Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Randal]

Countries more evil than Israel:

1. North Korea
2. Syria
3. Russia
4. Iran
5. China
6. Belarus
7. Israel

I'm open to nominations but it's hard to beat keeping 5 million people under squalid occupation for decades with no endgame.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Israel is more evil than Israel?

[santamonica811]

Well...let's call it a tie.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

On the plus side, Israel is by the same reason better than Israel.

[Armchair]

Imagine a military invasion of an ethnic-religious area in fall of 2023, which expelled the entirety of the resident religious population, resulting in the exodus of over 100,000 individuals...

Would Randal even recognize it, if it didn't involve the Jews?

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians

[Randal]

I'm aware of it. I just happen not to like Armenia as much as I like Azerbaijan, the former being allied with Iran and the latter essentially with NATO. So... it gets bonus points for that.

But, you know, I'm ok making it #8, especially since they're likely to invade Armenia big-time which could be destabilizing.

8. Azerbaijan

[Frank Drackman]

So fucking move to Azerboyjan you cock sucker

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A conservative can use that term without consequence, but a liberal gets censored for "c_p succ_r" at the Volokh Conspiracy, Official Blog of Partisan, Hypocritical Censorship.

Carry on, clingers . . . but you might have to move in order to do it.

[Frank Drackman]

Ibid, you Cocksucker

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Thanks for your efforts toward improving UCLA's campus, Mr. Drackman.

[Armchair]

"I just happen not to like Armenia as much as I like Azerbaijan, the former being allied with Iran and the latter essentially with NATO. So… it gets bonus points for that."

And what the hell do you think Israel is?

#anti-Jewish bias.

[Randal]

I gave Israel the same bonus points. When you put Israel and Azerbaijan side by side, Israel's pretty blatantly the more evil one.

[Commenter_XY]

Personally, I think Pakistan could be a good #7. Or Venezuela.

[Randal]

Venezuela could go up in the rankings if their bad rhetoric turns into bad behavior.

But why Pakistan? They seem pretty normal outside of their thing with India and support for the Taliban... which yes aren't great but they're not generating instability for its own sake or persecuting a large subpopulation.

[Armchair]

"Why Pakistan"

Among other reasons..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis#Pakistan

[Randal]

Yeah, that's pretty bad.

Still not as bad as what Israel's doing to the Palestinians, but close.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NUKE GAZA!!!

[Joe_dallas]

Randal 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Venezuela could go up in the rankings if their bad rhetoric turns into bad behavior."

No bad behavior in Venuzuela - curious where you get your info

[grb]

Without totally redoing the list, China should go way up - as much as the second spot. What there're doing to the Uyghurs alone merits that. As for Israel, it's not important whether they ranl 8th or 15th. The only important thing is recognizing they have a problem. They conquered land, they want to keep and/or control it, but refuse to give the people living on that land citizen's rights. That's created 4-5 million stateless people. Can this situation be maintained indefinitely, with Israel 7th, 8th or 15th on the list?

I don't think so. I think that future is toxic for Israel. Once you ignore fantasy solutions (where the problem magically vanishes without Israel facing any hard choices), that leaves two options:

(1) One state for two people, which is untenable because it doesn't maintain a Jewish state.

(2) Two countries.

You don't have to love the Palestinians, hate Israel, or ignore/excuse the actions of either side to see this. You just have to face the facts. It's imperative for Israel's future they look ahead long-term and start preparing a path towards two states. Even before the Hamas terrorist attack, that was going to be difficult. Now it's going to be even harder. But there are no fantasy solutions. This bloody war proves that, because it ultimately won't achieve any strategic objective for Israel. They'll get revenge - and it's understandable they need it - but it won't accomplish anything.

[Tom for equal rights]

GRB - Are you, Randal, Nige and other apologists having a side bet on who has the poorest grasp of the geopolitical situation in the ME?

Conquered land - prior to the 1948 war, Jews were purchasing their property from the arabs and christians living in the region, often at highly inflated prices. Israeli's were able to form a state because the wanted a state and were productive. The palestinians didnt get a state because they simply too disfunctional at the time and have remained disfunctional.

1948 Israel was attacked, they got slightly extended borders as a result of the arab attack. Same in 1967. all the while, the palestinians have continued to be disfunctional.

[grb]

Two points:

First - as a simple matter of fact - Israel wasn't attacked in the '67 war. You can argue persuasively that their attack was justified, but that's a different thing. It's notable you start your response with a sneer about who has the better "grasp" of the situation and then bungle so simple a fact.

