as unsound to charge actual treason as some concatenation of lesser crimes. The nation risks seeing the Justice Department's approach to January 6 falter in a welter of legal details which would not even be relevant had treason been charged as the principal crime.

The entire event should have been understood and charged as what it was: Trump's attempted coup to defeat the Constitution and seize power by tactics of subterfuge, and his method to encourage riotous violence.

Had that been done, the attack on the Capitol could have been better understood as two largely unrelated classes of crimes. The first crime being treason committed by a minority which included a violent leadership contingent. Those were in league, and understood government overthrow as their objective. The second class of crimes being all the essentially random violence perpetrated by mere uninformed rioters, albeit acting under Trump's encouragement.

It would also be useful to at least notice for the purposes of investigation that Trump's treason plot continues even as he awaits trial, and that it likely has been and continues to be abetted by some members of Congress, and by state officials around the nation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Stephen, treason is virtually never charged, even where it IS the correct charge, because the Constitution itself defines the crime and specifies the level of proof required.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Even in cases where somebody genuinely commits treason, a soldier defecting to the enemy, it's usually thought easier to treat it as voluntary revocation of citizenship, thanks to the level of proof required.

It shouldn't need saying, but even for the ringleaders in the attack, you'd be hard put to establish that they were waging war against the United States, and might have difficulty producing two eye witnesses to the same act even if you could clear that hurdle.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man! you remember the famous "Hanoi" Jane Fonda Treason Trial back in the 70's???
I don't remember it, but then I don't remember alot of things from the 70's (good decade to forget)

Frank

[jimc5499]

Her conduct was treasonous and the criteria was met. I believed that they refused prosecution for "the good of the Country" what ever the hell that is. I remember being in the Navy back in the early 80's. When she was married to Ted Turner, their house was on every area map in every ready room. Every chance we got, we'd rattle her windows.

[Frank Drackman]

I prefer to remember her as Barbarella

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, the standard for waging war is not what most folks suppose. It is set forth in detail in the Burr treason case decisions. I have quoted extensively from those decisions previously.

Trump's case shows evidence far beyond the threshold described in those cases, which insist that the treason standard for warlike action can be met by as few as two or three people acting privately and in concert to fulfill forcefully a treasonous object. From the founding era forward, no armies arrayed for battle were ever required.

As for multiple witnesses, I think conduct broadcast live on television, or tweeted in real time during the attack, gets you past that. Do you think otherwise?

Note also, Trump had notably more command and control during the January 6 Capitol attack than did any general from a preceding era who lacked the luxury of communications so widespread and instantaneous. Nor, by historical standards, was Trump a commander remote from the scene of the attack. Military operations commanded from much greater distances are more the historical rule than the exception. When Lee commanded the attack on Union Forces at Gettysburg, he did so by means of far less efficient means of communication, used to coordinate detachments of troops separated by at least tens of miles from the target of the attack, from Lee, and from each other. Trump's 2-mile distance from the Capitol cannot be a mitigating factor.

If you insist irrationally that treason cannot be conducted so publicly, but must instead be organized privately and conspiratorial-like, read the already-published accounts of Cassidy Hutchinson or Liz Cheney. They tell you who those witnesses were to private conspiratorial conduct. That included the two of them, of course. Not to mention the host of other conspirators known to Trump and to each other, who met together in groups at specific times and places which have been recorded, and publicly reported already. Or, from the other side, witnesses who were not conspirators themselves, but who were instead trying to talk conspirators down from the perilous brinks from which they were about to leap. Those included attorneys who were present among the aforementioned groups, watching them propose and consider treasonous conduct, some of which was carried into action.

The only problem with this plethora of evidence is that its nearly-incredible extent surprises customary expectations that sinister plots be carefully hidden. That is not actually reason to discount any of that evidence.

Treason evidence against Trump, and against the Trump conspiracy, abounds. That part is not a close question.

[Davy C]

"I saw it on Twitter" does not a witness make.

[ReaderY]

I don’t think what happened on January 6 can be characterized as levying war on the United States. I don’t think treason applies. The Framers were careful to limit the definition of treason. And they did this in no small part to prevent internal political disputes from being characterized as treasonous, and to prevent the winners of internal political disputes from hanging the losers as traitors.

I think more serious crimes could have been charged than occurred in many cases. I think the seditious conspiracy charge might have been more widely used, for example. But I don’t think what happened qualifies as treason.

[Don Nico]

SL,

While I think a charge of treason is preposterous and a loser in court, I agree with you that concatenating a bunch of lesser charges because the prosecutor can make the correct charge stick, is hardly justice and more like revenge.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Interesting use of the phrase, "make the correct charge stick".

So if someone apparently commits a "really big crime" which is hard to prove, it is nevertheless not cool to prosecute them for the "little crimes" they apparently committed? They're still crimes.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Treasonable conduct should be charged as treason

To what specific "treasonable" conduct are you referring?

[shawn_dude]

The attempted coup.

[ReaderY]

I think the charge is legitimate. 1512(c)(2) makes out a distinct crime. I think “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding” is clear enough.

I think having a lynch mob storm the courthouse or whatever shouting “hang the judge!” so as to force the courtroom personnel to go into hiding is certainly “obstructing” and “impeding” an official proceeding. And that’s exactly what happened here.

It’s true the title of 1512, “Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant, is more limited. But I think the language controls. I also don’t think it’s not completely off the subject of the title. Congress is entitled to construe “tampering” in broader sense. As I see it, preventing a judge from reading an affidavit by storming the courtroom can reasonably be characterized ss tampering with the testimony of the witness who provided the affidavit. And I think state certifications of electoral vote counts can ressonably be characterized as affidavits, as a kind of testimony. They are, after all, sworn and witnessed.

[jimc5499]

Interesting. I recall a certain murder trial where there were protests outside that were meant to influence the Jury. Then there were the people who followed the Jury bus to try to get the names and addresses of the Jury in order to harass them or worse, but nothing ever came of it.

[Reallynotbob]

The competing interpretation in the dissent would still permit prosecution if the defendant had a personal interest at stake or was knowingly trying to benefit someone else (my paraphrase). So the question is going to be about proof of mens rea. And should not materially affect the Trump prosecution using the same 18 USC 1512.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The statute says "corruptly" and already has been defined to NOT define dumping fish overboard as shredding of evidence.

[not guilty]

The Court of Appeals decision under review posited three separate meanings of the word "corruptly." SCOTUS may give guidance on that sub-issue.

[ReaderY]

It was a different statute. 1519, not 1512.

[Dr. Ed 2]

2nd Try -- if, hypothetically, SCOTUS rules that it is unconstitutional to apply this particular statute to the Jan 6th Frat Party, what would that do to those who have already plead guilty to having violated it.

Could they argue that they plead guilty to the conduct as alleged, but as SCOTUS has now ruled that said conduct was not a crime, they must now go free?

[not guilty]

A person who is still in custody could seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) if SCOTUS ruled that its decision applied retroactively to cases on collateral review, but only within one year of the that retroactivity ruling, per § 2255(f)(3).

This is of course hypothetical, in that the matter presently before SCOTUS involves only a question of statutory interpretation. The three SCOTUS petitioners have not yet been tried, and each is facing charges in addition to the count of the indictment that the District Court dismissed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Boston's Mayor Wu, whose parents are from Taiwan, had a non-White only Christmas Party and accidentally invited everyone.

Can an elected official host a racially exclusive party in a public building and at public expense without violating Title VI?

[Martinned]

That definitely sounds like a thing that actually happened.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's a thing that really happened.

A product of the "blacks can't be racist" ideology; They don't feel terribly embarrassed at doing this sort of thing, so it goes on all the time.

[Martinned]

In a blog full of lawyers, I wish more people would provide links to support their claims. There's a lot of nuttiness here, and it's sometimes difficult to recognise the reality among the hallucinations.

[Brett Bellmore]

He probably didn't think he had to provide a link, because it's a big deal in the news right now. The news broke just a day ago.

[Martinned]

I guess it depends on which news channels you watch. The things I watch told me about the failure of COP28 and Israel's shift to a one-state solution.

[Brett Bellmore]

My sources mentioned those developments, too, though I first learned about Wu's invite at NotTheBee.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It made the Drudgereport...

[Bwaaah]

According to NBC News/Boston, it was the annual, "Electeds of Color Holiday Party."

Said, May Wu, ""It is not at all divisive."

(Everyone knows the view from the back of the bus is the same as the view from the front. Quit making such a big deal about seating.)

[Don Nico]

Hear, hear!

[Noscitur a sociis]

The terrible commenting platform doesn’t help.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In a blog full of lawyers, I wish more people would provide links to support their claims. There’s a lot of nuttiness here, and it’s sometimes difficult to recognise the reality among the hallucinations.

Of course you had the option of performing a quick and simple Google search rather than rushing to make a snarky and ignorance-based comment. As usual, you opted to go with ignorance.

[santamonica811]

Wuz,
I didn't think it was the least bit snarky. I think almost everyone here agrees that, if you are citing to an event, and that event has an online link, and you know about that link before posting your own comment; it is a courtesy and a good idea to include that link in your comment.

If I make a similar post here, and I hope/expect that 100 different readers will want to follow-up and investigate the story I'm citing to; I can put in the link, and save 100 people 45 seconds (each!) of time & effort having to Google. Or, I can make each person do their own individual investigation.

Why would someone deliberately choose to *not* do that? Genuine question from me...not snark. (I've posted about this issue dozens of times, for 5-10 years, on photography-based fora I regularly visit, as well as here. It's a pet-peeve of mine...if you have a link, then it's just good manners to include it in the post.)

[jb]

This is particularly helpful because we now live in a world of competing media bubbles. It seems to frequently be the case that our conservative friends all know about some tidbit of outrage from the right-wing media ecosystem, but if you're not reading the right blogs it often requires a fair amount of research or additional cluing to get any context at all about what they're referring to.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I didn’t think it was the least bit snarky.

If you didn't think...

"That definitely sounds like a thing that actually happened."

...was the least bit snarky then you have no idea what "snarky" means.

[jb]

Seems pretty weird to explicitly quote one message above and then claim you were talking about another one later.

[Randal]

You weren't supposed to notice that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Seems pretty weird to explicitly quote one message above and then claim you were talking about another one later.

Only if you're a complete dipshit who is unable to maintain the context of an exchange from one post to the next.

[Randal]

Nice self-own there big boy!

[Absaroka]

That's pretty funny. The rationale for prohibiting male only clubs was that, for example, men could use them to bend the mayor's ear about policy over drinks or in the locker room or whatever, while women wouldn't have that same informal access.

And I kinda agree with that - but the same argument applies here.

[Martinned]

Was that the rationale?

[Brett Bellmore]

As I recall, yes.

[Absaroka]

Yes.

[Voize]

It was a rationale for passing public accommodation laws.
In 1984 New York City extended its prohibition on men-only associations to include certain private clubs, reasoning (quoting from NY State Club Assn. v. City of New York, 487 US 1 - Supreme Court 1988):

It is hereby found and declared that the city of New York has a compelling interest in providing its citizens an environment where all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin or sex, have a fair and equal opportunity to participate in the business and professional life of the city, and may be unfettered in availing themselves of employment opportunities. Although city, state and federal laws have been enacted to eliminate discrimination in employment, women and minority group members have not attained equal opportunity in business and the professions. One barrier to the advancement of women and minorities in the business and professional life of the city is the discriminatory practices of certain membership organizations where business deals are often made and personal contacts valuable for business purposes, employment and professional advancement are formed. While such organizations may avowedly be organized for social, cultural, civic or educational purposes, and while many perform valuable services to the community, the commercial nature of some of the activities occurring therein and the prejudicial impact of these activities on business, professional and employment opportunities of minorities and women cannot be ignored.

[Frank Drackman]

What's really funny is there probably isn't a racial group that dislikes Afro-Amuricans more than Asians, especially Taiwanese (They already got kicked out of China, they come to Amurica, and then get hassled constantly by "The" Blacks)

Frank

[ThePublius]

"Can an elected official host a racially exclusive party in a public building and at public expense without violating Title VI?"

I'd like the answer to that question, too.

[Bwaaah]

“Can an elected official host a racially exclusive party in a public building and at public expense without violating Title VI?”

That depends. What's the race of the elective official hosting the party?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Boston’s Mayor Wu, whose parents are from Taiwan, had a non-White only Christmas Party..."

But the White-adjacent were allowed to attend? Sounds terribly unsafe for the PoC.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, they got uninvited in a second email.
See: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boston-mayor-michelle-wu-defends-electeds-of-color-holiday-party-after-invitation-backlash-honest-mistake/ar-AA1ltIYO

Apparently this is STATEWIDE and has been going on for a decade!

[Bwaaah]

Per MSNBC:

All of the white members had their invitations rescinded about 15 minutes after the original email was sent.

“I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a Holiday Party for tomorrow,” DosSantos wrote in her follow-up. “I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.”

[Bwaaah]

They must have an email group named "WhitesOnly".

[Nige]

You only have to listen to some of this white whining here to get they'd be in danger of tediumed to death.

[Reallynotbob]

Short answer, yes.

Longer answer, maybe they shouldn't do it. Inclusivity is better than exclusivity. You make a good case for DEI initiatives, actually.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Are you with me Mayor Wu? Are you really just a shadow of the man that I once knew?"

[Kazinski]

Now that the Holidays are upon us I thing its important to enjoy the season with Holiday parties with our friends, loved ones, and co-workers. And as important as it is to share the Holiday Spirit with those we enjoy spending time with, its equally important to avoid being in the same room with those who annoy us, like White People.

I'm speaking of course about Michelle Wu, the Mayor of Boston sending out invitations to the Boston City Council members for an Electeds of Color holiday party and 15 minutes later sending out another email saying Whoops, the 8 Whiteys on the council were really invited.

It wouldn't be too hard to still have a party honoring the Electeds of Color and letting White People in, but I guess Boston isn't ready for that yet. But it seems most of the White City Councilors know their place and didn't make a stink.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/12/12/boston-city-hall-roiled-by-email-party-invitation-for-electeds-of-color-sent-to-all/

But the exclusion is understandable, as Boston University Scholar Ibram X. Kendi recently said: "whiteness prevents white people from connecting with humanity.” And that includes holiday parties too I guess, because you can't connect if you aren't invited.

https://x.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1731766850504085887?s=20

[Sarcastr0]

Looks like the Mayor screwed up.

But holy shit is this a torrent of white resentment as though this is national practice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gasligto, what if a White mayor had a White-ony party?

[Sarcastr0]

I guess I would urban riot.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You have to be sane before someone can cause you to doubt your sanity.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's lame, Sarcastr0. If pointed in the opposite direction this is the stuff of urban riots. But pointed our way, it's just something we're supposed to blow off.

Well, no, we shouldn't blow it off, because there's a double standard on racism, and it's getting bolder all the time.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s a single party. It would not cause ‘urban riots’ in whatever counterfactual you got going in.

I’ve dealt with exclusive parties in my workplace. Guy got in trouble, got talked to, had a better invite list next time.

Hardly time to start waxing about how hated white people are.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, context dependent, I see. Sounds familiar.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is publishing acacias slur more than once a week racist?

Prof. Volokh hopes you decline to answer that one.

Carry on, bigoted clingers.

[Don Nico]

It's only a typically S_0 excuse. So move along; there's nothing to see here.

[Sarcastr0]

Don, if you won't take 'looks like the Mayor screwed up' as sufficient obeisance to this white oppression that's on you.

[Don Nico]

I'll accept that the "Mayor screwed up." But why the obligato, "his a torrent of white resentment ..." to soften your critique?

[Sarcastr0]

Because my critique is not of the Mayor, it's of Kaz.

He goes into a realm of bitterness at white oppression that is way beyond anything you can legitimately take from this one local holiday party fail.

And he's not alone - the melodrama on this is way way high.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He goes into a realm of bitterness at white oppression that is way beyond anything you can legitimately take from this one local holiday party fail."

So "Looks like the Mayor screwed up" is the correct amount of white resentment, and Kazinski's extra few sentences take it over the top?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, TiP.

This is over the top given the stimulous:

"[A]void being in the same room with those who annoy us, like White People.
...
the Electeds of Color
...
the 8 Whiteys
...
White City Councilors know their place"

Says a lot about what Kaz marinates in; not a lot about the real world.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Interesting. You think "the Electeds of Color" is over the top?

[Nige]

Outside white right wing circles of sneering at black people for having notions, it's quite peculiar and unpleasant.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Are you sure?

[Nige]

Isn't that the effect you're going for?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It wasn't me that used the expression.

[Nige]

Wasn't the only phrase you used.

[grb]

We're talking about today's Right, which got insanely jealous and snowflake butthurt over the movement name "Black Lives Matter". There have been comment trails in this forum running scores of entries, filled with Righties raging over the effrontery of those three words.

There is no limit on the Right's obsession with finding White victimhood. You can argue victimhood in general is their sole raison d'etre - they're the biggest bunch of whiners the political world has ever seen - but they really, really lust to feel "oppression" over their skin color.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Most of these white grievance freaks are losers mired in can't-keep-up backwaters. They crave someone or something to blame -- other than their own lack of education, judgment, character, effort, luck, and skill, of course -- for this.

That and their bigotry lead naturally to the delusion that The Man is holding them down because they are white, male, straight Christian conservatives.

The Volokh Conspiracy exists to lather those hayseeds and feed that silly perception.

[jimc5499]

Funny. The Right can find ACTUAL victimhood, while the Left has to make it up or fabricate it. Jesse Smollett call your office.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, minorities are never victimized.

Whereas this here Boston holiday party is truly the next version of slavery.

[Frank Drackman]

Wouldn't want to hang out with a bunch of N-words anyway, they're Anti-Semitic, I'm Anti-Negritic

[Don Nico]

"White victimhood."
this is one of the left's conspiracy theories.

[grb]

Sure thing. It doesn't exist - and yet it's championed regularly in this forum. It doesn't exists, but jimc5499 is bragging about it just two comments up. It doesn't exist, but there are whole sub-movements built around it, like the "Replacement" stuff promoted by national GOP politicians (and Elon Musk). Lotsa stuff going on for something that doesn't exist, eh?

A few posts back I made the mild observation I'd never once experienced "oppression" because I was white.. You'd think somelike like that would unremarked upon. Instead, Brett and Ed (I think) had a long trail of responses explaining why I'd never experience the crushing burden of being born (alas) white.

But - hey - it doesn't exist!

[Don Nico]

I am glad to hear you say that, grb. I have not experienced it either

[Sarcastr0]

This story was posted *3 times so far today*

Plenty who are very much not on the left very much *want* white victimhood, hence the feeding frenzy over this relative crumb as though Biden had mandated that whites all go to the back of the bus where there will be racial struggle sessions.

[Nige]

So 'conspiracy is yet another word added to the list that commenters here do not understand.

[shawn_dude]

That's a laugh given the whole point of the (entirely made up) anti-CRT hysteria among white conservatives is that they don't want their children hearing about bad white people who enslaved non-white people so their kids wouldn't feel bad about being white.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think it’s fair to say that the mayor of a majot American city having a party for white members of the city council, and explicitly disinviting any other members who because they aren’t white, would be fairly controversial.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course.

And the inevitable think pieces about the larger symbolic sociological meaning of said party viz a vi our nation's racial trajectory would be pretty silly.

It's the melodrama of Kaz' comments that stood out to me.

[Don Nico]

It was a stupid thing for the mayor to do and give all the high profile identity controversy on local campuses rather poor timing.

[Nige]

Can't send ammo to an ammo factory.

[Harvey Mosley]

Sarcastr0, "It’s a single party."

From the above linked article:
"Wu said the "Electeds of Color Holiday Party" has been held for more than a decade without any issues."

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think that makes it more oppressive or less, that no one cared or noticed till now?

[Harvey Mosley]

I said nothing about them being oppressive. I was just correcting your statement. They are still racist parties.

But to answer your question, the mayor sent invitations to the "wrong" people this year so maybe the party is being publicized more.

[Sarcastr0]

My question wasn't rhetorical - I want to know if it's worse or not that this party has been a thing for ages.

I could see arguments going both ways. Though in no scenario am I going to get out the fainting couch.

The specifics of why it's gotten coverage this year are down to luck, seems like.

[OtisAH]

“The specifics of why it’s gotten coverage this year is down to luck, seems like.”

The “reply all” invite and the political opening it created, the attempted pull back, and the existence of a female Asian-American mayor likely played roles.

[Kazinski]

This the first time the party has been hosted by the mayor using public funds, as I understand it, so that may make it a little more out of the ordinary, but that is more of an aggravating factor that a mitigating one.

[Nige]

Most of American history is white people telling minorities to stick to their own spaces. Minorities carve out some spaces for themselves and suddenly white people want to destroy them or muscle in. I mean, I say 'suddenly' but it's been going on a while.

[Randy Sax]

You are so retarded. You don't fix past discrimination with future discrimination.

[Nige]

You don't fix the effects of enslaving black people then subjecting them to decades of brutal oppression by inviting them to a party, either, but it's a nice gesture.

[Randy Sax]

No, it's not.

"I'm sorry your grandpa was a slave. Let's have no-whites xmas party. I'm sure that well make it help"

Never mind that the people invited to the party have never been slaves and the people excluded from the party have never been slave owners.

[Nige]

I was agreeing with you! Jeez.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Randy Sax, that has been going on since the 1970s. It has demonstrably eased effects of past discrimination. Maybe it's time to re-check against experience that ideological premise you insist upon. Maybe put more emphasis on the political discontent the practice has induced among non-beneficiaries. Or, if you want to be really constructive, propose ways to keep it going, but reform it so it works even better, but stirs less resentment.

[Randy Sax]

"It has demonstrably eased effects of past discrimination."

Bullshit. Affirmative action doesn't actually help minorities. Neither does race based hiring. Or any other non-sense "anti-racist" initiative.

If you are talking about things like outlawing redlining and removal of structures that have white preference then I am all for it. Colorblind policies are the way to go. Not white exclusion for make benefit great nation of POC.

[Nige]

'It's my party I'll be white if I want to, white if I want to, you'd be white too if it happened to you'

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

White whining is the true elixir at the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

'And now it's whitey's turn to cry, whitey's turn to cry, whitey's turn to cry...'

[Stephen Lathrop]

Randy Sax, some rejoinders are so lame they require no follow-up. Yours has been one of them.

[Reallynotbob]

Randy, thanks for supporting DEI initiatives.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In a city-owned mansion, a party at taxpayer expense and the 1964 civil rights act doesn't apply?

[Sarcastr0]

Don’t know, don’t care.

The key in many of your law as busybody question is that most are not so eager to litigate as you are.

So while you get your jollies with fantasies of vexing lawsuits, people gonna go about their business and real life will continue on until someone actually files something. Which may or may not be related to that thing having legal merit.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's just it: Whether you care depends on whose ox is gored.

[Nige]

Seems to depend on which section of the community is being thrown a social function, hardly unusual in civic government.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, hypothetical double standards are easy but dumb.

I'm consistently a functionalist - I don't go around seeing what laws have technically been broken, I look at the broad practical context of when laws will actually matter. And further with an awareness I may not have all the facts.

For instance, until Trump was indicted or a grand jury empaneled, I posted a lot about how he was very bad, but not much about which laws I was sure he broke.

[Michael P]

Yeah, you don't care if government officials blatantly discriminate against White people, because you have decided that does not "actually matter". Your double standards are transparent and non-hyoothetical.

[Sarcastr0]

I know you're very excited about 'blatantly discriminate against White people' but this is small potatoes and the drama is only folks who are seeking a white oppression narrative.

Yeah, I think this kind of minor exclusionary nonsense happens all the time. Sometimes well meaning, sometimes just oversight, sometimes something more malign.

Probably not only whites, but only men? Absolutely - I've seen it. Especially if there is booze involved. I've gotten complaints about kids being invited acting as a disincentive to singles.

It's a mess-up by the Boston Mayor. It should be handled administratively. It is not a national story about white oppression.

I'm generally skeptical of trainings as a go-to solution, but as was noted below this is something a DEI training would make less likely.

[Nige]

IT'S THE ONLY SIZED POTATO THEY HAVE SARC THEY NEED THIS SO BAD

[bernard11]

I think the issue is that it was specifically the mayor, rather than just a group of individuals, who organized the party.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, the Mayor admitted that it WAS a group that has been organizing these parties for a decade now!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boston-mayor-michelle-wu-defends-electeds-of-color-holiday-party-after-invitation-backlash-honest-mistake/ar-AA1ltIYO

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Most of American history is white people telling minorities to stick to their own spaces."

Some important parts of American history also involve minorities successfully convincing white people that doing that is wrong.

[Nige]

So give them space to catch their breath after the exhausting job of making white people accept their humanity.

[myself]

Problematic but also recognize that the big problem with discrimination has always been when its wielded by the powerful against the dis-empowered.

A low status minority discriminating against a higher status majority simply doesn't have the same harm.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Boston is Minority-Majority.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A low status minority discriminating against a higher status majority simply doesn’t have the same harm.