Second - nothing in my comment depends on your history of perfect heros and villians, whether it's right or wrong. It is based solely on the options available to Israel now and which is best for its future. If you want to address anything, try speaking to that.

[Tom for equal rights]

GRB -
A) 1967 Israel preemptly attacked military forces that were assembling to attack israel

B) you are suggesting an option that has no viability. The culture of the palestinian people is the impediment to long term peace. The palestinian people dont need to be destroyed, but culture does need to be destroyed. Same as the culture of japan and germany needed to be destroyed.

[bernard11]

The culture of the palestinian people is the impediment to long term peace. The palestinian people dont need to be destroyed, but culture does need to be destroyed.

What culture is that? And where did you get such a profound understanding of it?

[Joe_dallas]

Bernard - the more important question is why you would have such a poor understanding of their culture which has been on display since the early 1900's

[Bob from Ohio]

"as a simple matter of fact"

But its not a fact. The closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping was an act of war.

[Kazinski]

Problem with that formulation is that Israel would be perfectly happy with a prosperous peaceful Palestine.

Hamas wants Israel in ashes and its people dead.

So its hard to get peaceful solution that way.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Hamas' resolution sounds peaceful, in the sense that John Wayne Gacy's victims are now peaceful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

+1

[Randal]

It doesn't matter if it's hard, it's their problem to solve.

It seems like Israel's plan is to slowly ethnically cleanse the West Bank (via incremental settlements) and Gaza (via sporadic bombardments) until there's few enough Palestinians that Israel can just annex those areas without losing its Jewish majority.

That's a pretty evil plan. It would be better to just rip the band-aid off and forcefully relocate the Palestinians now rather than put them through decades of more occupation while making their lives so miserable that they slowly drain away.

[Armchair]

So, rather than try for a peaceful 2-state solution, Israel should just forcefully expel all Palestinians?

[Randal]

Did I say that? No, I said they should forcefully relocate the Palestinians quickly rather than forcefully relocate them slowly.

It'd be great if Israel worked towards a two-state solution! They haven't shown any interest in that since I can remember, and all their policies are blatantly designed to undermine the prospect. Most of their recent rhetoric speaks to the seeming impossibility of reconciling with the Palestinians. They only give it lip service when it's useful to pretend they aren't actually on a mission of leisurely ethnic cleansing.

[Commenter_XY]

Randal, we actually agree that life would be miserable for the palestinians (meaning, the palestinians with Judeocidal beliefs and tendencies, which is a lot of them), and it is pointless to prolong the agony. Israel is not leaving. I prefer a voluntary relocation of palestinians to countries in the region willing to take them, funded by generous relocation grants from Israel. And BTW, I think it is important for Israel to do that funding, not the US.

Population relocation can be a viable option in extreme cases. Meaning, it can be the 'least worst' option, and that may be the case here. There is no reason palestinians should not have a decent shot at living a fulfilling life elsewhere, if they cannot bear the thought of living under Israeli sovereignty.

[Tom for equal rights]

Commentator

In theory, moving the palestinians to other arab countries would be a viable solution.

However, The solution to moving the palestinians to a country willing to take them is a non starter. No other country wants them. No other country/region of the world has wanted them since at least the early 1900's. Jordan , Egypt and syria blocked them from entering their countries after the 1948 war.

On the other hand, Israel welcomed the jewish people that were being expelled from their homelands throughout the middle east and north africa after the arabs countries attacked Israel in 1948.

The ultimate problem lies with the culture of the palestinian people.

[Commenter_XY]

Tom, I am not entirely buying into the 'nobody else wants them' argument; although I readily concede it is a plausible argument wrt palestinians. They might take them in, if the price were right. That is my point. Emigrants with money would provide a material boost to every economy taking in the incentivized palestinian emigrants.

Example: Turkey supports Hamas and the palestinians who support them. Turkey could use an economic 'shot in the arm'. How does one combine the professed support of Turkey for the palestinians, with the economic needs of Turkey. This is one way to do it.

[Nige]

You could sell people to them. As if you own them.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 9 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"You could sell people to them. As if you own them."

another ill-informed comment from Nige

[Nige]

That was the proposal.

[Tom for equal rights]

Commentator - my comment was directed more to those that fail to recognize that the culture of the palestinian people is the primary problem. I was only adding further insight on the history of the region.