The mayor and other elected officials of a major U.S. city are "low status"?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yup. That's been the norm in Boston since the Irish seized political power from the WASPs

[Kazinski]

I don't feel resentment at not being invited to a party I don't want to go to with a bunch of Massholes, but I do feel it shows how morally bankrupt intersectionallity and anti-racism is. Treating everyone the same regardless of race should be our goal as a society.

But I do feel some resentment at “whiteness prevents white people from connecting with humanity.”.

Although I should be grateful that it lays Kendi's grift bare for all to see.

[Nige]

“whiteness prevents white people from connecting with humanity.”.

That does seem wrong. Some people think whiteness is a qualification for humanity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Whereas others think it's a disqualification. They're both the same sort of idiot, and equally dangerous if in a position to put their views into practice.

[Nige]

But that's nothing to do with holding a party for minorities.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Separate but equal? Have a White-only party too?

[Nige]

Lots of them over the years no doubt.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you consider the incessant stream of bigoted content presented by this blog to be morally bankrupt?

[Sarcastr0]

You reached for an extreme quote to get angry at and found one.

This is not worth your post above about how hated whitey is.

[Don Nico]

Excuses, excuses.

[Sarcastr0]

What am I excusing Don?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Racism, remember?

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck yeah I love the stuff.
Especially white people telling me I hate white people.

[Nige]

Bunch of black people get invited to a party. Racism.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you saw a story about somebody going on a rampage and specifically targeting white people to kill, I expect your response would be "What's wrong with not shooting black people?"

[Sarcastr0]

Well, that's a wild escalation.

[Nige]

No, you would say that then act as if I had said it, no input required from me at all.

Interesting to note the 9ne type of mass shooting that would actually upset you, if it ever happened, God forbid.

[Nige]

Or else you go to the most fucked-up parties.

[Reallynotbob]

Kaz, thanks for supporting DEI initiatives.

And before you say it, "treating everyone the same regardless of race should be our goal as a society" IS a pillar of DEI.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Treating everyone the same regardless of race should be our goal as a society.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they and others will receive treatment based entirely on the color of their skin."

[Nige]

One day a bunch of black people will be able to get invited to a party and white people won't throw a fit. One day.

[shawn_dude]

SNL nailed this one.

https://youtu.be/vI_c1F994gs?si=9dOS42vumCcJM09I

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I wouldn't be surprised if certain people have private parties where ("intentionally" or not) the attendance is monochromatic (or "omits" one group).

But here, it seems, there's a government imprimatur on this sort of thing.

Why exactly *is* racial discrimination wrong? Is it because it affects the wrong people (whites being the right people)? Or because a little discrimination against Whitey is just a little inconvenience which they can't complain about because people who looked like them sold blacks as property and Jim Crowed them?

[Brett Bellmore]

If this were a private party, I'd just blow it off. I don't think I've ever attended an explicitly racially sorted party, (Even the Phil-Am association meetings are mixed, it's the Phil-Am association, after all.) but it's the sort of stupidity that's just a manifestation of liberty in a free society.

But in this case, it's not a private party, it's a governmentally entangled party, and, yeah, the government is NOT allowed to engage in racial discrimination, even stupidly trivial racial discrimination.

[Reallynotbob]

"But in this case, it’s not a private party, it’s a governmentally entangled party, and, yeah, the government is NOT allowed to engage in racial discrimination, even stupidly trivial racial discrimination."

I agree (for once!) with Brett on this. But I'd like to point out that this non-discrimination rule applies to religious discrimination and favoritism also... where SCOTUS has regrettably abandoned the "entanglement" concept.

[bernard11]

If this were a private party, I’d just blow it off.

Mighty decent of you. If it were a private party it would be none of your business, actually. No need to "blow it off."

I don’t think I’ve ever attended an explicitly racially sorted party,

You've never attended a party where everyone was white? Hard to believe.

All that said, I agree this party was a bad idea.

[OtisAH]

FTR, the “screw up” was sending the invite to everybody, not the party. As Wu notes, there are lots of XMas parties for legislators. This particular one was for minority legislators.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm no general counsel but if it's held with federal resources making it demographically exclusive doesn't seem kosher to me.

[OtisAH]

Perhaps, I don’t know many details beyond that one. Primarily because it’s not for me. I don’t have a lot of percolating white resentment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don’t have a lot of percolating white resentment."

Oh, so your resentment is better than ours?

[Sarcastr0]

What does this even mean?

[TwelveInchPianist]

He knows what it means.

[OtisAH]

Gotta love the fact twelveinchpeepee doesn’t know what he means but I’m suppose to.

[Bwaaah]

Who is *he* (OtisAH), such that you implicate *them* by way of *ours*? And who, then would *we* be?

I don't even know if I want to know.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I happen to believe that everyone's resentment is equal.

[Nige]

This strain of resentment is equal parts stupid and cynical populism to drive more stupid white resentment.

[Sarcastr0]

I happen to believe that everyone’s resentment is equal.

Different people are, in fact, different.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But they're still equal, Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know what game you're playing, but it sucks.

Equal in dignity does not mean equal in resentment.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think everyone is equal in talent?
In culture?
In wealth?
In criminality?
In criminal propensity?

[Nige]

Black people resenting their treatment at the hands of white people in history is so evil Republicans want to ban it suppress it, demonise it. White people's resentment at things like black people's resentment is more important, more real and more powerful, you see. That resentment has to be fed, protected and nurtured.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

Special Counsel Jack Smith has taken the rare step to bring Trump’s claim of absolute presidential immunity directly to SCOTUS jumping over the appellate stage. Ironically, the camp of the former president is vigorously protesting this move. Naïf that I am, I assume that 45 should be as interested to have the question as expediently resolved as does the prosecutor. Politics …
But what interests me here, are there serious judicial considerations to oppose such a move?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is doing everything possible to avoid going to trial before the election in November. He knows that he has no defense on the merits, but if he is elected to another term as president he will direct the Attorney General to seek dismissal of the federal prosecutions. (This would require leave of court to do so.) Alternatively, he could seek to pardon himself as to any federal crimes he may have committed. (His authority to do that is debatable.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly what part of "and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" is debatable?

The words mean what they say, and if anything, the impeachment exception recognizes he otherwise can pardon himself. Now it may be an impeachable offense for him to do so, but that doesn't mean he can't do it.

True statesmanship would be for the next President -- no matter who it is -- to pardon both Trump and Hunter Biden "for the good of the country." And is it "debatable" if Joe could pardon Hunter?

[David Welker]

The President isn't the only person who can be impeached. Think before you write next time!

Pardoning yourself is corruption, pure and simple. What PURPOSE do you think there would be in giving a President the power to pardon himself? Is it the idea that the President is not subject to the rule of law like the rest of us peasants?

Because the Constitution mentions that the United States can't grant titles of nobility. The idea that the President doesn't have to obey the same laws the he passes and makes the rest of us obey is just crazy.

What you seem to fail to understand are two little concepts known as (1) context and (2) absurdity. According to you, the President could just go on a murder spree in the District of Columbia and pardon himself. He could murder members of Congress and the Supreme Court there.

That is just plain crazy. And that absurd result is NOT required by the text of the Constitution.

[Martinned]

That is just plain crazy. And that absurd result is NOT required by the text of the Constitution.

In that case, I'm sure the Supreme Court will say so if and when this becomes an issue.

[Kazinski]

"Pardoning yourself is corruption, pure and simple."

So? Is pardoning himself the only way the pardon power vould be used corruptly? No.

Lets try a hypothetical say a president had a wastrel son that was selling influence to foreign interests, avoiding taxes, flagrantly using drugs, and then went on a murder spree in the capital. Then the President pardons his son.

Is that corrupt? Yes. Does the President have that power? Yes, absolutely.

What's the difference?

[Nige]

'Is pardoning himself the only way the pardon power vould be used corruptly?'

It's the most obvious and definitive way. But nobody said it was the only way. Trump's already been blatantly corrupt in his pardoning.

[bernard11]

Allowing the President to pardon himself means he is exempted from all federal law.

That doesn't seem to make sense.

[Bob from Ohio]

He can be impeached and removed for breaking the law.

Same with issuing the pardon if Congress thinks it is a high crime.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Everyone else goes to jail for being convicted of violating federal crime x. The President who violated x and pardoned himself just gets removed from office.

[Nige]

Removed from office if there are the votes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Republicans would strangely never find those votes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wasn't Clinton's pardon pf Mark Rich controversial?

[OtisAH]

Yes. Offensive even. And?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"What’s the difference?"

Pardoning oneself can only be corrupt. That's the difference.

The concept is antithetical to the purpose of the Constitution, is definitely not required by the text, and does not follow from the history or the legal/philosophical basis for the pardon power.

[Armchair]

"Pardoning yourself is corruption, pure and simple. What PURPOSE do you think there would be in giving a President the power to pardon himself?"

Well, here's a case example. Let's say a Presidential candidate was arrested and convicted of a federal crime that was pushed on him by the opposition party (which controlled the presidency at a time). Yet, despite the conviction, the people of the United States overwhelmingly decided to vote that candidate into office.

Then the candidate (who is now President) used the power to pardon himself of that crime. Would that really be unethical?

[Martinned]

How, pray tell, does a crime get "pushed on" someone? What does that even mean?

[Absaroka]

It would certainly stink.

If I'm president and think I'm doing a great job, should I award myself the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

[Martinned]

Surprisingly, Trump gave Elvis and Babe Ruth the Medal of Freedom, but not himself.

[Absaroka]

Wow, I had to look up the list of recipients. The list seems pretty random ... I mean, Bob Dylan and James Taylor produced popular music, but it's not like they were giant standouts above eleventy-twosy other musicians. I mean, MLK, you bet, if anyone deserves it he does.

But if you're going to do actors, John Wayne and Robert Redford get one, but Squint Eastwood and Steve McQueen don't? Are they just flipping dice?

[Kazinski]

Dylan is, but not Taylor.

A Nobel Prize in Literature tends to show that you stand out a little further from the crowd.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're seriously trying to find Trump's "philosophy"?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yes.

Another simple answer to an idiot's fake hypothetical.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes.

[Krayt]

If it's political prosecution of a political enemy, perhaps a pardon is ok.

This is the umpteenth attack fork against him, to nail a political opponent. One fails, move on o the next, for 7 years now.

Facetiously stating each is a disinterested investigation is, wait, are we talking Trump or Hunter?

No matter. Neither should be prosecuted. Enjoy the beds you have built going after opponents.

I recall after the first impeachment, there were loud calls for the Republicans to immediately start impeachment on the first Democratic prez they had a chance at, and here we are.

What? Was there some problem with lie in your own bed you didn't understand?

[Nige]

'Look, these people are above the law!'

[Krayt]

"Nobody is above the law!" Is a subset of "Everybody is equal before the law", which includes not siccing the investigative power of government against political opponents because they are opponents.

You suck down the idiotic meme the power hungry above you feed down your throat, as they attack political opponents.

[Nige]

Being someone's political opponent makes you immune to prosecution. Who knew. That and presidential self-and-crony-pardoning covers both sides nicely. Anything else would be of benefit to the power hungry.

[Krayt]

Random things from your mouth. Thought without understanding.

Powerful people who challenge the king almost certainly have done wrong if you look closely enough. That's why these things are gated behind warrant requirements.

And yes, in your feeble writings, people who are political opponents should not be prosecuted if their initial investigations were prompted by fishing expiditions. We shouldn't even be here.

Why is this even controversial?

Anyway, now it's turned around. Enjoy the world you built.

[Nige]

If that were the case they'd have found actual evidence of Joe Biden's corruption by now.

So, Trump has done wrong. But if you investigate any powerful person closely enough you'll find they've done wrong. Except Joe Biden. And Hilary Clinton, they investigated the shit out of her.

Wow it's like lazy cyncism is no substitute for reality.

Trump repeatedly tried to set his DOJ on his enemies, and failed, because they needed actual evidence. Don't worry Trump has promised to fix that.

Anything's better than a world built by cynical defenders of the privileges and exceptionalism of the powerful like yourself.

[OtisAH]

One of the guys who is STILL calling Turnip’s criminal indictments under 91 separate felony charges has something to say about “thought without understanding”? Cool. Cool cool cool cool.

[OtisAH]

“STILL calling… political persecution”

[Nelson]

"siccing the investigative power of government against political opponents because they are opponents."

He's being prosecuted because he did something illegal. The fact that he's also a political candidate doesn't suddenly make it "because they ate opponents". A case like that would get tossed out for.

This "persecution" narrative is mind-boggling, since it requires either ignoring or illegitimately dismissing concrete evidence of criminal behavior.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And you think they have a problem doing that, why?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"the President could just go on a murder spree in the District of Columbia and pardon himself. He could murder members of Congress and the Supreme Court there"

Why do we have an 11th Amendment?

Likewise, if this ever happened, there would be an amendment to the constitution preventing the president from pardoning himself. But until then, he can do it.

As to absurd, a President no longer in office being tried by the Senate.

[Don Nico]

David,
It may even be corruption, but the power is plenipotentiary .

[not guilty]

It is debatable because there is no controlling legal authority on the question, and there are differing opinions among those who have studied the question. For example, the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel has opined that under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1974/08/31/op-olc-supp-v001-p0370_0.pdf

[Martinned]

Where is that rule written into the constitution? Instead, it says things like:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members

[apedad]

But that still says "others" will judge a member - not a member will be the judge of themselves.

[Martinned]

And yet George Santos voted not to expel himself. (Though I admit the constitutional text would allow the House to set rules that would prevent him from voting on his own discipline.)

[Nelson]

I believe the fact that his vote was 1/438 of the total means that he isn't judging himself. I see a difference between being part of the process and being the sole arbiter if your own guilt or innocence.

[Martinned]

Sure, but given that previous attempts to expel him failed, I don't think that settles it. He clearly acted as a judge in his own cause, as authorised by the constitution. Expulsion votes aren't always a slam dunk. (In fact, I think in Santos's case the vote was 311–114.)

[Nelson]

I don't see "one of many" being the same as "only". That's a significant difference.

[apedad]

I actually agree with Dr Ed on this one except for the Hunter part.

Biden better not pardon him and Trump shouldn't pardon him.

But I can see (and have said so here on the VC and got quite riducled), that Biden should pardon Trump - once he's find guilty.

Matter of fact, I'll (Charles Barkley voice) GAAARAAAUUUUNNNTTEEEEEE Biden will pardon Trump.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Biden better not pardon him"

Or what will you do?

[Kazinski]

What's really the difference between Joe pardoning himself and pardoning Hunter?

Yet I don't think there is much doubt he will pardon Hunter before he faces jail.

[bernard11]

What’s really the difference between Joe pardoning himself and pardoning Hunter?

Ooh, ooh!! I know!!

The identity of the pardon recipient.

[Nelson]

Wait, different people are different people? So weird.

[Sarcastr0]

Have you ever personally seen Joe and Hunter in the same room at the same time?

[Voize]

I would think a pardon less likely than a commutation.

[Zarniwoop]

Agree. I think it's possible to think both of these are true:
1) Hunter avoided taxes and possibly a gun statute (the constitutionality of which is also open for debate)
and
2) Hunter is getting far, far more scrutiny than a similarly-situated nobody would

Such that commutation is actually fair as a general proposition.

[Michael P]

How many nobodies are situated to "sell the brand" of being family of a VP who might be the next president?

If we take Devon Archer as a potential example, did he get more or less scrutiny than Hunter Biden?

[Kazinski]

One thing that Smith could do to keep Trump's trial date on track is drop the charges related to obstruction of an official proceeding. Its going to be hard to move forward with that case while that issue is pending before the Supreme Court.

As to pardoning himself, it may be unseemly but I don't think it's in much debate. They could impeach him again for it though. And certainly there is a good argument if he is re-elected he was pardoned by the American people.

[not guilty]

The factual underpinnings of the charges against Donald Trump under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) are materially different from the § 1512(c)(2) allegations against the Defendants Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller, whose indictments SCOTUS has agreed to review. None of these three is alleged to have taken any action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding. Trump is so accused.

Section 1512(c) provides in full:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The linchpin of the District Court's dismissal of the 1512(c)(2) counts against Fischer, Lang and Miller is the Court's interpretation of the word "otherwise." The Court reasoned that subsection (c)(1) limits the scope of subsection (c)(2), so as to require that conduct violative of (c)(2) must be similar to acts prohibited by (c)(1):

The Court therefore concludes that § 1512(c)(2) must be interpreted as limited by subsection (c)(1), and thus requires that the defendant have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding.

United States v. Miller, 589 F.Supp.3d 60, 78 (D.D.C. 2022), rev'd 64 F.4th 329 (D.C. Cir. 2023).

None of the Defendants Fischer, Land and Miller is accused of conduct with regard to a document, record, or other object, so Judge Nichols accordingly dismissed the § 1512(c)(2) counts against each of them.

Trump, on the other had, is charged with conduct regarding the integrity of documents transmitted to Congress in regard to certification of the electoral count. For example, ¶ 10.b. of the indictment alleges:

The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. . . . The Defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6. [Emphasis added.]

Creation and transmission of bogus documents containing false representations for consideration by the Congress is closely akin to the acts prohibited by § 1512(c)(1).

In any event, Trump will have to stand trial before any issue regarding the sufficiency of the indictment can be raised on a posttrial appeal. Whatever disposition SCOTUS makes of the Fischer proceedings will not affect Trump standing trial.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I am astonished that a court interpreted two apparently co-equal items in a list as an instance where item one constrains item two. Is that really an interpretation SCOTUS could reasonably uphold?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a standard element of statutory interpretation: "Ejusdem generis" Essentially, where a list contains a catchall, the catchall has to be interpreted to mean things sharing the nature of what is explicitly listed.

Normally, though, it would be applied to that "or other object", not the second clause. I think the ruling here was a bit questionable.

[David Nieporent]

.

In any event, Trump will have to stand trial before any issue regarding the sufficiency of the indictment can be raised on a posttrial appeal. Whatever disposition SCOTUS makes of the Fischer proceedings will not affect Trump standing trial.

Right. In addition to the factual differences between the two situations, this is not an immunity-type issue that needs to be resolved before trial. The Smith prosecution of Trump on that issue proceeds; no interlocutory appeal is even appropriate. If SCOTUS ultimately limits the scope of the obstruction statute in a way that benefits Trump, he can raise that ruling in post-trial proceedings.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals" -- "fabricates" is not on that list...

[not guilty]

Unclear on the meaning of "closely akin to the acts prohibited"? Like altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a document, fabricating a bogus document in order for an official body or tribunal to act thereupon impairs the integrity and reliability of the official proceeding.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Like tossing evidence overboard?

SCOTUS said no.

[ReaderY]

No criminal defendant who wants his trial delayed as long as possible, and who has reason to fear will be convicted if tried, has any interest in his pre-trial interlocutory appeal being handled as quickly as possible.

Pretending to be surprised that Trump failed to do hos duty to put the public’s interest before his own on some individual issue is like pretending to be surprised that Hitler failed to do his duty to protect Jews’ civil rights in some particular matter. Is it really worth your time or ours pretending to be surprised over and over and over and over again?

[Reallynotbob]

The usual consideration is that the highest court wants a full record on which to rule. In criminal cases, that ordinarily means the trial court should develop all the facts so the appellate courts can consider legal sufficiency (i.e. the available evidence) at the same time that they consider the legal points (e.g. failures to allow certain arguments or disputed jury charges). The appellate court frequently has the option to say, "XYZ decision was faulty, but we're not taking action because the error was harmless in light of the facts and arguments made at trial."

Pure legal questions like immunities need less development because there is no avenue for a "harmless error" in prosecuting an immune person (if he is). So the consideration here would be whether SCOTUS sees value in allowing the intermediate appellate court to develop the argumentation. That can benefit the higher court, especially if the intermediate court can dispense with lesser arguments that the parties abandon at the certiorari stage.

Here, the issue is focused, needs no factual development, and is not something where the arguments are likely to change between initial interlocutory appeal and certiorari. And other circuits are not considering the same issue, so there's no point in waiting to see if there will be a circuit split.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

Thank you very much for the (only) response to my question. I was probably naïve to assume that asking the question the way I did would prevent people to go on the politics and whatever hobby horse they love to ride.
It is good to know that there are people around who take seriously intended questions serious. Again: thank you very much indeed!

[not guilty]

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered briefing on an expedited schedule in Donald Trump's appeal of Judge Tanya Chutkan's order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based on Trump's claims of presidential immunity and double jeopardy. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208579363.0_2.pdf Briefing is to be completed by January 2, 2024, with a date for oral argument to be announced later.

I suspect that this expedited treatment by the Court of Appeals will make it somewhat less likely that SCOTUS will grant the government's petition for certiorari before judgment.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm a little surprised that you haven't mentioned Judge Chutkin's order staying proceeding because of the appeal.
Still think the Mar. 4 trial date will hold?

[not guilty]

Yes, I do. I expect that in light of the expedited schedule in the Court of Appeals, SCOTUS will deny the petition for certiorari before judgment. Briefing in the Court of Appeals will be completed by January 2. I would expect oral argument to be held within days thereafter, and I expect the panel (Judges Henderson, Childs and Pan) will issue an opinion affirming Judge Chutkan by mid-January. I expect that SCOTUS will deny certiorari shortly thereafter.

[Mr. Bumble]

That seems pretty optimistic on your part since (as I understand it) nothing more with regard to the case (jury selection, etc) can occur until the decision on the appeal has been rendered.
As I've said previously: ...to be continued.

[not guilty]

What part of mid-January do you not understand?

[Mr. Bumble]

It is now mid-December. You don't think the loss of a month makes a difference?
Your timeline anticipates SCOTUS allowing for the Court of Appeals to decide and a ruling against Trump (which I assume he would appeal to the SC. The alternative would be the SC granting cert and bypassing the Court of Appeals and I doubt that
would result in a decision by mid-January.

[not guilty]

If the Court of Appeals affirms Judge Chutkan's ruling, Trump will no doubt seek a stay from SCOTUS of the March 4 trial date. Obtaining a stay requires the assent of five justices. The issues Trump will be raising in the Court of Appeals are not close questions. I doubt that Trump will have four votes for certiorari, let alone five for a stay.

[Life of Brian]

Even if every single one of those planets aligned, that still cuts a minimum of a month out of the pretrial schedule, reproduced here for your convenience:

Motions in limine and Suppression Motions due 12/27/23, oppositions due 1/9/24, and replies due 1/22/24. . . . Parties shall exchange exhibit lists by 12/18/23 and file any objections to exhibits by 1/3/24; replies due 1/9/24. Proposed jury instructions and voir dire questions due 1/15/24. Parties shall exchange witness lists by 2/19/24. Trial will commence on 3/4/24

I'm hard-pressed to believe that even Judge Chutkan would compress three months of already breakneck trial prep into two.

[Zarniwoop]

I generally agree, with the caveat that Judge Chutkun may have incorporated more slack time into the Xmas/NYE time frame than would be required in January. But even as a seat-of-the-pants observation, that only results in a week or two of slack, not a full month's worth.

[Commenter_XY]

The House has voted to open an impeachment inquiry, despite several VC Conspirators stating that the stinking and noxious stench of corruption clinging to POTUS Biden, his wastrel son, and grubby-fingered family was really the scent of roses. What a surprise.

From a legal perspective, how does this vote actually strengthen the legal hand of the House to compel document production, testimony?

[Kazinski]

It strengthens it quite a bit, the courts will be much more deferential to any subpeonas the House issues to compel documents or testimony.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Do you suppose that deference will extend to subpoenaing documents unrelated to anyone's term in office, from parties who never held elected office or federal appointments?

[David Nieporent]

Yes.

As long as there's some colorable argument that it's related to the inquiry, yes. Not if DeSantis is frivolously "investigating" the snub of FSU from the college football playoffs.

[Nige]

All their investigations have proved nothing so far, except that they'll lie about it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Proved? I'm not sure they've even managed to successfully allege anything yet...

[David Nieporent]

.

From a legal perspective, how does this vote actually strengthen the legal hand of the House to compel document production, testimony?

Legally, maybe not at all. But it prophylactically eliminates the argument, "The House can't compel this production/testimony because it's not relevant to government business."

Some lawyers and judges contend that a formal impeachment inquiry is required before Congress can enforce such subpoenas. That was Thomas's dissenting position in Trump v. Mazars, for instance. And this administration itself has taken that position, saying that it wouldn't cooperate because there was no impeachment inquiry that had been authorized.

I doubt that position is correct, but it's a lot quicker to authorize such an inquiry (if you have the votes, which they did) than to fight the position in the courts.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, so this is mostly partly 'Kabuki Theater' (lets be honest, Team R is milking this impeachment drama cow for every last drop), and it stops a lot of potential litigation (also being honest, litigation whose purpose may be a cynical means to delay and hinder any congressional oversight) over the legality of congressional actions (i.e. subpoena, document production, testimony).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commener_XY, there is a purpose larger and more corrupt than those you mention. The Republicans pursue this groundless impeachment as a rhetorical dodge, to degrade permanently perceived legitimacy of the impeachment process as a constraint against political corruption.

[Tom for equal rights]

Stephen Lathrop 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Commener_XY, there is a purpose larger and more corrupt than those you mention. The Republicans pursue this groundless impeachment as a rhetorical dodge, to degrade permanently perceived legitimacy of the impeachment process as a constraint against political corruption."

Lathrop - Whataboutism or denial of whataboutism

there are fairly good indications that the Big man benefited from Hunters financial dealings. Based on publicly available information, the preliminary investigation appears reasonable

[David Nieporent]

There are no such indications. Literally, none. The only money that they've identified as flowing to Joe Biden is repayments of intrafamily loans. And that's after already having conducted an extensive investigation.

[Tom for equal rights]

David Nieporent 25 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
There are no such indications. Literally, none. The only money that they’ve identified as flowing to Joe Biden is repayments of intrafamily loans. And that’s after already having conducted an extensive investigation.

DN Intrafamily loans ? Nice dodge - though very quick with convenient stories

[David Nieporent]

Yes, intrafamily loans. I know that's a big word for you, so I'll explain: it means loans between family members.

[Tom for equal rights]

Convenient cover story

though the convenient cover story conflicts with data on the lap top and the text messages.

[Don Nico]

This is just where prior documentation of large loans would be useful at least for the optics.
I don't know how large the "loans" were but if they beyond de minimus (S_0's thanksgiving dinner), documentation should exist.

[Tom for equal rights]

Creating documents to show the "validity" of the family loans would be easy. However, obtaining bank records showing the original loans may be problematic.

[Nige]

You do know that speculation and insinuation aren't evidence, right? Just checking.

[David Nieporent]

They were more than de minimis; there was a $40k loan from Joe to his brother James, a $200k loan (same), and a $4,140 loan from Joe to his son Hunter. These were all short-term loans. (For example, the $200k was paid back about 7 weeks after it was borrowed.)

[Life of Brian]

(For example, the $200k was paid back about 7 weeks after it was borrowed.)

Ah, wonderful -- last I heard, all the apologists were able to offer up was that the outgoing payment to Jim Biden came from a law firm that managed an entity of Joe's but also a number of other Biden entities. Did something recently surface actually showing the $200k came from Joe's coffers?

[Don Nico]

Nige,
Did you have a stroke?
I insinuated nothing; I supposed nothing.
I made a statement about prudent behavior regarding documentation, if one wants to survive an IRS audit and if the "family loan" was not a de minimus amount.

[Nelson]

My guess is that there are bank records showing the transfer from Joe to James, given transactions over $10,000 are reported by banks to the government, as would the return payment. I loaned my mother a large amount of money when she bought her downsize apartment before her house sold. My financial advisor told me they had to report it and there was a (very slim) chance that the government would haves some questions for me.

If there weren't documentation of the initial transfer from Joe to James, the Rs would be shouting it to the mountaintops. They aren't, so it's highly likely it exists.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nelson 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
My guess is that there are bank records showing the transfer from Joe to James, given transactions over $10,000 are reported by banks to the government.

The $10k only applies to cash payments, dollar bills ( or a series of payments of cash totalling $1k of cash ie hamiltons, grants, abes, ets),

[Nige]

Wasn't at you Don, it was Tom.

[Life of Brian]

Nelson sez:

If there weren’t documentation of the initial transfer from Joe to James, the Rs would be shouting it to the mountaintops. They aren’t

I'm not sure how you could have written that if you've read much about this situation at all. Everybody agrees that the initial $200k wire came from a law firm, not from Joe Biden. The apologists have assembled a connect-the-dots narrative that purports to be clear evidence that the wire was from a trust fund account for Joe held by a law firm ('cause that's how regular folks loan money to their family members, you know), but I've not yet seen a rendition that doesn't involve a lot of caginess and careful wording that would be unnecessary if it was really that clear. If you have such an account, please do pass it on.

[Nige]

In other words, thay can trace the money, you prefer to pretend they can't.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, they can trace it to a law firm as I've said several times now. I'll put you down as having nothing useful to add.

[Nige]

But unfortunately that doesn't prove it wasn’t a car loan.

[Life of Brian]

A 7-week, $200k car loan? You've officially gone full tilt.

[shawn_dude]

Was it a Dodge? I thought it was Ford?

[ReaderY]

Honest members of Congress have evidence of wrong-doing before they open impeachment hearings. And except for national security matters, members of Congress who don’t think they have something to hide and aren’t worried about the public seeing what they are up to hold their hearings in public.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

People who live their lives in fantasies of their own making have no problem whatsoever believing they have all the "evidence of wrong-doing" they need. You should try it!

[Voize]

 

From a legal perspective, how does this vote actually strengthen the legal hand of the House to compel document production, testimony?

The resolution authorizes three committees to hold "public hearings", so strengthens their argument to enforce subpoenas for that purpose. It's not clear it has any effect on their ability to compel closed-door testimony.

[apedad]

Iowa town removes Nativity scene after out-of-town atheist steps in

The Nativity scene was removed from the Toledo Fire Department’s property on Friday after the city received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit based in Wisconsin that advocates on behalf of atheists and agnostics. Sokol explained that city leaders did not authorize the display to be taken down, but that the fire department did so with "good intentions" to avoid a potential lawsuit.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/iowa-town-removes-nativity-scene-out-of-town-atheist-steps-in

They didn't need to take it down - as long as other entities could also set up displays like the satanic altar in the state’s capitol building (which is causing "good" Iowans to get their panties all wadded up. Fucking hilarious!).

[Moderation4ever]

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is a national organization, that has its headquarters in Wisconsin. It has supporters around the country. Ron Reagan, son of the former President, is among their supporters. I doubt they stepped in without a local referral.

You are correct and as long as all beliefs are represented Holiday creches are allowed. The Wisconsin State Capital Building has many of these on display each year at this time, including a creche by the FFRF. The Capital have both a Holiday Tree and a Festivus pole.

[Zarniwoop]

Hm, it’s going to be near 50F today i WI. I think I might walk down to the Capital and check out the Festivus pole.

[Moderation4ever]

Definitely worth the walk. Always a nice tree, always some humor in the other displays.

[Nelson]

A Festivus pole? That's hilarious! And awesome.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Holiday Tree "

Which holiday uses decorated trees as a symbol?

[Moderation4ever]

The Holiday would be Solstice celebrated by pagans. It has however been adopted recently (last few hundred years) by Christians for Christmas.

[shawn_dude]

The only thing Christian about some holiday trees will be the star on top. (Ours has the Death Star--which also isn't Christian.) Christians moved their holiday observances to cover the various pagan observances in order to enforce Christian beliefs on their neighbors. (Some things never change.) You'll find similar pagan roots to Halloween and Easter. There's nothing Christian about baby bunnies, chicks, evergreen plants like holly and fir in the home, and Yule logs (it's in the name, folks).

[Nelson]

"Ours has the Death Star"

That's awesome.

Regarding the pagan roots of the holiday season, raise your hand if you think that Jesus was born in December.

[Brett Bellmore]

One of my church's (now retired) priests used to do an annual lecture during mass on exactly this topic, advising us not to confuse the day we celebrate Jesus' birth with the actual day of his birth, which is not actually known with any precision.

[shawn_dude]

What *is* known is the placement of flocks of sheep up in the hills. That provides for a general window of time given how flocks were rotated by the seasons. Winter would not be one of those seasons.

An honest priest would mention that the holiday was moved and observed over Winter Solstice as an act of force to discourage observance of non-Christian holidays. But, as we all know, the victor in any struggle gets the opportunity to write the history to fit their preferences.

[Nige]

It wasn't adopted though, the pagans converted, changed the feasts, kept the dates. I think the Church hated the practice, but couldn't stamp it out.

[bernard11]

I think the Church has been quite accommodating about incorporating others' practices into its own as a way of making conversion more attractive.

[Randy Sax]

I'm an atheist and have been all my life, parents raised me that way. A nativity scene has never, not once, bothered me. Nor has any jew candles or anything else.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are "atheists" who are more like agnostics, and who simply aren't religious. They wouldn't be bothered by Nativity scenes any more than they would be bothered by a Christmas lights on a house.

Then there are "atheists" for whom atheism IS a religion, they affirmatively and aggressively believe that there isn't a God. They're the ones who get pissed off when they see public displays of religious symbolism.

[Randy Sax]

"they affirmatively and aggressively believe that there isn’t a God."
I think that phrasing is a little off. It's more lack of affirmative belief in god rather than "belief in no god". But ya, the people that get pissed off about it are crazy.

"I CaNt BeLiVe ThEy PuT iN gOd We tRuSt On MoNeY!" Dude, as long as it's green, who gives a shit.

[Reallynotbob]

I wonder if you would feel differently if the Dept. of Treasury announced that the new $20 bill design would replace "In God We Trust" with "Allahu Kabir"?

[Randy Sax]

Me personally, I wouldn't care. I can't speak for everyone though. The phrase "Allahu Kabir" just brings memories of Team America and Rucka Rucka Ali videos to me.

[Bwaaah]

Dirka! Dirka! Muhammad Jihad!!!

[Drewski]

Strong (or gnostic) atheism: There are no gods.
Weak (or agnostic) atheism: I do not believe in any god.
There's no correlation between and these atheistic positions and anti-religious beliefs. Brett is making that up, naturally.

[Bob from Ohio]

Maybe in theory, in fact many atheists are fanatically anti-religion.

For instance, members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation

[Brett Bellmore]

Being fanatically anti-religion is basically the only reason for taking the strong position.

[Sarcastr0]

Telepathy plus failure of imagination.

A strong conception of the separation of church and state does not require hostility to religion.

Or, I'm pretty anti-public displays based on the discomfort about them I hear from nonchristains I know. And I am not fanatically anti-religion.

[bernard11]

Being fanatically anti-religion is basically the only reason for taking the strong position.

Bullshit, Brett.

I'm not fanatically anti-religion. Yet I take a very strong position on church and state separation.

If you are talking about Drewski's comment, then I see no reason that claiming there are no gods implies that one is "fanatically anti-religion".

Someone can believe that and have no problem whatsoever with believers going to church and so on.

[Absaroka]

"Someone can believe that and have no problem whatsoever with believers going to church and so on."

Indeed. I'm not religious at all, so why should I care at all whether someone else is Catholic or Hindu; you do you, and let me do me.

We have fairly frequent dinner guests; unless I already know people's preferences, I ask if anyone wants to say grace, and frequently someone does. It's no skin off my back.

I also don't get excited if someone wants to have a benediction at graduation or a football game. Them doing them doesn't stop me doing me.

Heh. The aforementioned friend who went from evangelical atheist to evangelical Christian once started to opine that maybe a government religion wasn't such a bad idea. I replied 'You haven't thought this through ... if the government mandates every person publicly swear that Glorbl is the one true god, on pain of death, I will happily lie through my teeth and swear to that. You, OTOH, will get to be a martyr. One of us has more skin in that game than the other.'.

[Nige]

Unless they turn out to be more welcoming to new converts than to ex-atheists. Converts already believed in something. Atheists rejected religion entirely. They can lie without risk to their immortal souls.

[Nige]

The do get denounced a lot by particularly loud and sweaty Christians and blamed for most if not all the evils in the world, along with homosexuality and liberalism. They're not obliged to turn the other cheek.

[bernard11]

And many religious people are fanatically anti any religion but their own, and spend time trying to convert others.

Similarly, many Red Sox fans are fanatically anti-Yankees, and will aggressively argue the point.

So what?

[Moderation4ever]

"atheism IS a religion"

But aren't you saying what most people say and that personal beliefs (call it religion) can be taken to extremes. Atheists don't want religious symbols posted on public property, Christian don't want drag queen performances, Muslim don't want pictures of the prophet shown. All reflect an idea that personal beliefs should allow you to impose restriction on others.

[Both Sides]

On one hand, some atheists are significantly more intent on trying to convince others of their position than most.

On the other hand, I've always liked the phrase "atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

[Moderation4ever]

Atheism, monotheism, polytheism are all a feature of a person personal beliefs. Religion is often reserved for monotheists. When you read about polytheists, we typical label pagan, they are not typically seen as expressing a religion. All of this gets into the weeds of philosophy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not collecting stamps would be agnosticism. Actively trying to discourage stamp collecting would be atheism.

[Absaroka]

Those aren't the dictionary definitions, or IMHE the definitions in common use.

Agnosticism is "I dunno whether or not there is a god".
Atheism is "I don't think there is a god".

Neither implies giving a whit about what other people think.

Which is not to say there aren't people of either flavor that want to convince others. I have a good friend who was an evangelical atheist, as in he liked to try and convince religious people they were wrong, for the first 30 years of his life. Then he became an evangelical Christian, and is now again trying to convince others he is right.

Personally, I'm with Lincoln: 'I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.'. Well, except for the cat part.

[bernard11]

Where do non-Christians fit in your scheme?

And why is it that just because not everyone gets upset who might, that that makes it OK? Is the Establishment Clause now to enforced only when a majority objects to its violation?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Where do non-Christians fit in your scheme?

Well, given that atheists (you know, the group under discussion) are by definition "non-Christians" it would seem that those particular non-Christians fit in pretty well.

[bernard11]

How about other non-Christians, then?

And why does the fact that Randy Sax doesn't object make everything just fine?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

How about other non-Christians, then?

How about them? They have absolutely nothing to do with what you were responding to, which was a comment strictly about different types of atheists, in response to someone who identifies himself as an atheist.

And why does the fact that Randy Sax doesn’t object make everything just fine?

Who the hell said that made anything just fine? How many voices are there in your otherwise empty head?

[shawn_dude]

That's generally not what these atheistic organizations are upset about. It's not that nativity scenes are bad or that government sponsorship of religious symbolism is bad but that, in the US, the government limits its sponsorship to Christian symbols only. If the government is willing to let someone drop a 4 foot tall statue of Baphomet (aka: Satan) next to the Nativity scene, or a festivus pole, or a Menorah (aka: "jew candles"), then no harm no foul. Ignoring the long history of local governments limiting support and space to Christian symbolism and prayer only undercuts your appearance of reasonableness here.

[Jerry B.]

Tell them it's not a Nativity scene. It's a pro-life celebration of the birth of an un-aborted child, somewhere in the Middle East, quite a while ago.

[Reallynotbob]

Won't work. It was born out of wedlock.

[taqmcg]

While the child was conceived out of wedlock, Matthew is pretty clear that Mary and Joseph married before the birth.

[Reallynotbob]

Luke 2:5 says they were engaged?

[ReaderY]

They would have won if they had fought it in court. The precedent on the subject is well-settled. Today’s more conservative Supreme Court is hardly likely to overturn settled precedent ro move things leftward on a subject like this. But the legal bills to fight a lawsuit might have been more than a small Iowa town could pay.

[Mr. Bumble]

Edit test.

[Mr. Bumble]

Still not working.

[SimonP]

I have been reading about efforts to ban SJP chapters at state universities in Florida and other Republican states. Surprised that these efforts don't seem to have merited a mention here, notwithstanding the flood of posts in recent weeks about free speech in higher education - focused, of course, on attacking DEI programs.

I don't expect the VC to abide by any particular kind of journalistic standards, because you all have failed that test several times over, but to let such a clear free speech issue pass without comment, while at the same time treating readers to a parade of not-very-good opinions on how best to serve free speech values at universities, is not a good look. Makes you look like, um, hypocrites? Partisans? That kind of thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wasn't sure what you meant, until I googled it, and Students for Justice in Palestine, a Hamas front organization, was one of the results.

[SimonP]

It's not a "Hamas front organization." But I appreciate your getting that talking point out of the way. Maybe then a dozen other conservative retards won't feel the need to say the same thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're just in denial here.

[SimonP]

"SJP is a Hamas front (citing front for the Israeli government)."

Brett, are you intentionally lying to me, or are you just too stupid to understand how the document you chose to link does not say what you claim it says? Nothing in the abstract says that SJP is a "Hamas front." The closest thing it says to it is, "SJP receives financial support from persons who provide financial support to Hamas." That is an intentionally misleading framing of a likely misleading characterization of transactions that the report may not even detail sufficiently to evaluate independently.

This is propaganda. Full-throated, unapologetic propaganda, put out by an organization that is completely open about its pro-Israel agenda. I am not going to waste my time reading it or evaluating it. I'm just going to conclude that you cited the first thing you found that supported your false assertion and are not being serious right now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you're just in denial.

[SimonP]

Well, you're either a liar or a dupe. Which do you want to go with?

[Nige]

There's that reliably variable standard of evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

To many, Brett, this foot stamping doubling down without actual engagement looks like you lost the argument.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Very much so.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hypocrites.

Partisan hacks.

Bigots.

Cowards.

Disaffected clingers.

Culture war casualties.

Misfits.

Disingenuous losers.

[Randy Sax]

Lesbians

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's a different list at the Volokh Conspiracy:

Lesbians

Trans parenting

Black crime

Drag queens

Trans rest rooms

White grievance

Muslims

Racial slurs

Male grievance

Trans sorority drama

[Randy Sax]

Lesbians
The fake ones on the internet are more fun than the real ones.

Trans parenting
Loving parents are loving parents, trans or not doesn't matter.

Black crime
Every race does crime. I drove 32 in a 25 this morning. Why do we have to tie these two issues together?

Drag queens
Weirdos if you ask me, but hey, if that's what makes you happy, go nuts man.

Trans rest rooms
Restrooms are different than changing rooms. If you are going in to take a shit, I don't care. But little sally doesn't need to see your donger in a changing room.

White grievance
Sometimes does happen. Can be overstated.

Muslims
Can be great guys, can be 72 virgins guys. Sometimes a crapshoot upon first meeting. Although much more likely to be great guys from what I have experienced.

Racial slurs
Just for fun. People who take themselves too seriously are Nancys.

Male grievance
Same answer as white grievance.

Trans sorority drama
context dependent. "I joined this sorority to not see dongers in the hallway." *dongers in the hallway* "aww shit"

[Commenter_XY]

We have an interesting point of agreement, SimonP. None of these chapters should be banned. And all of them should feel perfectly free to speak their views in the public square. Indeed, thousands have expressed their views on college campuses all across America.

In fact, I want to help them express themselves, loudly and proudly; especially the SJP (and fellow travelling) antisemite subset. And do you know what else? I help the antisemite subset enshrine their special moment in the sun, screaming to kill Jews in their precious protests, by donating to Canary Mission who memorializes their aforementioned special 'Kodak Moment', and compiles their social media postings from FB and X (fka Twitter) into a nice, neat package and posts it for the world to see (that would include potential suitors, current or future employers, family and friends). I figure the world should know...

[SimonP]

If you're trying to trigger me, it's not going to work. You're just letting me know how small and insignificant a man you are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Guys like you are the reason Israel is losing support, heading toward a world in which it must operate without American skirts to hide behind.

Choosing right-wing superstition as a government model, it turns out, and choosing to align with the losing end of the American culture war turns out to be a grave miscalculation in the modern world. Immoral violence, flouting of international law, brutal selfishness, and even more superstition-based right-wing belligerence haven't helped.

Israel is entitled to do as it wishes. But most Americans don't support old-timey right-wing belligerence at home; no one sensible should expect them to want to continue to subsidize or enable it, at great and varied cost, anywhere else.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Anonymous bigot only wants other bigots to be exposed...shocking!

[Kazinski]

Well since The Conspiracy isn't a journalism site its not surprising that they would fail to meet the journalistic standards you expect.

One area where they do fail journalistic standards is often they won't comment on something if they don't know the facts and the law.

In any case EV has made a blanket statements that he thinks that even calls for genocide are protected speech and should not be suppressed, that should nicely cover SJP if it makes you feel better.

[SimonP]

Well since The Conspiracy isn’t a journalism site its not surprising that they would fail to meet the journalistic standards you expect.

Journalistic standards are not standards that apply only to outlets that hold themselves out as "journalism sites." They are standards that apply to anyone purporting to report to others what's happening in the world. They are standards designed to ensure that what's reported as true actually is true, to ensure that statements of opinion and editorializing are clearly distinguished from factual assertions, to reduce bias, etc.

Conspirators regularly hold themselves out as "reporting" on legal and current events. Eugene uses this platform to forward legal developments that he has been following and to comment on various topics, like academic freedom. It is utterly bizarre to run as many posts as we've seen recently about how to structure academic freedom in higher education, while letting pass without comment efforts by multiple states to ban constitutionally-protected speech at universities.

Unfortunately, it fits a pattern. Eugene is a prolific poster, but he has very carefully avoided saying much (if anything) about specific policies pursued by red-state governors as part of their culture war agendas. It would seem that Eugene is keen on not offending people like DeSantis, Abbott, et al. To what end, one can only speculate. If any of those people had a realistic angle on the White House, you might think he wants to keep his record clean for a judicial appointment.

(Contrast this with Josh, whose posting history has created too many black marks for him to ever have a serious run at a Senate-confirmed post. If his aims are political, it is surely only as someone who could escape that kind of scrutiny.)

[Bwaaah]

Per CNN:

Two Florida chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine remain active, despite Gov. Ron DeSantis asserting during Wednesday night’s GOP presidential primary debate that he had deactivated them.

According to State University of Florida Chancellor Ray Rodrigues, both SJP chapters said they are not chartered by the national organization that faces scrutiny from the DeSantis administration.

[SimonP]

Yeah, like that loophole is going to prevent the university from trying to shut them down.

[Dr. Ed 2]

ABOLISH SJP!!!

[Sarcastr0]

Or abolish you.

You advocate for more heinous shit than they have been accused of.

[Armchair]

Let's pose a hypothetical example of what may happen in the future.

Let's say, Trump is convicted of the whole confidential documents fiasco. Let's also say, that even if convicted, Trump wins election to the Presidency. What happens then?

Does.
1. Trump pardon himself of any crimes, on January 20th?
2. Biden pardon Trump of any crimes, before January 20th?
3. Biden pardon himself and anyone related to himself for any crimes, just before leaving office?
4. If "3" doesn't occur, does Trump order the DoJ to press charges against Biden over confidential document mishandling?

[Martinned]

Yes, Biden pardoning himself is definitely a plausible thing that might actually happen. /s

[Armchair]

" Biden pardoning himself is definitely a plausible thing that might actually happen. /s"

Why not? Let's say Trump was feeling particularly vengeful. He was convicted on a confidential documents crime that was almost just like exactly what Biden did. Trump was put in prison for it, for months. But Biden gets off scott free? Trump could, in theory, order (or put in place people who would order) the DoJ to press charges against Biden for confidential document crimes.

One way for Biden to protect himself would be to pardon himself of any such crimes. Otherwise...he might be at Trump's mercy.

[Martinned]

Trump launching bogus investigations against any Democrat he could think of is definitely a thing that might happen. But Democrats pre-emptively pardoning themselves is not.

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case it wouldn't be bogus. Biden actually DID have classified documents, very insecurely stored, that he wasn't legally entitled to be in possession of. For all we know, he still does, since he was never subject to a hostile search, the way Trump was.

Pence had them, too. And I expect many others.

It's a not uncommon crime in Washington, and a lot of people had 'oh, shit!' moments when it became public that they were going after Trump on this.

[Nige]

Except both are being investigated. Biden and Pence keeping the investigations low key by not having raging temper tantrums doesn't even seem like a particularly clever approach, but it's like the cunning move of master strategists by comparison. Also, neither did what Trump did that actually got him in legal difficulties.

[Armchair]

The "legal difficulties" were a choice by the Biden DoJ. They easily could have ignored those legal difficulties (and had in the past).

Different choices could be made by a Trump DoJ.

[Nige]

What, specifically, should they have ignored that they also ignored in the past?

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's noted that Armchair replied in this thread after this comment, but avoided answering this comment. Presumably, he has zero examples of what the DOJ should have ignored that they had ignored in the past. Which severely undercuts his BS political persecution angle.

[Nige]

Too specific.

[SRG2]

Did any other person in unlawful possession of confidential documents obstruct attempts to get them returned, and get their lawyer to lie by claiming that they have all been retruend?

I don't know what grave cognitive defect gets Trump supporters to be so insanely and pathologically stupid in on this issue but it seems that they really are too cretinous to understand the distinction of cases.

[Armchair]

Overly specific.

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol. Yes, because you want to be overly general and just say there were classified documents where they shouldn't be. But the specific facts that Trump claimed, unlike anyone else, that he owned them, refused to return them when asked, lied that he had them, had his attorney file a misleading, at best, affidavit in support of his lie, and otherwise took affirmative acts to knowingly hide and conceal the documents from the federal government.

(He also bragged about showing them, though he now claims he was lying about showing them and really wasn't showing the person classified documents. "Hey, I'm a known lying liar!" Though factually accurate, it's not a great defense and it's all he's got on that issue.)

[David Nieporent]

.

Except both are being investigated.

Not Pence:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doj-closes-pence-classified-documents-investigation-no-charges-rcna87396#

[Nige]

How did all that happen without Pence threatening civil war? Sneaky!

[NOVA Lawyer]

Because Pence is part of the Biden "crime family"? Or maybe the facts (specifics too specific for Armchair's taste) were wholly different from Trump's other than that classified documents were involved.

[Nige]

Yes, you just keep making up stupider and stupider explanations until you come full circle and point out all the weird rumours piling up, suggesting something dodgy must be going on.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Exactly the MAGA playbook.

[SimonP]

"Hostile search"

What a lot of work these words do! Because of course Biden's properties were searched. You just assume they weren't "hostile" because something something Biden something...