The original plan was to create two states one for the jewish people and one for the palestinian people. That plan started percolating in the mid 1930's. At the time of the creation of the Israeli state, it was widely recognized that the palestinians were too disfunctional to have a separate state.

Then the 1948 war happened and the arab neighbors blocked their exit because nobody wanted them.

Turkey originally didnt want them, though warmed up to the idea once Erdogan gained power, though with the caveat that erdogan has turned turkey in to an islamic country when atatuk had created a fairly secular country albiet with a heavy mulsim population. Erdogan position with regards to palestine seems to be more pro islamic than pro palestinian.

[Commenter_XY]

Well (with apologies to Don Nico) perhaps one might put Erdogan to a diplomatic form of a 'put up or shut up' test. Erdogan professes support to Hamas, and wants to help palestinians. Well, here is your chance, buddy. Take 100K palestinians (with relocation grant money to spend in Turkey) for the pan-arab team.

The palestinians are finding out who their friends are, right now. Pretty short list: Iran, Yemen, Hezbollah.

[Nige]

Imagine, a group of people reduced to such pariah status that you can do whatever you want with them. Wonder how that's going to turn out. Given historical examples of pariah peoples.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
Don't do Turkey any "favors." it is already flooded with islamist refugees from Syria who are strong supporters of the authoritarian Erdogan regime. The country does not need more jihadis.

[Tom for equal rights]

Don - your comment is consistent with Turkey's shift from a secular country with a large mulsim population to a islamic country when Erdogan got elected.

Its good to see someone commenting that has a better grasp of the geopolitics than the apologists.

[Don Nico]

Tom,
My son-in-law is fro Turkey, so I hear about the situation there frequently

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
Iran does not want Palestinians in Iran.

[Joe_dallas]

don

concur - Iran doesnt want palestinians in their country which is consistent with all the other arab countries.

Though Iran's mullahs are happy to fund the hamas

[David Nieporent]

.

concur – Iran doesnt want palestinians in their country which is consistent with all the other arab countries.

Iran, of course, isn't an Arab country.

[Bob from Ohio]

"No other country wants them. "

Bribe the dictators.

50 Muslim majority countries. 40,000 per country won't break anyone. The smaller Gulf states can pay the big countries to take their share.

[Nige]

Sell them in job lots.

[Kazinski]

Its kind of stupid to say its Israel's problem to solve, its the Palestinians problem to solve too.

Its similar to the elderly parent of a homeless drug addict who won't change, and refuses to rehab, and robs and abuses them when they allow them in the house. They'll get criticized for not doing enough to help their child, but really nothing will change until their child makes a sincere effort to change.

As for ethnic cleansing, the west bank population is increasing at a 1.81% annual rate, Gaza (well until recently) at a 2.35% rate. Israel in contrast is increasing 1.61 which is still a healthy rate compared to the US 0.3% annual increase.

Wouldn't even a half hearted effort at ethnic cleansing reduce their population?

[Randal]

Yeah, the birth rates are certainly a problem for Israel.

Still, more people leave the West Bank every year than die. And that's including the Israelis coming in. So the West Bank is getting ethnically cleansed as it gets more and more settlers.

And like you said, Gaza's about to have a very bad year population-growth-wise.

[Frank Drackman]

Good

[Bored Lawyer]

"its the Palestinians problem to solve too."

Not acc. to Randal. Brown people have no agency or responsibility. They are to be treated like retarded children. They can make 75 years of stupid decisions, and it's still Israel's fault.

[Nige]

How much agency and responsibility can you have when you're under relentless bombardment and dying by the thousand? If you can make this ugly and ridiculous assertion, can I point out that it's bad to kill a thousand of one type of people and good to kill tens of thousands of other types of people, all brown? And it's not Israel's fault.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige - before you make more of you inane comments, you should spent some time actually becoming knowledgable on the subject.

[Nige]

You always say that when you have no substantive response. Which is a lot.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige - I make that comment frequently to individuals that demonstrate a significant misunderstanding to the subject matter.

Your comment about the palestinians being under relentless bombardment is just one of the many examples of your poor understanding of the facts.

So yes - becoming better educated on the subject would certainly reduce your frequent comments that are detached from reality.

[Nige]

You're just saying the same thing slightly longer. For someone so educated you rarely have anything substantive to say.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - you rarely make comments that are factually correct. Even when they are somewhat correct, they are out of context. None of your comments on this thread have been factually accurate. So suggesting that you spend some time becoming educated is an entirely reasonable suggestion.