So. Just so we're clear. You think that a criminal investigation of Biden's handling of classified would be justified? So, you would also agree that the investigation leading to the current charges in Florida are justified?

If Trump were to be convicted and pardoned himself, or ended the prosecution himself upon obtaining office, would that be an impeachable offense?

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden's properties were searched by Biden's own people.

[SimonP]

The FBI, but sure. Something something Biden something...

It's really amazing, isn't it? When you presume that all the facts you observe fit within a conspiratorial worldview, you just find heaps and heaps of evidence that your conspiratorial conclusions are justified!

[David Nieporent]

Unless this is just part of the standard Deep State conspiracy theorizing by the far right, combined with your ordinary paranoid conspiracy theorizing, it's a lie. Biden's properties were searched by the FBI.

FBI searched Biden home, found items marked classified

FBI searches University of Delaware and interviews university employee in Biden classified documents probe

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The FBI? That Democratic pawn that has had a Republican director every moment it has existed?

Carry on, clingers. Without the respect of your betters, of course.

[SimonP]

Brett's MO is to lie by telling the truth. "Biden's own people" just means "employees of the FBI who operate independently of the president but theoretically remain under his oversight as the chief executive." But it's framed like Biden just had his own attorneys look for stuff.

Like Trump did.

[myself]

And Trump's properties were searched by Trump's own people.

And then the DOJ realized that Trump still had a bunch of classified docs, so they got a search warrant and found a bunch of other stuff.

Now it turns out that Trump actively hid classified docs from his own people and now he's in real deep s**t for knowingly keeping classified info (obvious when you hide it) and lying to the government about it.

Then Biden invited the FBI in without a warrant to remove any doubt as to his cooperation.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's not fair to use specific facts!

(Says Armchair and other Trump apologists.)

[David Nieporent]

.

Biden actually DID have classified documents, very insecurely stored, that he wasn’t legally entitled to be in possession of.

How do you know he wasn't legally entitled to be in possession of them? Maybe Obama declassified them in his mind.

[santamonica811]

LOL

[BrotherMovesOn]

LOL^²

[Tom for equal rights]

DN comes back with another convenient cover story to match his partisan beliefs

[Nige]

Everything can be a cover story. You just have to say 'that's a cover story.' To you, that's unfalsifiable.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the theory that it's a cover story is perfectly falsifiable: If there really was a loan to be repaid, the same bank records that showed the 'repayment' would show the money originally going in the opposite direction.

[Sarcastr0]

Are those the real bank records?

Banks are well known for being in bed with big government.

Is this the money from the loan or some other payment?

The account that got the money has some irregularities, it could be a Chinese front.

It looks like the money was deposited nearly instantly. How did the bank know, was it told beforehand?

These records are too on the nose to make the right look like a fool. A sure sign of doctoring.

Is money even real? Until the Fed is audited, none of this is real

The conspicuous lack of the name 'Obama' makes me suspect Obama is involved.

[Nige]

But no matter what they show you, it'll remain a cover. Going by past and present behaviour.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Are you always paid back via the same method you made a loan? That's just incredibly naive.

[not guilty]

Armchair, suppose you were a federal prosecutor tasked with drafting an indictment of Joe Biden for his handling of government documents. For purposes of this hypothetical, assume that Biden is not re-elected, and the indictment will be presented to the grand jury on January 22, 2024. (January 21 is a Sunday.)

What statute(s) would you allege that Biden has violated? In what federal district would you present the case? What specific action(s) or omission(s) by Biden would you allege? As to each such act or omission, when and where did it occur?

Hint: Take a look at 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) before answering.

[Armchair]

I'd probably go with 18 U.S. Code § 1924

"(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."

That would work just fine. Probably in Delaware, since that's where (some) of the documents were found

[not guilty]

When do you claim such a removal took place?

[Michael P]

As one clear example, probably when they were put in the garage. Or do you think Joe Biden's garage was authorized for storage of classified material?

Some high government officials do have portions of their homes approved for classified work, and may have safes for storage (meaning unattended by an appropriately cleared person) of classified material, but I would be shocked if a standard garage was ever authorized for storage of classified material. A lot of SCIFs, with alarm systems, EM protections, much more robust walls and doors, and so forth, are not authorized for open storage of classified material -- anything classified needs to be on encrypted hard drives or locked in an approved safe unless an authorized person is present.

[not guilty]

Care to assign some dates on, you know, an actual calendar to those supposed events? Why do you think I cited 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) to Armchair?

[Michael P]

Answer my question first, and you'll understand why that makes your question irrelevant.

[not guilty]

Don't be silly. If it makes you happy to know my thoughts, no, I don't think Joe Biden’s garage was authorized for storage of classified material, but that has nothing to do with when documents were removed to that location.

[Michael P]

So you're being disingenuous and arguing that the existence of a statute of limitations means Joe Biden didn't get treated differently. Be better.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Something to do with the number five? I'm close, I know it!

[Armchair]

Sure. Generally speaking it's when a crime finishes for the statue of limitations. It's not just the removal at hand, but also the retention. Remember, The statue cited "retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location"

So the question at hand is when were the documents no longer retained there. The dates are a little flexible depending, when, where, and who did the searching. But the Penn Office was initially searched November 2nd, 2022.

A 5 year statue of limitations there is November 2nd, 2027....

[not guilty]

Uh, no. You quoted the language of § 1924(a), so you are presumably familiar with it. The offense created thereby is complete upon an unauthorized removal, combined with the requisite intent to retain the subject documents. Whether such intent existed is measured at the time of removal.

Verbs matter.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Tell me you were typing that with a straight face...

[NOVA Lawyer]

He conveniently dropped the "Lawyer" from his pseudonym because, presumably, it became too embarrassing for him when all his legal analysis ended as this one did: by exposing his utter lack of knowledge about the law or the legal system or how either operates.

[Zarniwoop]

What evidence do you think supports “knowingly” with respect to each individual:
1) Biden
2) Trump
3) Pence

[bernard11]

He was convicted on a confidential documents crime that was almost just like exactly what Biden did.

You are a fucking joke.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You are a fucking joke.

Put the mirror down.

[Nige]

Yes Bernard stop holding a mirror up to Brett, you'll break him.

[Moderation4ever]

What if Trump is convicted on a state crime like in Georgia where he cannot pardon himself? Would he serve as President from a Georgia prison cell? I would guess minimum security. How much would the government save if the Presidential protection detail had to only guard him in one place? One could speculate on this all day.

[Armchair]

It would be interesting. I believe federal supremacy would work out to free Trump of imprisonment for at least the length of his presidency, in such a situation.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Blackman, Volokh, Tillman, and Bernstein must be working on that white paper already.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think VP Burr actually had to avoid NY and NJ while VP because he was subject to arrest for his killing of Hamilton.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why wasn't he subject to extradition?

[Brett Bellmore]

I haven't looked at it in detail, but I'd assume because dueling wasn't a crime in the places he'd have to be extradited from.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You know that you’re allowed to actually read the constitution, right?

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

[Kenneth Almquist]

In 1860, Ohio refused to extradite a man to Kentucky, because the charge was helping a slave escape, which wasn't a crime in Ohio. In the subsequent court case, Kentucky v. Dennison, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Kentucky was correct, but that the courts had no authority to order Ohio to perform the extradition. In 1987, the Supreme Court overturned Kentucky v. Dennison, ordering Iowa to extradite a man to Puerto Rico in Puerto Rico v. Branstad. In Aaron Burr's time, there was no precedent either way.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep065/usrep065066/usrep065066.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/483/219

My impression is that enough people thought that dueling should be legal that there was a reluctance to prosecute it. Burr was indicted for murder in New Jersey, where the duel took place, but the grand jury withdrew the indictment a month later on the basis that Hamilton died in New York. In New York, the grand jury indicted Burr for challenging Hamilton to a duel, but refused to indict him for murder.

To extradite Burr, a representative of New York state would have had to travel by horse drawn carriage to a jurisdiction where Burr was present. The jurisdiction where Burr was most likely to be found after he became Vice President was Washington, D.C., which is not a state, so the Constitutional provision you quote doesn't apply. So an attempt to extradite Burr would involve a significant expenditure of time and resources for an uncertain result. New York might have done this if the charge was murder rather than challenging to a duel.

[Moderation4ever]

Alternatively, it could be argued the President is incapacitated while serving his sentence, the 25th Amendment is invoked, and the VP assumes the Presidency. I mean if we are in the hypothetical why not go big.

[Reallynotbob]

Unlikely. The more plausible scenario is that the VP and cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment because Trump is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency.

[Nige]

And frankly that won't fly because the best defenses of Trump have always been that he couldn't discharge the powers of the Presidency very much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump would select cabinet members who wouldn't vote to do this.

[Brett Bellmore]

Go read the 25th amendment. If the President disputes the claim that he's incapable, it goes to Congress to resolve the question, and the threshold there is actually higher than for impeachment.

The 25th amendment was NOT intended as a way to circumvent impeachment, it was only intended for cases of genuine, essentially undisputed incapacity.

[Reallynotbob]

I didn't say circumvent impeachment. I said he would lack the capacity to discharge his duties.

Perhaps Congress would choose to leave him in power from a jail cell. Who knows?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The pressure on the Governor to pardon him would be immense.
Trump could start with closing all the military installations in Georgia and then weaponize the EPA or IRS, etc.

Or he could threaten to have the USAF build a 2 mile long runway through downtown Atlanta -- there are so many things a President can do to a state....

[Zarniwoop]

Can I have some of what you’re smoking?

[grb]

No one vomits-up phantasmagorical scenarios liked our Ed!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember "Bridgegate"?

That actually happened.

[Sarcastr0]

How'd that turn out?

[Bob from Ohio]

The governor does not have the pardon power. A 5 member board does.

5 GOP appointed members, I don't think you have to pressure them.

[Don Nico]

The board has power but only after 5 years of the sentence are served. The Orange Clown is fucked

[Bob from Ohio]

The 5 year period is waived for 70+ people.

[Don Nico]

The Orange Fucker always has an out.

[David Nieporent]

1. Yes.
2. Not a chance in hell.
3. No.
4. Maybe, but like everything else Trump does, it would be lawless; mere "document mishandling" is never prosecuted criminally. If there are no other relevant factors, it's always handled administratively — firing the mishandler and revoking his/her security clearance. But even if Trump wanted to, (a) anything from Biden's senate days, and from most of his veep term, is outside the statute of limitations, and (b) even if there's some act w/in the statute of limitations, the burden would be on the government to show how the documents ended up where they were found and what Biden knew, which would seem to be tough.

[Armchair]

4) Well...until Trump. But that's been uncorked.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, the Justice Department has Trump dead to rights moving selected documents to hidey-holes to frustrate government attempts to recover them. Do you think Biden did anything like that?

[Don Nico]

SL,
Of course he did. The documents did not move by themselves.

So, what should be done. Bundle and burn the documents and then forget about the matter. It does not make any difference.

[Armchair]

Yes, Biden moved classified documents after finished his vice presidency from one location to another location.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sorting them in the process, it's not like he brought everything to each successive location.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, you don't get the distinction between moving stuff when you change your residence, and moving stuff to hide it from the feds after the feds have demanded that you give it back?

I think you do get that. I think something mysterious is going on in the brains of MAGA loyalists. What it is I cannot say, but it emits the smell of burning insulation.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

At some point they just give up, say it's all a joke, "4d chess", babble, babble, babble...

[grb]

A zillion people have made the obvious point that Trump could have turned over the documents at any point over 6-8 months (like Biden did) and there would have been no legal issues. Instead, he lied about what was in his possession, tried to con the National Archives with partial returns, discussed whether he could stiff the Archives with his aides & lawyers, shifted the documents from location to location to try & avoid detection, ignored repeated attempts to negotiate a transfer and violated a subpoena.

Armchair knows that. Hell, everyone does. But he still peddles the same old tired bullshit.

[Bob from Ohio]

"there would have been no legal issues"

Says who? DOJ was out to get him by any means necessary.

[Zarniwoop]

Bob blathered:

Says who? DOJ was out to get him by any means necessary."

Pretty much everyone who's not a completely obtuse Trump apologist.

There's a "knowingly" and "with intent to" component in 18 U.S. Code § 1924.

If Trump had said "whoops, I didn't know I had those, here they are" ... then there's no evidence to support the mens rea component of the statute.

Trump delivered that key element to prosecutors on a silver platter for no other reason than "being an egotistical idiot".

[David Nieporent]

.

Pretty much everyone who’s not a completely obtuse Trump apologist.

Indeed, Bob's mendacious claim is utterly belied by the fact that they spent 18 months trying to get the documents back voluntarily before they took any action.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bob could just read the indictment and see the mountain of evidence already proving Trump's culpability here, but that would require that he actually engage in good faith.

Bob: They have the fucking receipts.

[Armchair]

Let's pose a different hypothetical for the audience.

Let's assume Trump is convicted of various crimes, including some related to January 6th. But, regardless Trump wins the presidency. Let's say it's a close election.

What are the odds that the Biden administration attempts to disqualify Trump after the election, and tries to hold onto power, despite losing the election?

[Martinned]

Slim to none

[Mr. Bumble]

Venn diagram to follow?

[Armchair]

So, just to review, Trump is convicted of crimes related to January 6th. Crimes that some people call "treason".

And Biden sees an opportunity to hold onto power by disqualifying Trump in one of the states he won. And Biden wouldn't take it?

[Moderation4ever]

Biden has a long history with the courts, he led the Senate Judiciary Committee for many years. Biden would understand that any disqualification would have to occur before the election, not after. This is what Trump and his supporters failed to understand, the courts would be very reluctant to reverse an election once it has happened.

[Martinned]

Yes. It may surprise you to learn that your political enemies don't think as you do.

More specifically, liberals will never pass up an opportunity to lose heroically in the face of evil opposition.

[Kazinski]

Well there was the time that Senator Barbara Boxer and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs objected to Ohio's electoral votes alleging voting irregularities:

"Thursday, January 6, 2005 Posted: 7:08 PM EST (0008 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Alleging widespread "irregularities" on Election Day, a group of Democrats in Congress objected Thursday to the counting of Ohio's 20 electoral votes, delaying the official certification of the 2004 presidential election results."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How did that go?

[SimonP]

I think there would be a lot of very loud people on the left calling on him to do that, just because Trump would have.

But Biden himself would not. At this point in the hypothetical, he is likely already to have conceded that he lost, and there is no real upside (or legal or constitutional argument) to trying to hold on to office. He loses every court case brought on this issue, and most of his cabinet would resign. And I highly doubt the military would support such an effort.

Recall that this is part of how Trump was jimmied out of the office, too. If the Cabinet was fully behind him, and the courts were sufficiently stacked in his favor, he might well have tried staying on despite everything. But the Cabinet started to abandon ship after January 6th, the courts aren't full of Trump cronies yet, and the military wasn't under his thumb.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Zero. No chance at all.

[David Nieporent]

.

And Biden sees an opportunity to hold onto power by disqualifying Trump in one of the states he won. And Biden wouldn’t take it?

Correct, if for no other reason than that Biden isn't a MAGA dipshit and therefore knows that Trump being disqualified after winning the election does not in fact let Biden stay in office. Whichever chud Trump picked to be his veep nominee — not Biden — would become president in that scenario.

[Armchair]

Depends how the disqualification works. Let's imagine Biden successfully challenges and disqualifies electors from a single Trump state.

There are a few potential scenarios here. One would be that now no one had a majority of electoral votes for President. So, the case would go to House. If Democrats had won enough of the right type of seats in the House, or convinced the right people, they could easily just elect Biden President. He wouldn't say no.
(Yes, the electoral math is a little tricky for that currently, but certainly possible especially with GOP defections)

Another would be having the secretary of state / governor (depending on the state law) "recast" those votes for Trump to the next highest candidate. Biden.

A third would be convincing enough electors to be faithless and choose Biden instead of Trump.

[David Nieporent]

.

Let’s imagine Biden successfully challenges and disqualifies electors from a single Trump state.

How would disqualifying Trump disqualify electors?

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed. President Biden is a long serving politician who understands the importance of protocol in a democratic system. I would point to the Bush and the Obama administration who in their final days made great efforts to facilitate a smooth transition to the next administration. I would expect nothing less from the Biden Administration.

[Ben_]

The odds are very high that Democrats will do anything, regardless of laws. They already showed us this over and over.

The exact scenario has a low probability because it's very specific.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Adrenochrome is a powerful drug...

[Longtobefree]

As long as there are states with no excuse mail in voting, there will not be a close win by any republican, let alone Trump.

[shawn_dude]

If Trump wins there is zero chance that the Biden administration attempts a coup like Trump did.

[Frank Drackman]

Is there any way to have Hunter Biden do a drug screen today?
No punitive intent, I'm worried about the guy, no way that performance yesterday wasn't "enhanced" by something good. (I'm not buying the Starbucks explanation) Get him some rehab like Senator John Fetterman got (not calling him "Stuttering John" anymore, don't agree with him on everything, but he's one of the few DemoKKKrats with the balls to support Israel)

Frank "My name's Frank and I'm an ass-hole-olic"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans and defenders, Volokh Conspirators. And the reason most of your colleagues, employers, and students consider you bigot-hugging assholes.

[OtisAH]

Fucking hilarious…

https://newrepublic.com/post/177505/republicans-reject-open-transparent-clause-biden-impeachment-rules

The MAGA House will not be held to an “open and transparent” impeachment inquiry because the phrase “open and transparent” is too wordy. And not only will the MAGA House not commit to an open and transparent inquiry, there’s also no requirement they hold a single public hearing.

[Nige]

Oooh, there's going to be a LOT of damning testimony announced that turns out to be nothing at all.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I suspect they'll find a bunch of honest graft.

I was mocked for invoking George Washington Plunkitt, the statesman/political scientist, on the difference between honest graft (a politician legally enriching himself) and dishonest graft (a politician violating the penal code to enrich himself).

But the critical commenters seem to have basically come over to my position with their "everybody does it" schtick. What is this if not an appeal to the concept of honest graft?

Caveat: Even if certain kinds of graft are non-indictable, they might be impeachable.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Caveat to the caveat - Biden had a 4-year interval out off office after many of the things he's accused of. Is there a statute of limitations for when a federal officeholder (like a President) can be held accountable for behavior in a previous federal office, when there's a 4-year gap between his current service and his previous service?

I don't think the Senate has grappled with this particular problem.

[grb]

Well, Trump's son-in-law got a two-billion dollar payoff from the Saudi government, with 25 million a year going directly into Kusher's pocket and his handling fee a full quarter-percentage point higher than other similar deals.

This was after the Saudis who manage the investment fund recommended against the Kushner payout due to his “inexperience”, higher than acceptable risk, “unsatisfactory” due diligence, and “excessive” asset management fees. They were overruled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and over government officials.

All of which is more solid than Comer's lies about Joe Biden and 1K truck payments, isn't it? So maybe the Senate can grapple with this "particular problem" during a cartoon impeachment of Joe Biden and have the answer for a real issue.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Well, Trump’s son-in-law"

If only federal prosecutors were serious about going after Trump's people, this guy should be in prison.

Or maybe this is honest graft, which everybody does!

Further, since at present I don't plan to vote for Trump, what is your point?

[shawn_dude]

I think you're confusing honest with legally permissible. A bribe is still dishonest even if it's legal.

[David Nieporent]

.

Is there a statute of limitations for when a federal officeholder (like a President) can be held accountable for behavior in a previous federal office,

No. Why would you think that?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's not covered by existing Senate precedents, so it's at best up in the air.

Can *you* find a precedent?

[David Nieporent]

The Senate is not a court; it doesn't work by "precedent." It can do whatever a majority of its members want to do. (Or in the case of an impeachment trial, a supermajority.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

By that logic, courts can overrule themselves at any time.

At least the House of Representatives has precedents:

https://www.govinfo.gov/help/precedents-of-the-house

[OtisAH]

The problem, which appears intractable since you and all the other dopes keep banging on about the same nonsense day after day after day, is there is not one piece of evidence of any graft, the good kind or otherwise, involving Joe Biden. Not in office, not out. Worse, no “revelation” in the year-long pursuit of Hunter’s dick has revealed any graft. Not one bit. And yet, here you are again talking about graft and taking some weird victory lap. Pathetic, really.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

How does my "honest graft" comment differ from the "everbody does it" comments, except for the presumption (without evidence) that I'm promoting Trump's election and the "everybody does it" people are "defending" Biden?

[OtisAH]

It doesn't differ at all. They’re both nonsense statements. “Everybody” does *not* “do it.” And “honest graft” is just stupid because “graft” refers to illegal acts.

Also, there is currently no evidence presented publicly that Joe Biden *has* “done it.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"“Everybody” does *not* “do it.”"

I read comments to this effect from commenters "defending" Biden in an earlier thread.

[OtisAH]

Perhaps, but like with my use of it you don’t understand it at all.

[Sarcastr0]

My issue with the semantic conflation between following the law and not following the law is that they are utterly different things.

One the remedy is enforce the laws.

The other the remedy is change the laws, and/or change soft power expectations.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I said it's probably not indictable. Impeachable would be a different thing, except for that four-year gap in private life after Biden's potential violations. An issue yet to be adjudicated, though I think it must be addressed before getting to the substance of Biden's behavior.

Here's a reason I think it could be honest graft: Biden, as an influential Senator, had years to tighten the laws in the way you suggested, but obviously didn't do so (for some reason which remains unexplained). So a lot of stuff remains legal which you might think shouldn't be.

[Sarcastr0]

My issue is the semantic conflation.

To most normal people graft is an illegal thing.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sarcastro, keep being you.

I explained the distinction. And graft is graft even if the Bidens, while in Congress, contrive to keep it legal.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, you have an internally consistent definition. That is utterly at odds from the understood definition used by the general public.

Here, your choice terms create a connotation of lawbreaking that is not true, and even if you have hostility to the legal practice. I don't like the slight of hand.

As a physicist-lawyer-bureaucrat, deployment of potentially misleading jargon is a pet peeve of mine. To be fair, it's not a battle I win very often.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oh, piss up a rope, it's not my definition, it was in a famous book in the early 20th century which is still cited today.

The relevant discussion is on the Teaching American History Web site:

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/plunkitt-of-tammany-hall/

From the right-wing fanatics at Politico:

"The Clintons, Honest Graft and Dishonest Graft

"With so much money to follow, the Clintons give us scads of newsworthy stories to tell.

"The first laws of politics and money were *hammered into stone* [emphasis added] in 1905 by George Washington Plunkitt, a Tammany Hall political boss in New York City."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/the-clintons-honest-graft-and-dishonest-graft-117326/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

2016, from an article in an obscure publication called the New York Times:

"In the early 1900s, George Washington Plunkitt, the perspicacious New York politician and philosopher, distinguished between the dishonest dollars pocketed by bungling politicians through graceless corruption and the gold mine to be made legitimately from what he called “honest graft.”"

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/sunday-review/bribery-and-corruption-or-honest-graft.html

A 2014 Atlantic article (another obscure publication) by random nobody Jonathan Rauch:

"The Case for Corruption

"Why Washington needs more honest graft...

"In a healthy return to machine politics, [Congressional leaders] handed budget negotiations over to political hacks cutting deals behind closed doors."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/03/the-case-for-corruption/357568/

[mostly paywalled]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The American Interest, article categorized under "Honest Graft" -

"I don’t say that the Clintons are breaking the law, at least as far as the basic principles of the machine go. As Tammany Hall’s George Washington Plunkett once said, there is such a thing as “honest graft.”"

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/08/21/the-first-postmodern-political-machine/

"This is one of the *most famous talks* [emphasis added] on practical politics by the Democratic senator of New York (District of Tammany), George Washington Plunkitt, at the beginning of the 20th century. It is *rightly famous* [emphasis added] for the candid and straightforward manner in which politics is portrayed. Not many politicians had the courage of qualifying the behavior and the finalities of the elected representatives as "honest graft"."

https://www.coursehero.com/file/178966222/Honest-Graft-and-Dishonest-Graftdocx/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

From the National Humanties Center, Plunkitt's discourse:

https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text7/plunkitt.pdf

From 2007:

"The Honest Graft of Lady Bird Johnson

"How she and Lyndon came by their millions."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/07/how-lady-bird-and-lyndon-baines-johnson-came-by-their-millions.html

[The Margrave of Azilia]

For crying out loud, it's even on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/zmsne1/cmv_machine_politics_and_honest_graft_of_mid_20th/

Local papers are familiar with it:

"Honest graft was a concept *famously* pioneered by the old Democratic political boss, Tammany Hall’s George Washington Plunkitt."

https://www.trentonian.com/2020/02/02/provocations-profiles-in-honest-graft-david-neese-column/

It's almost embarrassing how many times I can hit you over the head with this.

You're the one being misleading with your fake protestations of indignation.

[Sarcastr0]

Your exasperated appeal to authority aside, you're using misleading language.

[Sarcastr0]

I continue to hold that most people are not Plunkitt followers, even if you can find some reddit post or a random newspaper you Googled up to the contrary.

Graft means crime.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You're more than earned your title of Gaslightro today.

You were caught with your pants around your ankles, and (to mix metaphors) you're desperately trying to dig yourself out of it.

Your desperation shows when you ask the world to believe that Politico, the New York Times, Slate, the Atlantic and The American Interest are "random newspapers."

[Sarcastr0]

No, Margrave.

It is really really clear you did a web search and slammed in every source you found worthy.

Confirmation bias doesn't get you to common parlance.

Maybe I'm wrong, and have just spoken to a weird set of people who generally use graft to mean crime.
But your confirmation bias parade is not how you establish that.

One way would be to go to a dictionary, which have as a job capturing current usage. But you and I both know why you didn't go there.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Explain why Politico, the New York Times, Slate, the Atlantic and The American Interest are “random newspapers" as you hilarious asserted.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I seem to recall that the last time I used a dictionary the response was "what is it with right-wingers and dictionaries"?

But so be it, here is Merriam-Webster online

"p graft
noun (2)
: the acquisition of gain (such as money) in dishonest or questionable ways
also : illegal or unfair gain"

But you've shown that, although a scientist, you've eschewed the scientific method of setting aside prejudiced assumptions when faced with contrary evidence, so I don't think a dictionary definition will impact you.

Again, please try to defend your characterization of Politico, the New York Times, Slate, the Atlantic and The American Interest as “random newspapers.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

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

[myself]

You realize all of those articles are basically saying that the modern commonly understood definition of "graft" is closer to straight corruption but there's a surprising historic concept of "honest graft" where there were generally acceptable ways for politicians to profit and make beneficial deals.

The only way I differ from Sarcastro's claim is I don't think the common definition is "Graft means crime", but rather "Graft mean corruption, and even if the conduct isn't a crime it probably should be".

Mine definition is probably too wordy.

Btw, I don't agree you're internally consistent with your definitions either. You're going back to "honest graft" because it lets you classify a bunch of typical Washington behaviour as "graft". But you then suggest it's impeachable conduct because it's "graft" and then you use my modern definition of graft as things that should be illegal.

You can change the label on Biden's conduct but you can't change the conduct.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

To my knowledge, I'm the first on this forum to mention the "four-year gap" in Biden's federal employment and how this might make his earlier behavior non-impeachable.

[OtisAH]

JFC, that “four year gap” in Biden’s “federal employment” was when he was no longer in politics, not taking a sabbatical from his gig with the IRS or DOT. But great job being the first to pair your idiotic argument with an idiotic framing.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Aren't you supposed to be on Biden's team? I can't keep up.

[myself]

Aren’t you supposed to be on Biden’s team? I can’t keep up.

I try not to be on anyone's team. But regardless, I don't see impeachable conduct from Biden whatever label you use.

In fact, I don't even see much "honest graft". Biden's net worth is quite low for a US politician and most of it comes from book deals.

The worst plausible thing I could imagine turning up is Hunter Biden paying a bunch of major bills for his dad. That wouldn't be unusual for families with a single big earner, but it would be unseemly since Hunter was largely cashing in on his dad's name.

Still, if the Dad stayed out of the business and didn't deliver favours for Hunter's business associates then I don't see any grounds for condemnation, much less impeachment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I meant Otis, not your good self.

And my remarks have actually scored some points for Team Biden - what with honest graft being so common in Washington (even if only to let your family trade on your name), then impeachment would be less likely.

And for the four-year gap, that raises a previously-undealt-with issue of statutes of limitations in impeachment proceedings.

[Nige]

I think, after all the rigmarole, you're saying there's no proof of llegal corruption but you still want it understood, based on the same proof, that Joe Biden is *legally* corrupt, and this is supposed to be a concession or compromise position of sorts.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm saying Biden helped write the rules so he would know the difference between honest graft and dishonest graft. And presumably stayed within those rules he assisted in crafting. But I don't know for sure.

A politician letting his family enrich itself by trading on his name would count as honest graft. Give your explanation of how Biden didn't do *at least* that.

[Nige]

Which specific rules did he write? Aren't people who write rules supposed to stay within them? What is the graft you speak of and why is it graft?

[Nige]

I'm not aware of Joe Biden 'trading on his name' by the way. He certainly didn't turn it into a copyrighted trademark, slap it on a hotel and use it to launder money and influence when in power, for example. I definitely think there needs to be stronger rules or laws and tighter oversight and enforcement of that kind of thing, but what did Joe Biden do that would get him in trouble if that were the case?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"The only way I differ from Sarcastro’s claim is I don’t think the common definition is “Graft means crime”, but rather “Graft mean corruption, and even if the conduct isn’t a crime it probably should be”."

The only difference between your definition and Sarcastro's is that you've adopted my definition and not his.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ah, Nige, I was trying to give Biden an "out," given (a) the theory still popular in some circles that an impeachable crime has to be indictable and (b) the four-year gap in private life after the alleged misconduct.

But you have to go for the gold and question whether Biden did anything wrong at all.

Somehow the impression got about that by hiring Hunter Biden, companies could get at his dad. Dad could have put a stop to that impression by sending a message: if you try to bribe my family, you don't get federal contracts. I think he may have gotten away with that legally, in the unlikely event the companies filed a legal challenge.

[Sarcastr0]

You argue by juking definitions. That's not how you establish a thesis; it's how you turn a thesis into a tautology.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Dare I ask what juking means?

And don't try to prove the definition from the dictionary, the New York Times, or other suspect sources.

[Sarcastr0]

juke1
/jo͞ok/
verb
1.
INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
(in sports) make a sham move to mislead an opponent.
"Howard juked left, sending three defenders leaning as he went toward the center of the field"

myself explains it well:
"I don’t agree you’re internally consistent with your definitions either. You’re going back to “honest graft” because it lets you classify a bunch of typical Washington behavior as “graft”. But you then suggest it’s impeachable conduct because it’s “graft” and then you use my modern definition of graft as things that should be illegal."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You don't accept dictionary definitions; why should I?

The commenter myself also said: "The only way I differ from Sarcastro’s claim is I don’t think the common definition is “Graft means crime”, but rather “Graft mean corruption, and even if the conduct isn’t a crime it probably should be”."

Why did you leave that part of his comment out?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"lets you classify a bunch of typical Washington behavior as “graft”."

Right, if it's typical Washington behavior it can't be graft.

[Nige]

'Somehow the impression got about that by hiring Hunter Biden, companies could get at his dad'

So JOE Biden has done nothing wrong. Generous of you to give him an 'out' he doesn't need.

I think telling companies you won't give them contracts unless they do or not do something unrelated that isn't illegal might be worse and more damaging than just conspicuously not being corrupt or open to that kind of influencing. Then again it's always ridiculously high and often entirely retrospective bars to jump for Democrats.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

After all I said about how Biden's conduct might not be impeachable, you're still mad because I won't come out and say that Biden TOTALLY DID NOTHING WRONG, HE'S CLEAN AS THE DRIVEN SNOW!!!

Even his *supporters* on this forum don't go that far, simply saying that it's typical Washington self-dealing, and gosh, maybe there should be a law against it, but until then Biden should be left alone.

Anyway, what about Trump (who I doubt I'll vote for anyway)?

[Nige]

I'm not mad I'm just impressed at how convoluted your arguments are that Joe Biden has somehow in some way done something wrong while admitting he's done nothing illegal. Impeachability depends on votes, we already know Republicans don't care about evidence of any kind of wrongdoing.

[Nige]

There's enough evidence to indict Trump multiple times. He's promised to use government agencies to retaliate against his enemies if he wins. That’s what about Trump. But Biden? Vibes, I guess, which are obviously way more important?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't even know if he's eligible for office under Amendment 14 - if he were I would probably vote for someone else anyway.

[OtisAH]

To everyone, in fact. Well, everyone who isn’t speaking about botany anyway.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As I pointed out when pwning Gaslightro above, "everybody" does *not* include the New York Times, Slate, the Atlantic and The American Interest.

[Sarcastr0]

Linking articles covering this one idiosyncratic guy's idiosyncratic vocab does not establish what normal people understand when they hear the word 'graft.'

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Please try to defend your characterization of Politico, the New York Times, Slate, the Atlantic and The American Interest as “random newspapers.”

[Sarcastr0]

I had a good time reading about this guy. He was a bomb thrower.

He's a fun story *because* of the nonstandard way he used the word graft.

He did not somehow change the way people use graft.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I see you didn't answer my question.

[Sarcastr0]

The existence of stories about this one guy who uses a word in a weird way does not make using the word that way no longer weird.

Which I said above, but since you missed my answering your inquiry, here it is again.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So far, I've shown the following sources which use my "weird" term.

-The dictionary (which you claimed would against me)
-Politico
-The New York Times
-Slate
-The Atlantic

and

-The American Interest

All of which you dismissed as "random newspapers." (except the dictionary, which you seem too embarrassed to bring up again. Recall that you said - "One way would be to go to a dictionary, which have as a job capturing current usage. But you and I both know why you didn’t go there."

It's like watching you give yourself a series of painful wedgies.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

(The dictionary definition, recall, included noncriminal usages of "graft" - which you thought I wouldn't find, because at the time you thought the dictionary was on your side, making it authoritative to you - but not so much now that it's against you.)

Your last desperate maneuver is to make an own-goal by pointing out how *easy* it was to collect usages of the term "honest graft" in prestigious publications. Yes, it sure was easy, and thank you for pointing that out.

[ReaderY]

Members of Congress normally want to put themselves in the public eye. Except for national security matters, they don’t do things in secret unless they have something to hide, and are worried about being embarrassed or worse if the public could see what they are up to.

[OtisAH]

They’ve held one public hearing and it went, to be unnecessarily generous, poorly. All of these goofballs know they have nothing except running to cameras and lying about closed door testimony. Grassley has again stated he’s seen nothing. Other MAGA dickheads admit they have nothing. STEVE DOOCY — yes, *that* Steve Doocy — keeps getting under Comer’s skin because even STEVE DOOCY knows they have nothing.

The entire plan is to hopefully stumble into a blue dress while they drag this whole carnival straight through to the election. We should expect to hear very little from this inquiry most weeks over the next 11 months with sudden spikes and flurries in the days surrounding new Turnip legal news.

[OtisAH]

Fucking hilarious… (cont.)

Goober Comer, who was already exposed as *also* being involved in personal loans and repayments, is now exposed as *also* running shell companies. Because “duh.”

https://apnews.com/article/comer-shell-company-biden-hunter-impeachment-6fde28673d5dced307b95cab8425c7ba

[Armchair]

Recent evidence has revealed that undercover DC police officers were in the crowd during the events of January 6th. Not just CIs, but actual officers.

In addition, these officers were provoking the crowd forward, and encouraging them to breach the Capitol grounds.

I think we need to ask why DC police officers were actively encouraging people to break into the Capitol on January 6th, and whether that is appropriate action for DC police officials. And perhaps pursue charges or administrative actions against them.

https://cha.house.gov/2023/6/icymi-loudermilk-confirms-plain-clothes-mpd-officers-were-capitol-january-6th

[Nige]

Is it because they were Trump supporters who wanted to install Trump as president even though he lost, just like everyone else in the mob?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm genuinely curious about how many of these cops have been either arrested or fired.

[grb]

You do realize cops sometimes aren't arrested or fired after they brazenly kill without cause? Often on camera?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Certainly, but what about MAGA cops? Shouldn't they be held to higher standards than with standard civilian deaths?

/sarc

[Nige]

Holding them to any standard would be refreshing.

[grb]

The Margrave of Azilia: " ..... /sarc ....."

Thanks! I have to confess I'm never sure w/ your contributions.

[Nige]

They get away with shooting unarmed people all the time, this should be a doddle.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

They're MAGA cops, that's like being mere civilians.

[Nige]

All cops are civilians it's a civil force.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

OK, then, I should have used the /sarc tag yet again.

[Nige]

I'd have put a deadpan tag but that defeats the purpose.

[SimonP]

Yeah, "cops were part of the insurrection" would be probably the least surprising revelation about January 6 possible.

This is not the "Deep State" you're looking for, bro.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That would only be surprising to someone who was unaware what the "oath" in "Oath Keepers" refers to.

[Krychek_2]

Assuming that to be true, there are two possible explanations.

Explanation No. 1 is the one Nige suggests immediately below: That they were Trump supporters just like everyone else in the mob.

Explanation No. 2 is that they were doing an undercover sting operation, not unlike a police detective who goes on line and pretends to be a 12 year old looking for sex. Which is to say, they took people who were already predisposed to commit a crime and provided them with an opportunity to actually commit it.

I personally would believe either.

[Nige]

I'm trying to fathom a police operation that would involve storming a government building to clinch the case and it's just not happening. Ignored intelligence and warnings allowing it to happen is more likely.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, the feds have a history of planning on leading people just to the indictable point of a crime, and then swooping in at the last minute to stop any innocents from getting hurt, and bungling the swooping in at the last minute part.

[Nige]

Sure they do. ACAB and all that. The logistics of firing up a huge mob then arresting it before it attacks the building they're aimed at seem a bit fanciful, not to say downright imaginary.

[David Nieporent]

I'm going to go with Explanation No. 3, which is that Congressman Loudermilk is full of shit.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, I qualified it with "assuming it to be true."

[ReaderY]

Undercover police officers are normally placed in demonstrations and other crowds surrounding sensitive government buildings. It’s entirely possible routine police practice is being reframed as something nefarious for political propaganda purposes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends entirely on what they're seen doing in all that surveillance footage that was being suppressed, and just got released.

If they were just hanging around witnessing what happened, that's fine.

If they were egging it on, that's decidedly NOT fine.

[Sarcastr0]

Lotsa ifs!

[Michael P]

I feel sorry for the person who counts like "one, lots".

[Armchair]

Interesting the division here...

The undercover cops at the protest were secretly "pro-MAGA". Not one I would've guessed.

[Nige]

Who said secretly? Who even said undercover?

[shawn_dude]

"Does Elvis talk to you? Does he tell you to do things? Do you see spots?" --Buffy

[OtisAH]

Here’s some context for when the numpties start whining today about The Tyrant Joe Biden picking on poor struggling businessdouche Elon Musk. It concerns the FCC’s final denial of $900 million to Starlink for a satellite internet proposal serving rural areas…

https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/12/fcc-issues-final-denial-of-885m-starlink-subsidy/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWVtZW9yYW5kdW0uY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE4PvQyGlue9cWQ2ZF2wArIYka7g-qwOOb8nczAkSeCy_pmNq69zmJ6SiA8YyRES0T77hFjEEdJBBXEkyJ3-O_KHeidtuvbmLpeTysjLaFvauh1438P35ezF1wvx9nGTA7L8VAg6SLM0nS0wpPmxMnEYQRtvXSWu-wlCYkAXjlmh

[OtisAH]

My favorite excerpt, concerning Starlink’s insistence they’ll launch the satellites with Starship…

“A[t] the time of the Bureau’s decision, Starship had not yet been launched. Indeed, even as of today [i.e. over a year later], Starship has not yet had a successful launch; all of its attempted launches have failed. Based on Starlink’s previous assertions about its plans to launch its second-generation satellites via Starship, and the information that was available at the time, the [Wireline Competition] Bureau necessarily considered Starlink’s continuing inability to successfully launch the Starship rocket when making predictive judgment about its ability to meet its RDOF obligations.”

[Brett Bellmore]

The biggest issue, IMO, is that they were denied the money on the basis of not yet having met a goal they're not obligated to meet until 2025. That's a pretty big issue there.

As for the status of their Starship development project, after a year long government imposed pause, it has resumed, and Starship is likely to be functional in at least a disposable mode in 2024. (Even in a disposable mode, it's cheaper than Falcon.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Today in 26th Amendment news...

(remember the 26th Amendment? Citizens 18 or over can't be discriminated against in voting due to age. This was passed, of course, to lower the voting age to 18).

"On December 7, some Texas voters asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case against the Texas law that treats voters age 65 and above differently than it treats younger voters. Texas lets voters age 65 and above cast a no-excuse absentee ballot, but does not permit any other voters to do so. Cascino v Nelson, 23-612. Here is the cert petition."

https://ballot-access.org/2023/12/13/some-texas-voters-ask-u-s-supreme-court-to-interpret-26th-amendment/

[Magister]

26th amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Does giving elderly voters absentee ballots without an excuse abridge the right to vote of younger voters, who have the same opportunity to vote that they had before? I'd rather everyone could vote absentee without an excuse, and I would be suspicious of the Fifth Circuit getting something right, but I suppose that happens sometimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd prefer that everybody have to provide a good excuse to vote absentee, regardless of age. There's no getting around the fact that absentee voting blows a hole in chain of custody and ballot privacy that you could drive a truck through.

And trucks do get driven through it.

One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election

"More than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud.

A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and The Heartland Institute finds that 21% of Likely U.S. voters who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election say they filled out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child, while 78% say they didn’t. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Thirty percent (30%) of those surveyed said they voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election. Nineteen percent (19%) of those who cast mail-in votes say a friend or family member filled out their ballot, in part or in full, on their behalf. Furthermore, 17% of mail-in voters say that in the 2020 election, they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident. All of these practices are illegal, Heartland Institute officials noted."

[shawn_dude]

Still trying to prove that Trump really won the 2020 election, I see.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm trying to demonstrate why a vast expansion of absentee voting is a really bad idea, if you happen to care about honest elections.

If you don't care about honest elections, I'll gladly admit it has everything else going for it.

[Magister]

Heartland and Rasmussen? Hmm, what might be wrong with their poll?

“17% of mail-in voters admit that in 2020 they voted in a state where they are ‘no longer a permanent resident.’”

This instantly fails the smell test. A fifth of voters said they voted in a state where they no longer live? About 6 in 10 Americans have never moved out of the states in which they were born. Half of the rest, we are meant to believe, committed an obvious form of election fraud three years ago.

Without, I’ll add, being detected by any authority or by any of the thousands of people who, eager to prove Trump right, have been looking for examples of fraudulent voting. Those professional and amateur sleuths have also somehow not found evidence showing that 1 in 12 absentee voters — millions of people! — were offered cash for their votes. This would seem like it might leave a trail.

Rasmussen did provide a breakdown of the responses by demographic group, which does not exactly help Trump’s argument that the election was being stolen from him. After all, a quarter of the Republicans they interviewed said they also voted by absentee ballot, and their admissions of these federal crimes matched the rates of admission by Democrats.

Claiming that helping someone fill out their absentee ballot is invariably illegal is another leap.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So...the noble experiment of an edit button has ended for now. Do you call Tech Support? Or are they experiencing a higher than usual call volume and will get to you shortly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s6bv4yayOk

[grb]

I used to suggest we all boycott comments, bleeding-heart liberals and zombie-undead conservatives alike, until the Man accedes to our demand for an edit function. A few days of tumbleweeds rolling thru an empty comments section and this Volokh will see we can't be oppressed! My only fear was he'd bring in scab commentators, but who can replace Bob, Brett and Ed?

[Kazinski]

You'll have to take my have to take my typos as I see fit to make them.

[Don Nico]

Prophylaxis in action:
Yesterday, in the face of a pro-Hamas demonstration to begin at 2 pm, MIT send out a message to the entire campus, that to keep non-MIT personnel out of all MIT buildings, all entry would require the use of MIT key cards that were issued during the pandemic.

[grb]

People as "disease" has a long ugly historical record - but it ain't a good look, Don.

[Don Nico]

Not disease, but assuring that charges of trespass or aiding trespass (by students) could be pressed.
Prophylaxis refers to more than disease.

[Don Nico]

Action to assure one legal rights to control one's property rights to protect MIT faculty, staff, and students was a necessary inconvenience. What is ugly is getting trampled by a mob.

[Michael P]

This prophylaxis protects against trespass (and ensuing mischief), not against people's existence or reproduction. How did you get to be so bad at reasoning?

[shawn_dude]

The usual propaganda, I see.

Of note, though, is the implication that pro-Palestinian protesters on campus are not students, faculty, or staff. That's a strange assumption given it has over 16,000 employees (faculty, staff, researchers, administrators, etc) and over 11,000 students. All of whom would have key cards.

[Don Nico]

shawn,
You truly are being a jerk.
This announcement to the entire MIT community was not propaganda. The university had reliable information that the demonstration would include non-MIT personnel or students. Of course,you don't care. Your idea of reality is whatever swims in your head.
All employees and students have key cards to building which they have a bona fide reason to access. If they let outsiders into MIT buildings they therefore face disciplinary action, including suspension or expulsion for students. The action was taken precisely to be able to press charges against trespassers and against students who aid and abet them.
Dude, wise up

[loki13]

I hope everyone is having a Happy Holidays!

If I were to extend one bit of wisdom, it is this- remember that you cannot change the world. To argue and stress over the events in the world might give you that momentary rush of dopamine, but will leave you emptier inside. But if you are able to make real change in your local community you can see positive changes for good. Get out there. Connect with people you know. Volunteer. Mentor or coach at a local school. There are so many ways you can make change for the better, and see it happen in real time. And, in turn, it will make you feel better.

Best wishes to all. 🙂

[Don Nico]

Good advice and best wishes to you also

[Commenter_XY]

You have a wonderful holiday, loki13. Hope it is meaningful.

[Ed Grinberg]

A conservative wants to take care of himself, his family, his community. A leftist wants to "change the world."

[Krychek_2]

And what exactly is wrong with wanting to change the world?

I would phrase it like this: A liberal says, "We can do better, we can be better, we can be better, we can make a better world." A conservative says, "No we can't, no we're not, and you can't make me." Essentially, the conservative is the pessimist who says that this really is the best we can do and a liberal is an optimist who sees a vision of better things to come.

And even though I myself am a liberal (at least relative to many commenters here), I will be the first to admit that not every liberal solution to every problem has lived up to expectations. Some have, and exceeded them. But ultimately I'd rather be aligned with the people who encourage humanity to be better today than it was yesterday.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And what exactly is wrong with wanting to change the world?"

The "whether or not it wants to be changed" part? That's a large part of it, anyway. C.S.Lewis' remark contrasting robber barons with moral busybodies comes to mind.

Then there's that general lack of interest in whether things actually work, or about the downsides that will fall on people.

[Sarcastr0]

You can want to change things via legitimate means, you know.

Wanting to change the world doesn't jump you directly to tyrant status, sheesh.

[Krychek_2]

Well, any change is going to result in some people not being happy. Slaveholders didn't much like the 13th Amendment, factory owners who used to chain children to machines for 14 hours a day weren't all that enthusiastic about child labor laws, and wage and hour laws were thought to be downright Marxist. So before you say "whether or not it wants to be changed" you first have to tell us who is the "it" to which you are referring.

And that's what libertarians and conservatives frequently miss. A lot of change (not all of it) is good, and the people who stand to lose (usually because they were exploiting other people) are not going to like it, and a lot of it only happens via government coercion. Liberty is an important value, but it's not the only value.

[Michael P]

Some changes are good, most changes are bad. That's what progressives miss: they often favor change for its own sake, and are eager to repeat past mistakes on top of that.

[Michael P]

Related: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/opinion/democrats-shift-rightward.html

It’s easy to see what various parts of the left want to dismantle — capitalism, the carceral state, heteropatriarchy, the nuclear family — and much harder to find a realistic conception of what comes next.

[Sarcastr0]

Opinion pieces are not facts, Michael.

[Nige]

Some people don't like the world changing. Then along come abolitionists and suffragettes, who to them are not thecsame as robber barons. They like the robber barons because that's economic freedom.

There's the complete inability and to deal with changes in the world, like pandemics and climate change. Those are things tend to change the world whether you like it or not.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ho ho ho, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, a crazy Kwanzaa, and a somber and respectful Ramadan. /Crusty the Clown

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In other words, if you're not a religious nutter of one persuasion or another, you can FRO...

[not guilty]

I have touched on this in a previous comment thread, but I am puzzled by Donald Trump's claim that his impeachment trial by the Senate bars his instant criminal prosecution in the District of Columbia because of double jeopardy. The applicable language of the Fifth Amendment is “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb[.]”

"That guarantee has been said to consist of three separate constitutional protections. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense." North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969) [footnotes omitted]. Trump simply is not now being prosecuted for the same offense as was charged in the Senate impeachment trial.

Trump was tried in the Senate solely for incitement of insurrection. https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hres24/BILLS-117hres24ih.pdf He is charged by the grand jury with violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1512(k), 1512(c)(2) and 241. Each is an offense distinct from incitement of insurrection.

The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). “A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.” Ibid., quoting Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871).

This test emphasizes the elements of the two crimes. "If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes." Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166 (1977), quoting Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 785 n.17 (1975). "The same-elements test, sometimes referred to as the 'Blockburger' test, inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the 'same offence' and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution." United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993).

Incitement of insurrection is not an element of any of the statutes charged in the D.C. indictment. Conviction under three of the statutes Trump is charged with requires proof of a conspiratorial agreement with at least one other person; incitement of insurrection does not. Conviction under § 1512(c)(2) requires proof a corrupt mental state and the existence of an official proceeding; incitement of insurrection does not.

[Don Nico]

Moreover impeachment is a political action that does not preclude criminal action afterwards.
Trump's entire line is nonsense

[loki13]

Well, yes. But as we've seen, Trump just throws things against the wall. Every now and then, he finds a judge that will accept his gobbledygook.