[Nige]

You literally never say anything to anyone but variations of this.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige 49 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
You literally never say anything to anyone but variations of this.

Nige - if you go back and read your comments, then compare those comments to the actual facts , you would then understand. Until you compare your statements with the actual facts, you will remain confused and misinformed.

[Nige]

And once more, the exact same thing.

[David Nieporent]

.

How much agency and responsibility can you have when you’re under relentless bombardment and dying by the thousand?

They could surrender and release the hostages.

[Nige]

All the Palestinians who had nothing to do with the attack or the hostages could do that?

[David Nieporent]

Well, they could try. What did the Italians do when the Allies successfully invaded Italy? They revolted, and strung up Mussolini.

[Nige]

The women? The children? The maimed? Against a heavily armed group who have no compunction about killing? (Not talking about the IDF here, just for clarification.) Amazing what some people have to do to be worthy of life.

[Kazinski]

They were not under a ruthless bombardment before Hamas made a sneak attack on Israel.

Its the classic case of the child that kills their parents and begs for mercy because they are an orphan.

What's really telling is that both Egypt and Jordan tell Israel that they should finish the job on Hamas, and will not take any refugees. Its because Hamas isn't trusted by other Arab countries because they are Muslim Brotherhood psychopaths.

[Nige]

I'm worried you've been steeped in Gazacide and might be irredeemable.

[Joe_dallas]

Another factually incorrect statement from Nige

[Nige]

You're just babbling now.

[Randal]

The Palestinians don't have self-determination, because of Israel. That makes the problem Israel's to solve, just like the Uighurs situation is China's problem, not the Uighurs'.

Yes, Tom, the geopolitical situation gives Israel few options. But it's not even trying. See: settlements.

The status quo isn't sustainable. If there really is no geopolitical solution, then that's where Israel's feasibility starts to come into question, however reluctantly.

[Jacob Grimes]

The Palestinians obviously have self-determination if they have the capacity to enter into agreements like the Oslo Accords. Merely because they are unable to check off every single box of nation-state characteristics doesn't mean they can't form organized groups and governing bodies.

This is not a case in which the Palestinians are completely enslaved under the Israelis and survive on their masters' whim. Israel has undeniably made some overtures to normalize relations and promote Palestinian statehood over the years and those overtures have undeniably failed in some degree because of Palestinian militancy.

[Randal]

It's not clear if Israel ever had any intent of following through with those overtures or if they were just performative.

In any case, Israel seems to have dispensed with the overtures or any other pretense of interest in a two-state solution. So at this point (and for the last couple decades), the Palestinians are "completely enslaved under the Israelis and survive at their masters' whim," constrained only by international (and particularly American) opinion, really.

[David Nieporent]

.

It seems like Israel’s plan is to slowly ethnically cleanse the West Bank (via incremental settlements) and Gaza (via sporadic bombardments) until there’s few enough Palestinians that Israel can just annex those areas without losing its Jewish majority.

The Palestinian populations of both Gaza and the West Bank continue to grow (though maybe not in the last 60 days), so it seems like Israel isn't very good at executing on the plan you seem to discern it seeming to have.

[Randal]

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/21/thursday-open-thread-168/?comments=true#comment-10366988

[Nige]

And Donald Trump wasn't very good at insurrection, but here we are.

[Nige]

Well, when you have an excuse as good as that for inflicting suffering and misery on millions, you have to run with it.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Well, when you have an excuse as good as that for inflicting suffering and misery on millions, you have to run with it.

Nige -- your comment is another example of one of the multitude of your statements that are devoid of reality. hence my prior suggestion on becoming better educated on the subject.

[Nige]

Your comment is another example of saying absolutely nothing.

[Nelson]

"Problem with that formulation is that Israel would be perfectly happy with a prosperous peaceful Palestine."

Their behavior in the West Bank, including illegal settlements, ignoring ultra-Orthodox terrorist groups that attack Palestinians, and military strikes at infrastructure like wastewater treatment plants, would argue against your claim.

[Armchair]

Other countries "more evil" than Israel.