I mean, he had Judge Cannon going before she got benchslapped by the 11th Cir.

[Brett Bellmore]

I find it hard at this point to get exercised about somebody throwing shit at the wall in a courtroom hoping it will stick. That's exactly how a lot of modern jurisprudence came about, after all.

[Sarcastr0]

The difference you miss is having a colorable argument in law or precedent.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

If it were colorable it wouldn't be shit.

[Sarcastr0]

Now you got it!

[Brett Bellmore]

"We won!" doesn't mean it wasn't shit. It just means they found a judge who liked the shit.

I repeat, a lot of modern jurisprudence resulted from people making arguments before courts that were, by the precedent of the time, utterly absurd. You don't know for sure until you try whether a judge is going to buy your crazy argument.

[Sarcastr0]

If we win, it's because the law was on our side.
If they win it's because the judge was biased.

But also, "a lot of modern jurisprudence resulted from people making arguments before courts that were, by the precedent of the time, utterly absurd" is not self-evident to me. At least not at the appellate level.

[David Nieporent]

I don't understand why you keep relying on the "it's not precisely the same offense" argument rather than "impeachment isn't a fucking criminal prosecution and has no bearing whatsoever on a later prosecution" argument.

[not guilty]

Either argument is sufficient to repel Donald Trump's specious claim. The "same offense" test, however, is the sine qua non of any double jeopardy claim. IMO that is the easiest issue to resolve -- irrespective of the nature and effect of the Senate impeachment trial.

Trump can at least argue that the effect of an acquittal by the Senate has not been litigated and presents a question of first impression. By contrast, there is ample decisional law applying Blockburger and its progeny which renders Trump's double jeopardy claim completely frivolous.

SCOTUS once held that, over and above the same elements test of Blockburger, a subsequent prosecution must satisfy a "same-conduct" test to avoid the double jeopardy bar. "We hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted." Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 510 (1990) [footnote omitted].

Three years later, the "same conduct" test was abandoned, and Grady was overruled, in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 704 (1993).

[Bored Lawyer]

It's right there in the Constitution:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

True, this speaks of a conviction, not an acquittal. Hard to believe that Double Jeopardy is any different in the two cases.

[not guilty]

The same offense analysis renders that sophistry irrelevant.

Donald Trump arguably could have been charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 with giving aid or comfort to insurrection. But he isn't. He is charged with having violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1512(k), 1512(c)(2) and 241.

[Bored Lawyer]

Not sure that "no bearing whatever" is completely true. Collateral estoppel still applies between different cases brought by the government, even civil to criminal or criminal to civil. Although in Trump's case, I don't see that would make any difference; I don't think the acquittal in the Senate had any issues that would create such an estoppel in the criminal cases.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it did, either. Impeachment is just a separate issue from criminal liability.

I think most (But not all!) of the cases against Trump are crazy, and generally it's stuff that never would have seen the light of day if there hadn't been a massive effort to find SOMETHING on him.

That doesn't mean I think he's actually immune from prosecution, though.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Traitor.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

For Trump to argue that is to admit that the Senate had jurisdiction after all.

[Bored Lawyer]

Was that ever in doubt? He was impeached, and the Constitution says the Senate tries impeachments.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

I think the best answer by far is that the Senate has jurisdiction. Late impeachments are allowed.

But Trump and Co. have been ranting since 1/20/2021 that they aren't. If he was right the journal entry of the Senate's acquittal (or conviction, had that happened) would legally be blank paper. Now he contradicts himself in saying it's not.

[Krayt]

https://studyfinds.org/half-female-half-male-bird/

Half female, half male bird found in New Zealand.

The bird, which has female plumage on one side, and male plumage on the other, is extremely rare in any bird species, and is the first found ever in New Zealand. The naturalist got quality shots of the green vs. blue sides.

The bird has already earned $17 million on Onlyfans.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"extremely rare in any bird species"

Then it's different from homo sapiens, where such things are very common.

/sarc

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Some women have beards.

Plumage doesn't tell us whether the bird is male or female.

Does it lay eggs?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog
with vanishingly scant academic veneer
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-FIVE (45)

occasions (so far) during 2023
(that’s at least 45 different,
distinct discussions that include
vile racial slurs, not just 45 racial slurs;
many or most of those discussions
have featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address the
steady stream of gay-bashing, white
nationalist, misogynist, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, transphobic, xenophobic,
and Palestinian-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.

[Zarniwoop]

Meanwhile, Putin is bragging that Russia will win in Ukraine if they can wait out the West:

“Today, Ukraine produces almost nothing,” Putin said referring to military equipment and weapons. “Everything is brought in … for free. But the freebies may end at some point and apparently it’s coming to an end little by little.”

Thanks, Trump and GOP enablers, for giving away U.S. leadership in the world and caving to Russia and isolationist propaganda.

[Ben_]

^ Loyal to Ukraine. Only has bad things to say about America and Americans.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Wrong, Ben.

The Volokh Conspirators and their fans are the only who hate modern America. Can't stand all of this damned progress, reason, education, modernity, science, inclusiveness, etc.

Better Americans are building a better America. Against the wishes of conservative, Republicans, the Federalist Society, and disaffected right-wing culture war casualties.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just include some immigration reforms, then Ukraine will get billions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When is the Klan holiday party in your part of backwater Ohio, Bob?

[JasonT20]

Why not add a ban on having a "woke" military? There aren't hundreds of military promotions to hold up anymore to do that.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dems can make a deal on immigration or not, up to them.

[ReaderY]

They no more “caved to” Russia and isolationist propaganda than Hitler “caved to” anti-semitic propaganda. They fomented this propaganda.

[Krayt]

I hope easy platting for skyscrapers in Moscow is worth it.

[Ben_]

Racist Boston mayor Michelle Wu hosts "no whites allowed" party paid for by taxpayer funds:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12862493/michelle-wu-electeds-color-boston-holiday-party.html

It's always Democrats trying to segregate people by race.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, this been shared twice above already. It takes up a pretty large amonut of the Open Thread today already.

The amount this fits a certain narrative must be extraordinary.

[Michael P]

Yes, it very much fits the narrative of how DEI and antiracism want government to work.

[Sarcastr0]

Better get out of this country, whitey. DEI comin' for ya.

[Krayt]

For some reason this is a bigger deal than letting Putin roll tanks through Europe.

[Ben_]

Racism isn’t a big deal. Europe matters more than events in the US.

[Nige]

The idea that racism is a big deal is woke and CRTA and both will be banned if Trump wins.

[Nige]

But also Ukraine will be abandoned so it'll be a wash.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Putin roll tanks through Europe."

Moldavia might be screwed but every other country bordering Russia is part of NATO. So no rolling will occur.

Dems could solve this for the next year by making concessions on immigration but won't. I guess they want Putin rolling tanks through Europe too.

[JasonT20]

You know, I fully understand that part of legislating is making trade offs, and that sometimes, you got to play hardball. But playing hardball should be for times when you have something you want that is generally popular, and you wouldn't be shooting yourself in the foot if the other side thinks you're bluffing and calls it.

Europe is not going to be secure from Russia for decades to come, NATO or not, if Ukraine isn't seen as largely victorious. Rumors of Putin's poor health keep getting our hopes up, but his regime could outlive him anyway. He doesn't act so much as a pure dictator that he has done these things without substantial support from the oligarchy.

[JasonT20]

I should also point out that you don't want to give an adversary the idea that you're not fully invested in a fight. Trump dealing with the Taliban about leaving Afghanistan while agreeing to the Taliban demand to not include the Afghan government signed that government's death warrant. (Of course, trying to nation-build there was a bad idea, especially when using hindsight. Continuing like we started would have likely been better in the long run. No full commitment of large-scale ground forces, but instead use specialized units to work with the Northern Alliance to target the Taliban and find and eliminate Al-Qaida would probably have been better. If we had committed more forces only after those fighting the Taliban had coalesced into something stable that could possibly govern effectively, then our presence might have been helpful to that cause. Instead, it was always going to be the U.S. imposing a government and the people wouldn't fully accept it.

The Trumpified GOP is making the same mistake here. Showing weakness in support for Ukraine publicly just makes sure that Putin realizes that he can just wait us out. Hold off Ukraine from breaking through and taking back most of the currently occupied eastern regions, and the West will tire of spending the money and force Ukraine to concede territory. Then, Russia gets what it wants, which will no doubt include not having to pay for the massive damage to civilian infrastructure and civilian deaths that were certainly war crimes.

[Bob from Ohio]

Immigration has been a hot issue for many years by a large chunk of the GOP, well before Trump entered politics. So "Trumpified" is just smoke. Much of this faction won't be happy with any deal but enough will be that a deal is available.

The new Speaker is willing but he's not going to supply Ukraine without some significant concession back.

Its the Dems that gotta decide.

[Zarniwoop]

I remember a time when the GOP didn't use "giving up allies" for internal politicking. When Both (D) and (R) agreed that Russia was the bad guys, and that Europe and being a world leader was actually important.

But sure, tell us some more how you want to use Russian tanks as leverage.

Geez, I'm old.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I remember a Republican Party that was a contributor to America.

That was before the rural knuckle-draggers, superstitious rubes, multifaceted bigots, uneducated insurrectionists, drawling dumbasses, and disaffected clingers controlled the Republican Party.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ukraine is not an "ally", its a victim of aggression we are helping. Russia is not a threat to US or our actual allies. Russia isn't the Soviet Union in 1960, its Austria-Hungary in 1914.

Use "shame" all you want, still need a deal on immigration.

[JasonT20]

South Korea, South Vietnam . . . both were countries we were "helping" at the time those wars were going on. (I would say that South Korea is an ally now, though. Perhaps not in the same since that NATO members are, but I'd have to look at the agreements between the U.S. and S. Korea to know for sure.

Russia is not as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was, no. But it still has a large nuclear deterrent. Large oil and gas reserves make it a major player in energy markets, and Putin and his regime definitely see us as an adversary, so we better see Russia the same way.

Use “shame” all you want, still need a deal on immigration.

The GOP wing that cares the most about immigration is mainly against immigration from "shithole" countries. That is not the basis for sound policy. It is populist and borders on being xenophobic. (Pun intended)

Immigration reform that could actually deal with the problems we have now and for the long term is not something you tack onto some other bill by threatening to kill that legislation that has broad support. Congress tried, before Trump ran, to come up with something bipartisan, but the anti-immigration hard liners killed it with cries of "amnesty" and other bullshit arguments. They show no desire to compromise, which is what any long-term solution is going to require.

[Kazinski]

Well it does add another element that a segregated event was paid for by public funds, that may well make it illegal.

It would be much less of an issue with private funding.

[ReaderY]

In its lawsuit to overturn West Virginia’s abortion law as applied to bans on mifepristone, GenBioPro didn’t get very far with the District zcourt but did eke out a small win. The District Court found that the FDA’s 2021 expansion of its mifepristone approval to permit prescription and supply by telemedicine and mail order pre-empted West Virginia’s ban on it.

GenBioPro has understandably appealed the main part of the District Court’s decision, upholding West Virginia’s ban on the use of mifepristone to induce an abortion except in limited circumstances.

It seems to me that if West Virginia wants to it could cross-appeal the telemedicine decision, on grounds that

(1) West Virginia can reasonably determine that it requires an in-person examination to determine if a woman’s life is endanger. The prescription criteria the FDA considered in allowing telemedicine are wholly irrelevant to the prescription criteria applicable under West Virginia law.

(2) In general, the FDA can only set a floor on conditions for prescribing, not a ceiling. The FD&C anti-preemption clause permits states to attach additional conditions on prescribing medications to those the FDA imposes, as part of their unpreempted power to regulate the practice of medicine as distinct from the commercial manufacture, sale, and distribution of medications.

(3) Because the Comstock Act prohibits interstate mailing or shipping of mifeprestone for abortion purposes, following Dobbs the FDA no longer has statutory authority to permit it, rendering its pre-Dobbs approval a legal nullity.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

It can be transported by people other than USPS under the Comstock Act.

[Zarniwoop]

ReaderY sez:

(3) Because the Comstock Act prohibits interstate mailing or shipping of mifeprestone for abortion purposes, following Dobbs the FDA no longer has statutory authority to permit it, rendering its pre-Dobbs approval a legal nullity.

The Comstock Act prohibits using 1) US Mail and 2) "Common Carriers" for shipping drugs intended* for abortion.

It does not prohibit interstate shipment by private (contract) carriers. It does not prohibit GenBioPac from shipping it in their own truck. Thus, there is no barrier to the FDA to approve mifepristone for abortion purposes, since it can be shipped by other, legal means. The FDA is not in charge of shipping laws/regulations, and since there are legal shipping means, the FDA's approval is not an abuse of discretion as AHM claims.

It's really not that complicated. Why do you keep making this bool and sheet argument?

*the "intent" part is an issue I don't even need to go into here, since mifepristone can be used for other purposes.

[ReaderY]

You misunderstood my point. The issue I proposed a cross-appeal theory on is a very narrow one: Does federal law pre-empt West Virginia’s requirement to conduct an in-person examination (by an in-state doctor) before prescribing mifeprestone? The judge said it does, and this was the only point GenBioPro won on.

Unlike the AHM v. FDA case where AHM was seeking to overturn the FDA approval, in this case GenBioPro was seeking to use the FDA approval to overturn state abortion restrictions on preemption grounds. It mostly lost, but it did win in the District Court on this one point. West Virginia might reasonably decide to stand on and defend the decision since it mostly won.

If it does cross-appeal, I think it would have a legitimate argument that the FDA approval of prescription by telemedine does not pre-empt state law on prescribing this drug. The Comstock Act represents an independent expression of Federal will suggesting that Congress generally disfavors interstate commerce in abortifacients. While this case does not present the question of how the Comstock Act applies to the FDA approval generally, I think it does apply in considering the existence of a general federal policy with preemptive force. I don’t think the fact that the Comstock Act isn’t a complete prohibition changes this.

The Comstock Act, when combined with the FDCA’s explicit anti-pre-emption policy, suggests that specifically on the subject of abortion, Congress does not favor an interstate approach to abortifacients provided for the express purpose of abortion, at least not sufficiently clearly to override stste law. After all, a prescription for abortion removes all doubt as to what it is for.

i think prescription conditions in FDA REMS plans should be interpreted as floors, not ceilings, with states free to provide additonal regulations as part of regulating the practice of medicine as distinct from the commercial manufacuture, sale, transportation, and distribution of medications. But I think the Comstock Act adds additional weight against federal pre-emption in the context of abortifacients.

[ReaderY]

And on the intent issue, the case is about prescriptions specifically for anortion. if you’re going to say that a prescription specifically for abortion doesn’t evidence an intent because mifepristone could after all be used for other things, then it seems to me that nobody could ever be convicted of a crime requiring intent.

For example, how can there be any evidence that a mass shooter firing into a crowd has intent to kill? A gun is merely a method of delivering bullets. And bullets can be used for many completely legal things. There’s no proof that by delivering bullets into the crowd by means of a gun, the shooter ever actually intended to kill anyone.

The fact that you favor legal abortion does not allow you to twist the ordinary and long-standing rules of intent and causality that apply to crimes generally.

[Josh R]

Some pro lifers argue that a blanket health exception for abortions result in abortion on demand up until birth because a doctor can always say it was for the woman's health. On the other hand, not having a health exception resulted in the recent travesty in Texas where a woman was denied an abortion even though her fetus would not have survived and taking the pregnancy to term might result in her being unable to bear another child.

How can laws be crafted that permit abortions for health reasons without resulting in abortion on demand until birth? Or, is that not possible and the record shows such abortions are rare enough (especially post-viability) that trusting doctors to be honest works?

[JasonT20]

How can laws be crafted that permit abortions for health reasons without resulting in abortion on demand until birth?

The presumption in the question is that "abortion on demand until birth" is a real thing that happened prior to Dobbs. That is a proposition that needs support before you even consider making laws that could stand in the way of any needed medical care.

For my part, I just don't see any doctors willing to perform abortions past viability with only pretextual claims about the woman's health. The last doctor I ever heard named that made a point of providing abortions after 24 weeks was murdered in his church by an anti-abortion zealot. (He still only did so in cases of severe fetal anomalies. He wasn't a Kermit Gosnell,) I think few doctors would be willing to risk a nut deciding that they needed to murder doctors providing late-term abortions to women facing having to carry a doomed fetus to term. Those few that are willing to perform such procedures in those cases are highly unlikely to provide "abortion on demand until birth" like you think happens.

You seem to think that government needs a law to make double sure no babies are ever aborted and killed the day before their due date just because a woman didn't want it, despite not providing any support that it happens in the absence of such laws. I don't think your concern over that is warranted, but we are seeing cases in the news essentially weekly about women that had wanted to be pregnant being denied abortion access despite doctors' advice that the risk of continuing the pregnancy is high with no significant chance of a child being born that would live for more than days.

[loki13]

Not possible.

The most recent Texas travesty was just another in a long line of travesties post-Dobbs. It's why a lot of people that otherwise couldn't be bothered to even care about abortion, suddenly are. It's one thing to be concerned about it in the abstract; it's another to know that when someone you care about- a mother, a wife, a sister, a daughter ... needs her life saved, she won't get proper medical care because the world is full of asshol... um, Paxtons.

The issue is that people who are against abortion ... are against it. They don't want it happening, period. They don't want to accept the word of a woman or a doctor, who they will always assume are conniving and conspiring. So instead, at best, you'll get some type of process that will require administrative and bureaucratic review, with doctors being terrified that a wrong step will get them thrown in jail, and women who need emergency care being stymied by time.

It's about control. And anyone who is in favor of limited government shouldn't want officious busybodies like Paxton getting involved in some of the most wrenching decisions that a person has to make.

Put it this way- would you want to deal with the DMV when you are dealing with some of the most private and gut-wrenching decisions you could make? I didn't think so.

[grb]

1. There has always been health exceptions for abortions.

2. But according to federal and state data, abortions past the point of viability are extremely rare. When they do happen, they often involve painful, emotional and even moral decisions.

You worry over a problem that never existed in the Roe Era despite relentless agitprop of the anti-abortion movement. They need their nonexistent "abortion on demand at the moment of birth" because it's the only area where they're not looking up from a deep, deep polling pit. They were the ones who politicized the procedures behind emergency abortions out of political desperation. If they goaded the pro-choice side into potecting women facing these horrible situations, more the better. They could then claim the other side wanted to make abortion legal at any time despite being unable to produce a single example of an last-minute abortion of choice.

In Virginia, since 2000, state records show an abortion after 28 weeks has been performed only in three years -- 2001, 2004 and 2015. In Texas, in 2021, out of more than 50,000 abortions, only 11 were recorded between 21 and 25 weeks — and two above 26 weeks. And in Oklahoma, in 2021 only six out of more than 5,900 abortions took place after 21 weeks.

Colorado is the home of the Boulder Abortion Clinic, which specializes in late-term medical emergency abortions for patients from around the country. In 2021, state records show, about 1.8 percent of 11,580 abortions in Colorado took place after 21 weeks, but just 60 took place at 25 weeks or later.

Compare those numbers with the sadistic evil shown by the anti-abortion forces in the latest Texas case. Your problem doesn't exist.

[Josh R]

The above three thoughtful responses, all from the pro-choice viewpoint, agree with my current beliefs. What I was hoping for was a counter argument from the pro life side to test whether I should rethink those beliefs.

[OtisAH]

How old are you that you’ve never heard an anti-abortion argument before? They’ve been running the same shtick for sixty years and it’s been extensively covered in the media. And they basically have about a half dozen arguments they cycle through.

Spoiler: It’s all appeals to emotion with bad science and anecdotes sprinkled liberally throughout.

[grb]

Go thru a long list of anti-abortion comments and opinions, and the real motivation behind their crusade is regularly seen: The effrontery of women. They're just damn irresponsible and can't be permitted to blithely "get away with it" without repercussions. When Alabama passed their draconian abortion ban, someone asked the bill's sponsor, Republican state Senator Clyde Chambliss, if it covered the states IVF clinics, where thousands of embryos are destroyed each year. He replied :

"The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”

Of course not. The eggs in the lab are for women trying to fufill their female function per God's will. They don't count as proto-babies. That's nothing like some slut trying to walk away from her bit of fun without suffering any consequences. Her "selfishness" (very common description in these diatribes) makes the proto-babyhood of that embryo blaze to tragic heights.

They used to be solidly for rape-incest exceptions but got tired of being hammered over that hypocrisy and so wrote the suffering of those girls and women off. They calculated the numbers are so small it's not worth the effort of basic decency. These are very practical people. They know who they want to punish and will do whatever's necessary to punish them.

[ReaderY]

I think the difficulty with that is John Calhoun’s argument that the only reason abolitionists had for opposing slavery is “deadly hatred” of and effrontery of Southerners. Read your history. It was a major argument of the pro-slavery position’s most articulate spokesperson.

Maybe Calhoun was right. If you’re right, then why wasn’t Calhoun right? It would certainly seem to increase the probability that he was. And if Calhoun was wrong, doesn’t that cast at least a little bit of doubt on your position? It would seem to decrease the probability that you’re right.

Sometimes there’s a real wolf even though people cried wolf before and they were wrong. But sometimes people are just crying wolf yet again.

[Kenneth Almquist]

I've read a bit of history, but have not read that Calhoun made the argument you attribute to him. In his final speech to the U.S. Senate (March 4, 1850), he talks a lot about hostility to slavery:

Every portion of the North entertains views and feelings more or less hostile to [slavery]. Those most opposed and hostile, regard it as a sin, and consider themselves under the most sacred obligation to use every effort to destroy it. Indeed, to the extent that they conceive they have power; they regard themselves as implicated in the sin, and responsible for not suppressing it by the use of all and every means. Those less opposed and hostile, regard it as a crime - an offence against humanity, as they call it; and, although not so fanatical, feel themselves bound to use all efforts to effect the same object; while those who are least opposed and hostile, regard it as a blot and a stain on the character of what they call the Nation, and feel themselves accordingly bound to give it no countenance or support.

There’s nothing in this speech about hostility to Southerners--it’s all about the destruction that he predicts will result from hostility to slavery.

I did find this passage in his February 6, 1837 speech:

However sound the great body of the non-slaveholding States are at present, in the course of a few years they will be succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the people and institutions of nearly one-half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation ever entertained towards another.

This at least mentions hatred of people in the slaveholding states, but doesn't say that the hatred of slavery isn't real.

[Kenneth Almquist]

(This is a repeat of my previous post, in the hopes that block quotes will work correctly this time.)

I've read a bit of history, but have not read that Calhoun made the argument you attribute to him. In his final speech to the U.S. Senate (March 4, 1850), he talks a lot about hostility to slavery:

Every portion of the North entertains views and feelings more or less hostile to [slavery]. Those most opposed and hostile, regard it as a sin, and consider themselves under the most sacred obligation to use every effort to destroy it. Indeed, to the extent that they conceive they have power; they regard themselves as implicated in the sin, and responsible for not suppressing it by the use of all and every means. Those less opposed and hostile, regard it as a crime - an offence against humanity, as they call it; and, although not so fanatical, feel themselves bound to use all efforts to effect the same object; while those who are least opposed and hostile, regard it as a blot and a stain on the character of what they call the Nation, and feel themselves accordingly bound to give it no countenance or support.

There’s nothing in this speech about hostility to Southerners--it’s all about the destruction that he predicts will result from hostility to slavery.
I did find this passage in his February 6, 1837 speech:

However sound the great body of the non-slaveholding States are at present, in the course of a few years they will be succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the people and institutions of nearly one-half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation ever entertained towards another.

This at least mentions hatred of people in the slaveholding states, but doesn't say that the hatred of slavery isn't real.

[ReaderY]

Your position is that hatred of abortion is equivalent to hatred of abortion. It seems to me that you ought to be held to the same standards as the people you accuse.

It seems to me if you were willing to split half as many hairs in defense of the people who hate abortion as you have split above in favor of Calhoun’s hatred of slavery, you would similarly conclude that there is no evidence at all that hatred of abortion is equivalent to hatred of women.

There’s certainly no more evidence that people who hate abortion hate women than there is that people who hate slavery hate Southerners.

Calhoun repeatedly referred to the North’s aggrandizement against the South, motivated (he said) by blind hatred.

[ReaderY]

Hatred of abortion is equivalent to hatred of women.

Edit still broken.

[Harvey Mosley]

"Spoiler: It’s all appeals to emotion with bad science and anecdotes sprinkled liberally throughout."

The same applies to anti-gun arguments.

[ReaderY]

The Texas case was about affidavit wording, not substance. The doctor’s affidavit had said she believed the situation was life threatening. Belief is not enough, the Texas Supreme Court said. A doctor must assert that “reasoned medical judgment” was exercised, based on knowledge, not belief. And be sure to use the magic phrase.

The decision had nothing to do with the substance of the opinion.

[ReaderY]

Clarifying the substance of the doctor’s opinion.

[JasonT20]

Wait, what? Are you saying that the Texas Supreme Court would have been all for letting her have the abortion had her doctor used "reasoned medical judgement" instead of "belief" in her affidavit? If so, why the fuck would anyone be that picky except to try and cover other reasons for wanting to rule that way? What did they think the doctor's "belief" was based on other than her training and experience as a physician?

[Armchair]

Belief is subjective. "Reasonable medical judgement" is less subjective.

The doctor was unwilling to go on the record and say in her "reasonable medical judgement" there was a serious risk.

If she's unwilling to go on the record, and instead asks for a court opinion....

[David Nieporent]

Why are you inventing facts here? Who said that she was unwilling to say that?

[Armchair]

The facts say that. Why doesn't the doctor say those magic words? There are only a few possible reasons.

1) She didn't know (and now she does).
2) She's not willing to say them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your comments incline me to be willing to wager you are neither a physician nor a lawyer.

[Nige]

3) if she puts a foot wrong she goes to jail.

[David Nieporent]

.

The facts say that. Why doesn’t the doctor say those magic words?

I was under the impression, though I can't find any support for it at the moment in the pleadings, that the doctor had submitted an affidavit. Whether it was an affidavit or live testimony, though: nothing in the statute says that there are "magic words," so there would've been no reason why the doctor would've felt the need to use them in her affidavit/testimony. (And, indeed, the woman prevailed at the trial court, so it did not find any "magic words" to be necessary.) There is nothing whatsoever in the record that suggests she was asked to say those words by anyone. And if she wasn't asked to say them, then it is an abuse of the English language to claim that she "wouldn't" say them or "refused" to say them.

The case was then appealed — well, via mandamus, but that's not important — to SCOTX, which said, "Since she didn't say these magic words, the lower court's decision is reversed." That was the first time that anyone announced that 'magic words' were necessary. But the doctor could not then travel back in time and say those words a week earlier.

[JasonT20]

Belief is subjective. “Reasonable medical judgement” is less subjective.

Semantics. I'm all for using language more precisely, but it can be difficult when common use continues to vary so much. As a science teacher, I die a little inside every time I hear someone say that they have a "theory" when they mean an unconfirmed guess, or that evolution is "just a theory." But it can be hard, even for me, to avoid using the word "theory" in that same way all the time.

People use the word "belief" in multiple ways. To say that I believe John is the one that ate one of the cupcakes before the meeting started, I could have objective evidence to support that belief. I could have seen a tiny pink smudge of frosting on his lip and a discarded cupcake liner in the trashcan next to his desk.

You are looking for reasons to agree with the decision and avoiding everything else.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"What did they think the doctor’s “belief” was based on other than her training and experience as a physician?"

Because it was a convenient excuse to rule against the patient.

[Armchair]

In the court's (and law's) view, if the doctor has a "reasonable medical judgement" that there is a serious risk to the patient's life (or major bodily functions), no court order is needed.

The doctor can just do it.

They can say "In my reasonable medical judgement, this abortion is necessary due to the serious risk to the patient's life or substantial impairment of a major bodily function." They put it in the medical record, and simply perform the procedure. No court needed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

No court needed.

You seem exceptionally stupid. Adult-onset superstition? No education past high school? Backwater, religious high school?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"They can say “In my reasonable medical judgement, this abortion is necessary due to the serious risk to the patient’s life or substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” They put it in the medical record, and simply perform the procedure. No court needed."

And then they get sued, because it's Texas.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do these clingers genuinely not understand that they will be asking the culture war's winner for accommodations, courtesies, and handouts . . . and relatively soon?

The more belligerent these conservatives are now, the less magnanimous better Americans are likely to be when those conservatives are begging for leniency.

I will be content either way, but I hope to observe proportionality.

[ReaderY]

On the one hand, the opinion’s interpretation of the statute is probably correct.

On the other hand, a different state supreme court with the same statutory interpretation might have, for example, remanded to the trial court to clarify the basis of the doctor’s opinion.

I think a fair assessment of the situation is thst this was likely a aimple drafting error on the lawyer’s part, combined with the state supreme court being particular sticklers for getting the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed.

I doubt the doctor would have been unwilling to sign an affidavit that used the correct phrase.

[Armchair]

Well Josh....

The issue is, you appear to have several misunderstandings of what is actually going on.

1) There is a health exception in the Texas Law. It reads.

An abortion is allowed when "in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female . . . has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced."

2) The issue at hand before the Texas Supreme Court was this. The doctor in the case was unwilling to say that in her reasonable medical judgement that this was the case. I'll repeat that. She was unwilling to say that the patient met the qualifications. Instead the doctor asked the district court to make the decision. But...this is a medical decision, according to the law. The Texas Supreme Court overturned that decision, rightfully saying it was a MEDICAL decision. Not a legal one.

3) The second misapprehension you have is about the viability of the fetus. "Nonviable" is inaccurate. There are many individuals with this genetic disorder alive. "Viable with a high risk of miscarriage or stillbirth" is accurate. At 20 weeks, there is a 41% chance of survival to term. So not non-viable. And with proper medical treatment, those who survive birth can live past a year, into their teens and beyond. Again, it is a battle, survival chances are low. But those odds are improving with new medical techniques.

So, we need to ask. Should the law be re-written to allow for exceptions for those with a low chance of survival? Is a 30% chance of miscarriage too high, and any qualifying individuals above that, they should be allowed to be aborted? Should those with genetic disorders be allowed to be aborted? Is "any" risk to the mother a reason to allow an abortion, or only a "serious risk"?

[Armchair]

So, if you're a pro-abortion for any reason proponent, the answer to all three of those questions is "yes", and you'll work to bend them so that you can have doctors perform abortions at any time for any reason. That's how the "mental health" exception in the UK led to 250,000 or so abortions annually. It was so easy to justify. For the risk I gave, the last one is easiest to justify...pregnancy inherently has some degree of risk, so in order to eliminate that risk you can always just eliminate the pregnancy. That justifies an abortion at any time for any reason.

But if you're not pro-abortion at any time for any reason, you understand how seemingly reasonable restrictions can and will be bent. So, the Texas law makes a certain sort of sense. It actually does have exceptions...just not for every possible case. There needs to be a "serious risk"

[JasonT20]

The doctor in the case was unwilling to say that in her reasonable medical judgement that this was the case. I’ll repeat that. She was unwilling to say that the patient met the qualifications. Instead the doctor asked the district court to make the decision.

There's some contradiction here. ReaderY said that the doctor's testimony was the form of an affidavit. If so, I don't see how it could be said that she "refused" to use different words unless she was asked specifically to use those words. This is getting even more confusing.

So, we need to ask. Should the law be re-written to allow for exceptions for those with a low chance of survival? Is a 30% chance of miscarriage too high, and any qualifying individuals above that, they should be allowed to be aborted? Should those with genetic disorders be allowed to be aborted? Is “any” risk to the mother a reason to allow an abortion, or only a “serious risk”?

Pregnancy is always a significant risk. Even a healthy woman with a properly developing fetus can experience sudden complications. Or, she could experience something unrelated to pregnancy (injury or illness) that would be less life threatening and more treatable if she was not pregnant. (Such as a woman at 20 weeks being diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. Any delay in starting treatment would lower her odds of survival, but something like chemo certainly isn't compatible with delivering a healthy baby more than two months later.)

Rather than try and write a law detailed enough to consider all of these scenarios and debate how much extra risk beyond that inherent in all pregnancies is enough to justify an abortion, you leave the decision to each woman and her doctors? Why is that so hard to agree with?

[Armchair]

Feel free to read the decision.

https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf

[David Nieporent]

I've read it. You know what word isn't in there? "Unwilling." Or "Refused."

[Armchair]

"But when she sued seeking a court’s pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a “life-threatening physical condition” or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires"

Dr. Karsan asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet
she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s
condition poses the risks the exception requires.

"Dr. Karsan asserted that she has a “good faith belief” that Ms. Cox meets the exception’s requirements. Certainly, a doctor cannot exercise “reasonable medical judgment” if she does not hold her judgment in good faith. But the statute requires that judgment be a “reasonable medical” judgment, and Dr. Karsan has not asserted that her “good faith belief” about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard"

All she has to do to do the abortion in state is make such an assertion. And she CONSISTENTLY, CONSPICUOUSLY fails to do.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Why would any Doctor in Texas decide to make such a statement when Paxton is AG?

Do you think he won't sue her? Do you think she wouldn't be sued by other Texas dipshits? Do you think the licensing board wouldn't suddenly find a reason to "examine" her credentials?

You misrepresent the facts of this case just as willfully as you misrepresent the reality of Trisomy-18. You're still the same liar you've always been.

[Nige]

The doctor kept saying it met the requirement.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: why are you making up facts? By the time the SCOTX announced that the doctor had to say those words, Cox had already left the state and gotten an abortion. There was nothing for the doctor to say or do at that point, so therefore there was nothing for her to fail to say or do at that point.

[Michael P]

Bartleby, the Abortionist, when asked to express a reasonable medical judgment: "I would prefer not to."

[Nige]

All the ob gyns leaving red states too.

[Armchair]

"Rather than try and write a law detailed enough to consider all of these scenarios and debate how much extra risk beyond that inherent in all pregnancies is enough to justify an abortion, you leave the decision to each woman and her doctors? Why is that so hard to agree with?"

Because some people (most people) don't believe in abortion at any time for any reason. And that would justify abortion at any time for any reason.

[Nige]

It should never be underestimated how much disdain they hold for women's health and welfare, and how much contempt for medicial expertise.

[Armchair]

Remember Nige,

As according to the law, if "in the doctor's reasonable medical judgement there was a serious risk to the woman's life or risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function" this abortion could go forward. No court order needed.

It's only because the doctor is unwilling to make that judgement that this pops up.

If you care about a doctor's expertise, then you need to consider that expertise.

[Nige]

They didn't use the magic words.

[David Nieporent]

2) The issue at hand before the Texas Supreme Court was this. The doctor in the case was unwilling to say that in her reasonable medical judgement that this was the case. I’ll repeat that. She was unwilling to say that the patient met the qualifications. Instead the doctor asked the district court to make the decision. But…this is a medical decision, according to the law. The Texas Supreme Court overturned that decision, rightfully saying it was a MEDICAL decision. Not a legal one.

Why do you keep lying about this? Nobody said she was "unwilling" to say anything.

3) The second misapprehension you have is about the viability of the fetus.

Are you an armchair doctor as well as an armchair lawyer?

[Armchair]

The doctor consistently fails to do so. Despite the utterly clear language from the court.

Literally all that would have to happen here is the doctor would say "This abortion is necessary in my reasonable medical judgement due to serious risk to the woman's bodily systems." No court case needed.

The only reasonable conclusion is that she is unwilling to make such an assertion, since she clearly knows at this point, that is all that is needed.

[David Nieporent]

You're really really dumb, to the point of not understanding the unidirectional flow of time. Those words are not needed "at this point" because Cox already got an abortion out of state. Karsan did not "know" that those words were needed until after the fact.

[Armchair]

Who said anything about being an "armchair" doctor?

[David Nieporent]

Well, you're providing made-up facts about the prognosis of the pregnancy.

[Josh R]

Had the doctor said the magic words, then the woman could have gotten an abortion? And the doctor's judgment is not reviewable? If so, then how is this law any different from other laws that permit health exceptions which pro lifers argue lead to abortion on demand up until birth.

[Armchair]

"Had the doctor said the magic words, then the woman could have gotten an abortion?"
-Yes.
"And the doctor’s judgment is not reviewable?"
-It is reviewable, just like any other medical procedure is reviewable. There's a reason medical malpractice law exists. If medical procedures could not be reviewed, then medical malpractice wouldn't exist.

[Armchair]

Now perhaps you'll argue "Well, the doctor's decisions shouldn't be able to be reviewed via medical malpractice".

That's pretty absurd though. There are laws everywhere which regulate what doctors can and can't do. If a doctor decided to engage in electroshock gay conversion therapy...well, in many states that has been made illegal.

But, what happens if the doctor does it anyway? Do you perhaps question their judgement? Bring up a lawsuit? Or should a doctor's decisions not be reviewable via medical malpractice (or other) areas of the legal system ?

[Josh R]

I'm not sure who would sue claiming an injury under medical malpractice (on behalf of the fetus?). But, let's assume such suits can go forward and act as a check on the doctor.

I again ask, how is this law any different from other laws that permit health exceptions which pro lifers argue lead to abortion on demand up until birth.

[JasonT20]

I don't think he's going to answer this question straight. The answer is clearly that the review of the doctor's judgement is going to be done by anti-abortion prosecutors, so that will definitely prevent "abortion on demand until birth" since so few doctors are going to risk jail time if they get it 'wrong'.

[JasonT20]

I also noticed how no one has answered my claim that "abortion on demand until birth" is even something anyone would ever need to worry about. I am quite convinced that it is only a straw man the anti-abortion side puts up because they need to try and claim that restrictions on women like in this case are necessary to prevent something horrible from happening. They never show the evidence that it would happen in the absence of these laws, though, or that it ever has. It is totally propaganda.

[JasonT20]

-It is reviewable, just like any other medical procedure is reviewable. There’s a reason medical malpractice law exists. If medical procedures could not be reviewed, then medical malpractice wouldn’t exist.

The problem here is that the doctor's decision would be reviewed by prosecutors in Texas that could be looking to make a point about abortion politics rather than medical care. This isn't anything like medical malpractice and you know it. Medical malpractice is determined based on established standards of care as determined by medical professionals, not by lawyers. Lawyers may be the ones advocating for each side in a case, but it is the facts and professional judgement of medical experts that will (should) matter.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Had the doctor said the magic words"

Blame the woman's lawyer. The doctor did not draft the affidavit.

[Sarcastr0]

The law does not do magic words.

[Bob from Ohio]

Using statutory proscribed language is not "magic words”, its meeting the requirements of the statute. Failure to use them may lead to the court dismissing your case.

If you have to allege 3 elements to show a cause of action and you only allege 2, what happens?

[Nige]

If the doctor says the procedure is needed. That’s it. Any form of words that say the same thing. Everything else os because you all hate women.

[Nige]

I think we'll blame the people who forced her to go to court.

[shawn_dude]

"So, we need to ask. Should the law be re-written to allow for exceptions for those with a low chance of survival? Is a 30% chance of miscarriage too high, and any qualifying individuals above that, they should be allowed to be aborted?"

So, we need to ask. Should the law be re-written to prohibit abortions if there is more than a 1% chance of survival? Congratulations on your willingness to play Russian Roulette with someone else's life, fertility, and financial solvency. I realize it's a difficult decision for you to make for which you bear zero cost or consequences.

[JasonT20]

I try to ask the question every time an abortion debate comes up around here. I have yet to get a meaningful response to it.

Where in U.S. law is someone ever legally required to risk their own safety for the benefit of someone else? And by legally required, I mean that they would face serious civil and/or criminal penalties for failing to render aid to someone that ended up seriously hurt and/or dead. And by risk to their own safety, I mean any significant risk of injury or illness, with significant meaning greater than the ordinary levels of risk a typical person takes driving to work or walking to the corner drug store. A quick search online shows multiple websites claiming that few states have laws that require any duty to render assistance, and those that do require you to assist only if it entails no risk to yourself. (With "good samaritan" laws existing in most states limiting their liability if they try to help in good faith as a "reasonably prudent person" would and without any objections from the person needing help or their family.)

But not pregnant women, it seems. They have to risk the U.S. maternal mortality rate of 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2020 (~1 in 4000 or 0.0238%) to carry to term something that has never been legally considered to be fully a person until it is born alive. Even if "life begins at conception" was true, and a zygote was equal in moral and legal status to someone that was born and is currently alive, and would certainly die without the assistance of the person taking the risk, that still would leave pregnant women forced to take on risk no one else ever is.

The only situations where something might be different is when a person has a particular relationship to the person in danger. A parent or teacher can be required to help a child under their care, to an extent, at least. I still doubt they could be legally sanctioned for failing to risk their life for a child. Rescue workers have helping people in danger as their job, so that is essentially already volunteering to take on the risk.

And this why pro-lifers get so obsessed with "responsibility" arguments. In addition to the disapproval of having sex when not trying to get pregnant, that is. (Sometimes its just pure slut-shaming.) But, that brings up the inconsistency problem of having exceptions for rape. If it is okay to abort a rape-pregnancy, then is it really an innocent 'baby'? Surely it isn't guilty of being the product of rape. (This cognitive dissonance is what led to "legitimate rape" claims with no basis in biology. See Todd Akin. And also counters about how "rare" such cases are, as if a woman has to carry her rapists' baby just because women don't get raped often enough to justify an exception.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

The presidency is too powerful.
Federal courts are too powerful.
Prosecutors are too powerful.
Washington is too powerful.

Weaken the courts. Choose restrained judges.
Have a long, fixed term with regular vacancies on the supreme court. Appoint a panel of appellate judges who can force SCOTUS to hear a case. Strip jurisdiction when justices misinterpret the 14th amendment.

Weaken the presidency.
Enforce the legislative/executive divide and stop letting the executive make law.
Weaken the veto. Let a mere majority repass bills after two years.
Don't tolerate unilateral warmaking.

Put the balls and brawn back on the grand jury. Revive presentments. Eliminate absolute prosecutorial immunity. Have grand juries periodically review prosecutors' work w/disciplinary powers.

Weaken Washington.
End mandates, or require a supermajority to pass them.
Limit "interstate commerce" to interstate commerce.
Make Article V conventions more palatable to call by requiring state conventions to ratify anything coming out of a national convention.

If we don't do anything, we will continue to have endless deathfights over one election every four years, because one city decides everything, and one election decides everything subject to change in that city.

[Sarcastr0]

You have highlighted a cost but ignored benefits to having government have programs - there are benefits!

But more importantly we had a lot more contention about our elections when our government was a lot smaller. Government authority is no doubt correlated since it ups the stakes, but I'm not sure it's even the most salient factor on how much people *feel*.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

I didn't say anything about taxing and spending.

A lot more contention... you mean the Civil War? Whether or not your society has slavery is kinda a big deal.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Three comments today, so far, concerning a report of a "no whites" party in Boston.

At a white, male "legal" blog that conspicuously avoids prominent legal proceedings and issues involving John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, Donald Trump, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, and an assortment of associated co-conspirators, un-American Federalist Societeers, disgraced lawyers, failed insurrectionists, etc.

This blog has become mostly a pile of scars, bruises, grievances, and whining from a group of disaffected conservative law professors and their collection of bigoted, right-wing, faux libertarian misfit fans. The academic veneer was scoured off several years ago.

[Ed Grinberg]

background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah

old news: Palestinians are just like Jews during the Holocaust!
news: Hamas are just like the Maccabees!

JVP advertised for the Dec. 11 event on its now-suspended Instagram page saying “@SJP.Columbia will join us to meditate on the parallels between the Hanukkah story and current events, the importance of grassroots activism, and the significance of solidarity in the face of oppression and suppression.”

(source)

[Bob from Ohio]

In feel good news:

"New York Post@nypost
5h
Turkish lawmaker who had heart attack after saying Israel ‘will suffer the wrath of Allah’ dies"

He literally got done and keeled over at the podium.

[Don Nico]

That is what I expect from the NY Post

[shawn_dude]

Nothing says "feel good" like watching a legislator be struck down by god after decrying the wanton slaughter of innocents in a war between a brutal, occupying government and an oppressive terrorist organization.

But thank you for the constant reminder that too many people take pleasure at the suffering and death of others.

[Bob from Ohio]

He called on his "God" to smite the Jews and HaShem answered instead. Its called irony.

[Don Nico]

Obviously, the dude can't understand that.
He ought to watch Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Rudy Giuliani, after claiming he would testify and declaring this week that the defamatory lies he told about Georgia election workers were true ("stay tuned," he said), instead declined to testify at his trial.

Giuliani's lawyer acknowledged in a closing statement that Giuliani had lied; that nothing toward had occurred with respect to the Georgia vote count; and that those lies had hurt the election workers, but asked jurors not to award substantial damages to the victims because (1) a large award would "ruin" Giuliani and (2) Gateway Pundit is more blameworthy than Giuliani.

The stated reason for Giuliani's about-face and cowardice: Giuliani's respect for the plaintiffs, who had 'been through enough already.'

What causes clingers -- Trump, the other Trump, another Trump, Giuliani -- to boast about how they are going to testify, then chicken out?

What causes this blog to refrain from mentioning the most interesting, most important, and most prominent defamation cases of the day, instead claiming to be interested in a series of pedestrian, random cats-and-dogs cases?

[Kenneth Almquist]

The worst that can happen to Giuliani in this case is that he will be forced to pay a large judgement or declare bankruptcy. I doubt that would disrupt his life as much as his lies disrupted the lives of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.

[Moderation4ever]

Well said. Did the judgement against Alex Jones hurt him. Was that cockroaches life affected?

[shawn_dude]

The Alex Jones drama is still unfolding.

He cannot use bankruptcy to avoid payment. And his attempts to conceal some of his wealth in order to avoid paying his victims aren't working, either.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Better people, if motivated and properly resourced, could ensure Rudy Giuliani is stung and miserable.

He could be disbarred everywhere and forever.

He could be subjected to withering collection efforts.

He could be bankrupted. Perhaps repeatedly.

He (and his friends, family, and colleagues) could be held to account for any fraudulent conveyances.

He could be held to account for any bankruptcy fraud (or other fraud) as he tries to cobble together a life on the financial run.

He could be punished for any contempt of court.

He could be sued for defamation (or similar torts) again -- and again, and again, if he continues to defame people as he did this week.

He could be sent to jail (or, better, prison) for this election- and/or insurrection-related crimes.

How much could a GoFundMe account entitled "Make Rudy Giuliani's Disgusting Life Even More Miserable" generate?

[Armchair]

Seems Hunter Biden has refused to comply with a legitimate Congressional Subpoena

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hunter-biden-s-contempt-of-congress-has-wider-consequences/ar-AA1luLRS

This is clearly going to contempt of Congress for Hunter. And possible obstruction of justice charges for Joe.

[Zarniwoop]

I'm old enough to remember when Prof. Turley wasn't such a partisan hack. I love the way he invents facts, then follows up the invented facts with "if that is true" then Pres. Biden is in trouble.

Specific example:

There is another possible cost to this move. Fox News quoted White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre saying that President Biden “was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say,” which suggests that the president spoke with his son before his act of contempt and discussed his statement. If that is true, it was a breathtaking mistake.

(invented facts in italics, bonus invention in bold.) I mean, sure, could theoretically, possibly, hypothetically be true. You know what else could be true? Pres. Biden read the same exact reports in the Wash Post that everyone else did, that Hunter said he would show up for a public session but not a private one.

This is a great example of the GOP dreaming up things that they want to have happened, then drawing conclusions based on their own fever-dream imagination.

[Zarniwoop]

ope, well edit is still broken. Itals/bold flagging Turley's invented facts were
which suggests that the president spoke with his son before his act of contempt anddiscussed his statement

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm kind of unclear how the President was supposed to have been familiar with what his son was going to say, without having discussed it with him. You really think his son mailed him a proposed script, rather than just talking over the phone, or even face to face? Seriously, you think that's likely enough to make Turley a fabulist?

[Nige]

Do you think fathers and sons only talk about stuff and get to know what they think and will likely say about things when subpoenas arrive?

[shawn_dude]

You mean besides all the news coverage of Hunter telling the press what he was going to say and then having that published?

[Zarniwoop]

FFS Brett, read what I wrote:

You know what else could be true? Pres. Biden read the same exact reports in the Wash Post that everyone else did, that Hunter said he would show up for a public session but not a private one.

That's how.

Turley invented shit and then catastrophized based on his invented shit.

[Longtobefree]

Contempt of congress like Holder, or Bannon?
See, there are two types of laws and two types of charges (not counting no charges at all), and two types of convictions.

[Bob from Ohio]

Holder.

[Moderation4ever]

I think the fact that Hunter Biden has agreed to speak to the committee, will make COC charges hard to stick. I believe that the Republicans are afraid to publicly question him as it would show the emptiness of their case.

In related news, James Comer has shell companies just like Joe Biden. James Comer has also had intra family loans and money exchanges like Joe Biden. Can this man objectively lead a committee with all this baggage?

[Bob from Ohio]

Can one refuse to testify if the judge does not let you testify in his chambers?

[Moderation4ever]

Don't you have this reversed? Should it be could you refuse to testify in the judge's chambers and instead insist you will only testify in a public court room? Well could you?

[Bob from Ohio]

The actual issue is who decides on terms, Congress /judge or the witness?

[Zarniwoop]

nice goalpost moving.

Between a person who says "I'll testify in pubic, I have nothing to hide" and someone who insists that it remain private, you trust the people who want to hide the ball.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I doubt he even notices what he's done.

[Krayt]

Baseball just signed a guy for 700m, the largest pro sport contract anywhere, ever.

Guys like Jordan, LeBron, Beckham don't even show up on radar anymore.

And the first billion dollar guy is now within striking range. Some probably made that with endorsements, but straight up?

[BrotherMovesOn]

No, not within 'striking range'.
No MLB team will proffer a 100MM contract over 10 years. Not unless inflation in the US reverses course and heads to Argentina territory.

[Wisconsinite in Minnesota]

More like $700 million over 20 years. Ohtani receives $2 million a year for years 1 - 10 and then $68 million a year for years 11 - 20.
But don't worry about how he will survive on only $2 million per year since his endorsement income is north of $40 million per year.