1. Canada. -Native population issues.
2. Australia. - Native population issues.
3. The UK. - Ireland issues
4. The US. - Native population issues (among others).
5. Japan. - WWII issues
6. Germany. - WWII issues.
7. Algeria - Jewish exodus.
8. Egypt - Jewish exodus.
9. Libya. - Jewish exodus.
10. Iraq. - Jewish exodus
11. Lebanon. - Jewish Exodus
12. Turkey - Armenian Genocide.
13. India. -The entire caste system.
14. Afghanistan. - The Taliban
15. France. - Entire slave trade, especially Haiti.
16. Spain. - Entire New World issues and slave trade.
17. Portugal - Entire slave trade
18. Mexico - Treatment of the Mayan population.

And so on and so on. Israel doesn't even rank in the top 50% (unless you hate the Jews).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nuke Gaza.

Che would have...

[Armchair]

Nuking Gaza makes little sense, for multiple reasons. Among others, it's too close to Israel

[Frank Drackman]

Terror-Ann would be a more appropriate target, Ear-Ron's been wanting a Hydrogen Bomb for 50 years, lets give them one!

[Randal]

Obviously I'm looking at ongoing problems, not historical problems from all time.

If Israel solved its problems, it would become less evil and move down the list. It's not permanently tainted by past actions. Neither is Portugal etc.

[Armchair]

So, if Israel acted super-evil and just killed or expelled all the Palestinians in 1967, that's better than trying to actually have a peaceful solution?

In your twisted world, trying to live peacefully with a group and NOT do that makes Israel more evil?

[Randal]

So, if Israel acted super-evil and just killed or expelled all the Palestinians in 1967, that’s better than trying to actually have a peaceful solution?

Well, Israel isn't trying to have a peaceful solution. There's no evidence for that.

So yeah, eventually, it's better to just conquer a land than to keep it in limbo indefinitely. It's been 56 years since 1967, with no end in sight. That's a lot of Palestinian suffering.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's evident is that they haven't been willing to get a peaceful solution at any cost. There being basically two ways to achieve a peaceful solution visa vi the Palestinians: Suicide or genocide.

You can't achieve a peaceful solution where one side isn't willing to be peaceful, short of just eliminating one or the other side from the equation.

[Sarcastr0]

What’s evident is that they haven’t been willing to get a peaceful solution at any cost
Support of the settlements.

There being basically two ways to achieve a peaceful solution visa vi the Palestinians: Suicide or genocide.
Oh never mind you made the first question unfalsifiable by overdetermining 'peaceful.'

I don't see a solution; the 2-state is dead. That is not something to put solely on the Palestinians.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That is not something to put solely on the Palestinians."

Yes it is. They choose hopeless terrorist violence. Constantly.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we all know you think Palestinians, liberal, and non-MAGA who get arrested are not humans who deserve no empathy, due process, or much though at all but bloodthirst.

[Bob from Ohio]

To quote one of your favs, why are you resorting to ad hominums?

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : "They choose hopeless terrorist violence"

Meanwhile, two-million Palestinians in the West Bank are quas--governed by the near-powerless PA. And the Palestinian Authority has been cooperating with the Israeli government and Israeli security for over twenty years. That cooperation has been rewarded with only harsher and more sufficationg oppression.

So right off the bat, your comment is full of shit, Bob. But it's even worse when you consider Israel has nurtured and protected Hamas over the years as an excuse why two-states can never work. Netanyahu has said precisely that on multiple occasions. It has been discussed in precisely those terms at Likud Party conferences.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it pretty much is 100% determined by the Palestinians. Nothing the Israelis can do, short of genocide or suicide, can make peace between them and the Palestinians, so long as the Palestinians are determined to have war.

[Sarcastr0]

It's path dependent, Brett.
We didn't just get created yesterday.

[Nige]

And vice versa. Beautifully self-sustaining conflict there.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "long as the Palestinians are determined to have war"

As I note above, your comment strangely ignores the two million stateless people in the West Bank. It also ignores the fact Israel has supported Hamas behind the scenes precisely so people like you can say exactly what you said. No other reason. Security was a secondary concern vs manufacturing an excuse why negotiations are impossible. That's why Israeli Security escorted Qatar diplomats carry millions of dollars in cash across the Gaza border.

[Joe_dallas]

grb 3 hours ago
Brett Bellmore : “long as the Palestinians are determined to have war”

As I note above, your comment strangely ignores the two million stateless people in the West Bank.

GRB - your statement ignores the culture of the palestinian people. Brett statement is correct.