[ThePublius]

Of course now someone like Robert Reich will whine about WNBA women not being paid the same as male players.

[jb]

Messi is earning close to $60M per year from inter Miami and his deal also includes some potentially incredibly valuable sweeteners from both MLS and Apple.

And while Giannis's contract isn't for 10 years, he's earning nearly as much per year as Otani, and it's actually paid out in the year it's earned.

So sure, Jordan and Beckham (who wasn't that good tbh) weren't paid as much back in the day, this contract isn't crazy compared to contemporary athletes at the top of their sports. (And I'm ignoring the particularly crazy Saudi contracts in this analysis--that's likely where we'll see the first $1B contract.)

[bernard11]

The $700 million figure needs to taken with a tablespoon or two of salt.

For ten years he gets $2M a year, and then for the next ten he gets $68M per.

So for 2024, for example, he is paid $2M plus the PV of $68M in 2034. At 5% (that's pretty low) the PV is about $41,750,000. Use 8% and you are talking a PV of $31.5M, so a total of $33.5M.

This, especially the $33.5M, is within range of contracts given to other top-tier free agents. Aaron Judge is getting $40M/yr from the Yankees for nine years. Lots of players, Machado, Cole, Lindor, Devers, are in the $30M range.

[David Nieporent]

The reported NPV is $46 million.

[Kleppe]

Happy George W. Bush Getting A Shoe Thrown At Him Day, to those who celebrate.

[Frank Drackman]

"W" had some good reflexes (who did that Idiot A-rab think he was? Odd-Job? everyone forgets that the Iraqi's executed the guy) Ever had a shoe thrown at you? Mrs. Drackman threw one of her High Heels at meonce, could have put an eye out!

Frank

[Bored Lawyer]

And in another installment of Spinelessness-In-The-Face-Of-Jew-Hatred:

Harvard Rabbi Says University Administrators Told Him to Hide Campus Menorah Each Night of Hanukkah
A rabbi at Harvard University was told by administrators to hide the campus menorah each night of Hanukkah for fear of vandalization or other criminal activity, the rabbi said in a video posted to social media.
“We in the Jewish community are longing for a day … that Harvard not only has our back, and not only allows us to finally put up a menorah, but doesn’t force us to hide it at night,” said Rabbi Hirschy Zarchi, founder and president of Harvard Chabad, while celebrating Hanukkah on Wednesday evening. The Jewish holiday concludes on Friday.
Zarchi said he was asked to take the menorah inside at night because Harvard administrators are concerned about the optics of an antisemitic incident occurring amid a surge in such activity on college campuses in the wake of the October 7 Hamas attack.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harvard-rabbi-says-university-administrators-told-him-to-hide-campus-menorah-each-night-of-hanukkah/

Maybe they should change the Harvard motto from Veritas to Juden Raus.

But hey, let's have more training about "micro-aggressions."

[ReaderY]

That’s like telling the black students that have to sit in a side room where they can’t be seen because if they were visible it could spark a racist incident and that would harm our optics.

I would have flat-out refused. It’s Harvard’s job to provide security and expell racist studentss if they foment violence. Same here.

[ReaderY]

And I would have installed security cameras.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just have a campus cop sit there all night. Or crack open that 50 BILLION endowment and hire a couple of security guards.

[Don Nico]

So much for a commitment to let light shine in the darkness.
So much for defending he right to free expression by all members of the campus community.
But Pres. Gay is not ashamed; she is emboldened.

[Bored Lawyer]

Cue the fellow travelers giving us lectures about how the First Amendment works.

So, to head them off, as a private party, Harvard can change its motto to Arbeit Mach Frei, and require its students to wear swastikas.
And the rest of us have the freedom to call them out on it.

The reality here, as I said, is spinelessness. It's a matter of which constituency they want to offend or not offend.

I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as ‘The Boneless Wonder’. My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye and I have waited fifty years, to see The Boneless Wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench.

Winston Churchill, referring to Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury Ramsay McDonald

[Sarcastr0]

What is the policy you want? All you do is rend your garments at how bad things are for Jews (but good for blacks I guess).

I begin to think the policy you want actually is a double standard, or something nuanced enough you can claim such, since it gives you an eternal ticket to complaintsville.

[Don Nico]

The policy is being even-handed. But you already knew that. Harvard, Penn and MIT have failed at that long ago.

[Sarcastr0]

First, no one has established a double standard, just posted how the current standard is too permissive re: anti-Jewish stuff.

Second 'be consistent' is not a policy. I continue to find it very telling the utter lack of detail as to what people want; because I have come to believe what you want is justification to yell at schools.

[Nige]

Not going to deny it's unsatisfactory, but 'if you're worried about vandalism maybe put it somewhere safe?' Can't say you guys don't put the effort in.

[Michael P]

Good news for religious freedom and conscience: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/12/14/teacher-lawsuit-transgender-pronouns/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Wow.

A bigot supports the 'right' of a teacher to bully and discriminate against a student.

Everyone here is shocked that you'd take such a position.

[ThePublius]

How is "mis-pronouning" someone to discriminate against them?

I'm opposed to all of this preferred pronoun B.S.

[apedad]

Sure you are Pubic.

[Don Nico]

Isn't starting with a childish insult the surest way to render your comment void of content?

[Sarcastr0]

I daresay he's making a point about appellations.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, he would be, if referring to somebody by the accurate pronoun was actually an insult.

It's not.

[shawn_dude]

Thankfully, Brett is here to tell us all what our own "accurate pronoun" is.

[Nige]

'Stop insulting yourself!' Classic bullying.

[Don Nico]

No, he is just making a too obvious, childish snark

[Sarcastr0]

It seems the kind of too obvious point neither you nor Brett are equipped to meet.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is nothing wrong with calling a bigot a bigot.

Guys like Don Nico would prefer to hide behind euphemisms (such as "religious values," "conservative values," "traditional values," "family values," etc.), because part of their loss in the culture war has caused conservative racists, superstition-addled gay-bashers, Republican xenophobes, law-professing transphobes, etc. to no longer want to be known as bigots (at least not in public), but I see perceive little to no reason to enable them to hide behind euphemisms.

It is important to emphasize in this context that religion does not improve bigotry and religion does not transform bigotry into anything other than bigotry. A person who asserts his bigotry toward gays is rooted in religion is just another bigoted culture war casualty, albeit an unusually gullible one.

[Nige]

Who cares what you're opposed to? It's bullying and discriminatory and so fucking stupid and massively entitled. Making it clear to a child in your charge that you hate and disrespect who they are? How big and brave that teacher must feel.

[Bob from Ohio]

"bullying"

Yes, making the teacher subscribe to delusions is bullying.

[shawn_dude]

You might want to think a little deeper about your position here than just "trans bad."

An atheist teacher could, for example, be pretty brutal to Christian children by letting them know their belief is a delusion. Or any other personally held belief or identity. And while the teacher's disrespect of those children is bad by itself, it also gives license to all the other children in the class that they can get away with their own bullying of those students. It's not like the students can vote with their feet. And if those students have serious issues they need help with, the teacher has effectively isolated them from believing they can receive assistance from school employees.

Hurray that an asshat teacher can legally bully their students. So good for them. The kids can fuck right off, though. School is about the teachers, amiright?!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

An atheist teacher could, for example, be pretty brutal to Christian children by letting them know their belief is a delusion.

Could . . . or should?

[Nige]

His argument boils down to 'I'm doing this for a God so vengeful He will cast me into Hell for using pronouns.' Delusional indeed.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I can't bring myself to take your question seriously.

If it were your son being referred to as 'she,' I daresay you wouldn't be asking the same question.

You can be opposed to it all you want and still recognize that they deserve the same respect as everyone else.

[M L]

A retard thinks freedom of speech doesn't apply to saying mean things. Everyone here is shocked that you'd take such a position.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Teachers do not have a constitutional right to abuse and denigrate their students as part of their jobs.

You're better off pretending like you don't take an issue on things, because when you do, your stupidity is immediately exposed.

[M L]

Freedom of speech =/= the first amendment. If you like free speech or have a few brain cells to rub together, then you don't support draconian woke leftist speech codes for teachers, such as firing them if they refer to a boy as "he."

[Nige]

*record scratch*

'You’re wondering how people who justify banning books and suppressing college courses got here. Funny story.'

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The teacher is no more the arbiter of whether someone should be referred to as she or he than they are as to whom can be named "Charlie."

[Michael P]

The teacher had a "trans male" student:

Vlaming, a six-year teacher, told the student he would use the student’s male name in class and try not to use pronouns in an effort to balance the student’s wishes and his own religious beliefs, according to the lawsuit.

In what way was the proposed approach "saying mean things"?

[M L]

I was just assuming so for the sake of argument. Can a teacher not say mean things? It seems to me, some of the good teachers tended to be a little harsh sometimes.

If saying mean things isn't allowed any more, the football coaching must be a different experience than when I was in school.

[Michael P]

A teacher can say stern or harsh things, but usually "mean" (in this context) implies intentional hurt, and to me it connotes doing so in an unfair or particularized way. In the scope of a job, people generally -- and teachers arguably more than most -- should strive to be constructive when being stern or harsh, rather than being mean.

This was a French class, and I would suggest the same basic rule should be true in physical education classes as well. Are you suggesting that high school sports coaches should sometimes be mean across all sports? Or does that only kick in for intramural competitions, inter-school competitions, specific sports?

[M L]

I agree but someone will always say that something merely harsh was mean, anything they disagree with is mean, the truth is mean, something constructive is not constructive, well-intentioned is not well-intentioned, etc. And it can be genuinely difficult to divine subjective intentions and motivations. Plus, a teacher or co-worker might be allowed some one-off moments of irritability.

Obviously, a pattern of being intentionally hurtful is very bad. But the reality with work in general is that performance and results tend to come first. And, people are mean. Try working in construction, and complaining that someone said mean things. Most famous CEOs seem to have a number of writings dedicated to showing that they are mean.

I agree this teacher wasn't mean. And recognition of basic biology and language should not be considered mean. But I think it gives away too much to say that saying mean things is a fireable offense.

[Nige]

Being bigoted is always mean, especially to a child you have authority over.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

When the average number of bigoted professors at a university goes up, the mean increases.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Would you object to a teacher referring to religious children as "Mr. Superstition" or "Miss Believes In Fairy Tales?"

Organized religion is silly superstition. Childish nonsense. Fairy tales. Delusion. Should not a teacher who believes in science, reason, and the reality-based world be entitled to express that opinion in a reason-based classroom?

[Brett Bellmore]

In a language class, teaching a gendered language, it is particularly obnoxious to demand that the teacher use the wrong word. It's bad pedagogy, for one thing.

[Nige]

Oh no this child is offending an entire language!

[Sarcastr0]

Nah. It's not obnoxious.

A bunch of jackholes only recently found their personal integrity was tied to a worldview so rigid it requires them do something other people have said is hurtful

Do they claim to be hurt in ceding to this request? No, they claim their monopoly on facts is the only justification they need.

I'm open to talking about trans stuff in sports, and what level of state support is proper. But this is just performative assholery. And the more asshole you are the more righteous you are.

[Don Nico]

Why didn't you actually answer the matter of teaching a gendered language.
No, you morphed immediately in to insultsville. It just is not convincing.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Why don't you respond to the fact that the teacher willing referred to the child by the child's chosen French name (which I believe was a female name)? How does it help or hurt your and the teacher's position that the preferred pronoun would have matched the student's French name and, presumably, outward presentation (clothing, hair style, etc.)?

[Sarcastr0]

Why didn’t you actually answer the matter of teaching a gendered language.

I'm quite sure I did. Not going to hold you hand but I think you can figure it out.

[Michael P]

Let me FTFY:

A bunch of jackholes only recently found their personal integrity was tied to a worldview so rigid it requires others to do something those others believe is hurtful

And yes, we know you love being a self-righteous performative asshole. It's a little hilarious how incapable of reflection you are.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You realize your edit didn't substantively change anything. If it hurts their feelings, it hurts their feelings. And, generally, unless you have a good reason, you shouldn't go around hurting other people's feelings.

A teacher calling a student what they want to be called, especially when that is well within the norms of the community and supported by school policy, is a good time not to be a jackhole and refuse to use their preferred appellation.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's not a wrong word. Not any more than calling John by the name Marcel is the wrong word. In this class in particular, they were essentially role-playing as French students/people, so in this class even more than any other, it would not be a "lie" to refer to someone as a French boy or girl even if they are not, in fact, a French boy or girl. The teacher was looking for a way to virtual signal his disapproval. It's not plausible he actually thought it was a "lie." It's not plausible you did either.

[bernard11]

In a language class, teaching a gendered language, it is particularly obnoxious to demand that the teacher use the wrong word. It’s bad pedagogy, for one thing.

Well, I agree with that, but disagree as to what is the "wrong word." Consider a classmate who accepted the student's self-identification. Wouldn't it confuse that person to hear what seemed the wrong French pronoun applied to his friend. Bad pedagogy, I think.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The teacher admits in his complaint that he referred to the student by the pronoun the student asked the teacher not to use in reference to the student. When a person tells you it's hurtful for you to refer to them by certain words, it is kind of mean to refer to them by those words anyway.

However, allegedly, the teacher tried to avoid using pronouns for any students and otherwise bent over backwards to not treat the student differently and, hence, not be mean. Allegedly.

This was decided on demurrer, so all the allegations are taken as true. If you read the decision, it's unlikely he will ever be successful before a jury as many of his allegations are quite likely to be disputed and, frankly, I'm betting the judge and/or jury are probably going to believe the student and the school administrators rather than the teacher.

[Brett Bellmore]

"When a person tells you it’s hurtful for you to refer to them by certain words, it is kind of mean to refer to them by those words anyway."

That really kind of depends on whether or not they're being reasonable in their demand in the first place. What we have here is the demand for politeness being weaponized to compel humoring a lie.

[Nige]

No, it is you accusing other people of lying based on nothing but your own bigotry.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The teacher happily referred to the student by the gendered French name. Now use your purportedly considerable analytical powers to explain why using pronouns that matched the name is "lying" whereas using pronouns that didn't match the name is not "lying".

This teacher, who basically encouraged role playing in the class, was in the weakest possible position to claim that using a person's preferred pronouns amounts to lying when he wasn't even calling them by their actual name (and happily, it appears, would call them by a "misgendered" common name).

The only dishonest person in the situation was the teacher. And once the case moves beyond the point his allegations must be taken as true, that will become more and more clear and his lawsuit will fail.

[shawn_dude]

"...humoring a lie."

Where this so-called "lie" resides entirely in the world view of the asshole and not the person just living their life freely according to their own world view.

This is just another permutation of the same bigoted "don't shove it down my throat" whine.

[Don Nico]

dude,
you have your own whine. We're all used to it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Which, regardless, doesn't stop the fact that this is a whiny lawsuit with a whiny defense and an end goal of allowing teachers to be assholes towards a vulnerable student if they say they sincerely believe Jesus wants them to be assholes toward vulnerable students (really, is that what anyone gets from reading the Bible?).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are an obsolete bigot, Don Nico, who claims to believe fairy tales are true (and expects special privilege consequent to a childish embrace of silly superstition).

Better American will continue to improve America against your wishes and efforts. You will improve America when you are replaced. By your betters.

[Don Nico]

"it’s hurtful"
We ALL need to grow thicker skins. The encouragement of thinning the skin is one of what is wrong with the overly vocal DEI mantra.

I have put my thumb on the scale a large number of times to help. promote, etc. the underrepresented. Yet I am just annoyed buy the performative pleas for DEI.
Of course the "woke" might say that I only do the "right thing" because I am paternalistic. Meh!

[Nige]

Or alternatively not take bullying bigotry lying down.

[Sarcastr0]

I detect a double standard between Jews on campus and trans people in school.

[bernard11]

We ALL need to grow thicker skins.

Does that include people who are are so offended by the notion of transsexualism that they can't treat transsexuals with ordinary respect?

You know, I don't think that there is much truth in Christianity, but I don't make a big point of saying so.

Of course, I also recognize that my opinions are just that, and that unlike some here, and the teacher, I am not Absolutely Right Beyond Question on the matter.

[Nige]

In teachers it's generally frowned on.

[Bored Lawyer]

Planted axiom: not using a particular pronoun must equate with bullying and discrimination.

Simple solution: just don't use a pronoun. "Mary" or "John" work just fine.

[Michael P]

The school fired this teacher because they didn't accept that solution.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Allegedly. (The teacher admits in the bigoted asshole's complaint that the bigoted asshole did, in fact, refer to the student as her instead of him on at least one occasion after which the student withdrew from the bigoted asshole's class.)

[Michael P]

Report yourself to the thought police. It is objectively and subjectively offensive to call someone a bigoted asshole.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Why is the truth offensive? And even if it is, aren't you guys arguing that we shouldn't care if someone is offended if we're just saying what is true?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, now truth is a defence?

[NOVA Lawyer]

I don't think you are comprehending the arguments in this thread. But since you seem unclear, I think people should be polite and kind regardless of the truth, unless it is imperative for various reasons to be strictly, brutally honest.

For instance, a student asks if they look fat in a particular outfit. How about don't be an asshole and be tactful, at least, rather than brutally honest that, perhaps, yes, they look atrociously fat in the at outfit and many others they wear.

Similarly, if a student asks to be referred to as John, Jane, he, her, etc., the cost to you is very small. No one thinks you are asserting anything about their genetics or genitals by using their preferred name and/or pronoun. Just don't be an asshole.

However, Brett and the plaintiff seem to think that it is imperative that we only say rigorously true things, if an utterance is construed as literally as possible to its most extreme conclusion, no matter if that's not how actual people operate. In that case, they argue, it is a "lie" to call a child with typically male genitalia Jane and to use the pronoun her in reference to that child. In response, I would assert that it is a lie to refer to Brett and the plaintiff as anything other than bigoted assholes, given that they are bigoted assholes and any other reference to them would obscure the truth that, in fact, they are bigoted assholes.

We can be polite or we can refer to the plaintiff and Brett as bigoted assholes.

I prefer being polite and kind, particularly in a school setting, especially in a school setting where it is the teacher's conduct we are discussing.

Brett and the teacher, being bigoted assholes, disagree.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That was fairly obviously a rhetorical question...

[Michael P]

You really might want to think hard about whether your take -- he made a mistake once, so fire him -- qualifies you to criticize anyone else as a bigoted asshole.

And further whether you comprehended the obvious point behind ObviouslyNotSpam's question.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"You really might want to think hard about whether your take — he made a mistake once, so fire him — qualifies you to criticize anyone else as a bigoted asshole."

First, I may be an asshole, but not bigoted!

Second, where is that my take?

Third, do you understand anything about the law? By which I mean, this overturned a demurrer. The legal standard for a demurrer is to take all alleged facts as true and all inferences from those facts that are most favorable to the plaintiff. It has not at all been established that the plaintiff "made one mistake". He has admitted to at least one (alleged) mistake, but he also admitted he refused to follow school policy.

Fourth, but it's nice to see you admit you were wrong that the only problem with his behavior was that he had come up with an ingenious solution which seemed great to him and to you and the school was being unreasonable in not accepting that "solution", but instead that he had actually not followed the very policy he proposed.

Fifth, it would be nice if next time you just admitted that you were wrong. A nice clean mea culpa can be so refreshing.

[NOVA Lawyer]

From the decision, quoting the complaint: “Mr. Fleming's conscience and religious practice...prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie.”

He's sincerely an idiot then. For instance, he had people choose a French name. He called students by the French name. He doesn't think he's lying then. If he uses a students' preferred pronouns (French or otherwise), no one think he's asserting any fact about the student. He's just calling the student what they want to be called, like a name.

Do only people who claim to believe in a supernatural being get to make random arbitrary moral rules that are internally inconsistent in Virginia or can anyone pointlessly be an asshole in disregard of ordinary rules of politeness and in violation of your state employers' rules to ensure a healthy environment for students just because they want to?

For instance, if it would violate the students' and administrators' conscience not to call Vlaming a bigoted asshole, because he is one and it would be lying to not identify him as a bigoted asshole, may they refer to him in class and in other school settings as a bigoted asshole?

[JasonT20]

Do only people who claim to believe in a supernatural being get to make random arbitrary moral rules that are internally inconsistent in Virginia or can anyone pointlessly be an asshole in disregard of ordinary rules of politeness and in violation of your state employers’ rules to ensure a healthy environment for students just because they want to?

Yes. That is how religious conservatives want religious freedom to be interpreted. They get to claim religious freedom to get out of having to follow laws that bind everyone else.

[M L]

I haven't read anything about the case outside of these comments, but I'm inclined agree as far as the constitution goes.

A woke leftist speech code in a school is an objectively bad thing. Delusional denial of basic biology and language, and forcing others to go along with it, is an objectively bad thing.

But contrary to popular belief on both the left and the right, the constitution was never meant to cure all social ills or all governmental misbehavior. In fact, whether a given policy or action is desirable or morally right would seem to bear no relevance at all to the question of whether the policy or action is required or permitted by the constitution.

[M L]

Upon reading this, it seems the issue is the VA state constitution, not the US constitution. That's a different issue and seems more plausible.

https://adflegal.org/press-release/landmark-victory-va-supreme-court-vindicates-high-school-teacher-fired-over-pronoun

[Nige]

Children have a right to be schooled without being singled out by religious bigots who think using preferred pronouns is lying. Who the fuck is he lying to? Does he feel Satan's breath on the back of his neck if he lets children play at being trains or cars or doctors or astronauts? When he teaches French does is his soul damned when using masculine and feminine forms for inanimate objects with no sexual characteristics?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ordinarily, pointing out someone is lying to themselves is doing them a service.

Please tell me you don't believe that MAGAt delusions should just be be humored?

[Nige]

But there's no lying going on. Except the religious bigots claiming they have to be dicks for God.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, it's pure delusion.

Seems contagious.

[shawn_dude]

Missing from this "analysis" is any consideration for the role the teacher plays in their student's lives, the power differential, and the accepted mental health practice for students who are dealing with personal struggles.

Do you think teachers who have a child in their class with a mental health issue should be exercising their own mental health approach or basing their actions on medical science and school policy?

[Don Nico]

Oh, jeez.
We don't need to create a generation of skinless amoebas.

[Sarcastr0]

You need to find a limit to this logic, because it can be used to justify child abuse.

[Brett Bellmore]

"He’s just calling the student what they want to be called, like a name."

Except that names communicate nothing but, "that person", while pronouns communicate information about the person referred to, which information is capable of being objectively wrong.

That, after all, is exactly why they want to force you to use a different pronoun: They want you to communicate the thing that is wrong.

[Nige]

It is communicating that they are trans. You cannot determine if that is 'wrong.' Only they can.

[Brett Bellmore]

Our language lacks any pronouns that communicate that you're "trans".

[shawn_dude]

The beauty of the English language is its amazing adaptability. We invent new words all the time, borrow words from other languages and attach new meanings to them, and change the meaning of old words. If English lacks a pronoun, English speakers will adapt and suddenly there will be a set of pronouns.

Having said that, the other queer thing about this conversation is the assumption that, when talking to a person, it is appropriate to constantly communicate their gender to them. Don't yo find that odd? Like they don't know they're male or female or non-binary so we have to constantly say "he" or "her" or "they" just in case they forgot? And if, for reasons that confuse all sophisticated people, we are denied that ability, then the English language, nay, the entire concept of communication itself (!), breaks down.

But you know what our language has in abundance? The ability to self-identify as an asshole.

[Don Nico]

"But you know what our language has in abundance? The ability to self-identify as an asshole"
Indeed, you do it all the time.

[Nige]

They don't need such pronouns. They have their own.

[Michael P]

How many AK-47s and IEDs are needed to look like an invasion to leftists?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/fox-news-us/10-ieds-found-us-mexico-border-cartel-gunfight

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Michael P mistakes cartel turf wars as an invasion of the US because he's a disingenuous dipshit.

[shawn_dude]

Well, none if you define "invasion" so simply that it could mean just about anything.

[Zarniwoop]

About the same as the number of knives found in a Sharks v. Jets fight/dance-off are needed to qualify as an "invasion".

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Probably more than one AK-47. What do you think? Two? Three?

[Zarniwoop]

OK, it's no longer Thrusday ... but!

Rudy "Defamatory Bastid (legally adjudicated!)" Giuliani ordered to pay $148M for lies about the GA election:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/12/15/giuliani-defamation-trial-verdict-georgia-election-workers/

Couldn't, wouldn't happen to a nicer guy.

I really liked Plaintiff's lawyer's remarks in closing:

“Never pick on someone smaller than you. Never be a bully,” said Michael Gottlieb, an attorney for the plaintiffs, quoting from a memoir the former New York mayor wrote after the World Trade Center attacks. It’s a lesson Giuliani said he learned from his father.

“Those are wise words,” Gottlieb said. “If only Mr. Giuliani had listened.”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's just a number, and they're not going to see a penny of it: Rudy's broke, and unfortunately doesn't have a legion of rubes to send him money. So moral victory will have to suffice.

[bernard11]

I bet he's not totally broke.

[David Nieporent]

He couldn't afford to pay his own lawyers.