It would be nice if the palestinian people would like to live in peace, prosperity and productive members of the world society. However, that is not, and hasnt been the culture of the palestinian culture for since the early to mid 1900's

[Sarcastr0]

Joe once again stumbles onto Nazi tropes about the Jews, only directed elsewhere.

[grb]

Joe_dallas : "your statement ignores the culture of the palestinian people. Brett statement is correct"

And your statement is hackneyed propaganda. About 20% of the Israeli population is Palestinian. They have lived peacefully despite not having all the rights of the Jewish majority. It's enough they have a stake in the country where they live. Where's the "Palestinian culture" there?

Likewise, the 2 million-plus Palestinians in the West Bank. It's been the Israeli settlers who have refused to live in peace and prosperity. Hundreds of people have been murdered in the West Bank since the 07 Oct terrorist attacks - but by Israelis, not Palestinians. Maybe if I was a racist clown I would blame that on "Jewish culture" like you - but I don't.

Because - as with the Palestinians - culture has nothing to do with it. Look : You can refuse to look at Israel's choices and options going into the future, preferring to see the country and region as something like a football game. You put on your little skirt, pick up your pom-poms, and rah, rah, rah your team. That's your right as a faux-supporter of Israel. But don't blame your willed blindness on "the culture of the Palestinian people". Just own it.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/settler-violence/

https://abcnews.go.com/International/palestinians-flee-villages-settler-violence-surges-west-bank/story?id=105579013

[David Nieporent]

.

I don’t see a solution; the 2-state is dead.

Let's say it's comatose. The problem is that the 2-state approach is the only model for a solution,¹ but there is no obvious path to it anymore. Even if a majority of Jews and Palestinians still support it — which is not clear — a large minority do not, either because of lack of trust, or religious fanaticism, or something else.
​
​
¹The other alternatives are (1) status quo, which by definition isn't a solution; (2) expulsion or genocide of Palestinians, which are unacceptable; or (3) one state, which means expulsion or genocide of Jews, which is unacceptable.

[Randal]

Don't forget the three-state solution, otherwise known as "Israel royally screwed their pooch in '67."

[Sarcastr0]

The settlements make any border drawing impossible. But maybe you are right, that's it's still the best option.

Which is pretty tragic.

[David Nieporent]

The settlements do not make border drawing impossible. As when Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, many will have to be evacuated. The smaller, far-flung ones. The large ones close to the Green Line will be incorporated into Israel, with land swaps. This is the principle behind the prior peace proposals that the Palestinians rejected for various other reasons.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, to me the bottom line is that the 5-time losers in wars of aggression against Israel (that is the palestinians) do not get to dictate terms to the winners (that is Israel). The palestinians had a choice between getting a state for themselves or preaching/practicing Judeocide, and consistently chose Judeocide for decades over a state. Bad choice.

Now they will not have a state next to Israel, because there is no way any Israeli will ever agree to a palestinian state next to it with Hamas as a part of the government. That is existential to Israel, as we have seen.

Perhaps the steady slaughter of Hamas members, who use their own people as human shields, will persuade the palestinians that Judeocide is really not the way to go.

[Nige]

'do not get to dictate terms to the winners'

Isn't it funny how just winning a conflict doesn't actually solve anything? Five times?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Germany started at least three World Wars before we de-nazified it.

[Nige]

'We' put the work in to build peace between nations that had slaughtered each other for five years. Funny how that example never registers.

[bernard11]

Three?

And Germany, while certainly militaristic, was not a Nazi state prior to Hitler.

[Don Nico]

"the 5-time losers in wars of aggression ... do not get to dictate terms to the winners"
And that simple fact escapes the pro-Hamas crowd in the US

[Nige]

A conquered people are a subjugated people. Subjugated people are suppose to KNOW they're subjugated. That's always been how it usually works.

[Randal]

the 5-time losers in wars of aggression against by Israel (that is the palestinians) do not get to dictate terms to the winners (that is Israel).

FIFY. Really it's a mix. Israel was the agressor at least twice.

Anyway, that doesn't even matter. Winning doesn't give you a license to persecute 5M people for 60 years running.

The only reason Israel doesn't just annex the West Bank and Gaza is that it doesn't want to give the people there any rights within Israel. That's an important piece of the moral puzzle.

[David Nieporent]

.

The only reason Israel doesn’t just annex the West Bank and Gaza is that it doesn’t want to give the people there any rights within Israel. That’s an important piece of the moral puzzle.

"The only reason Israel doesn't just do something that neither it, nor the people living in those places, nor any other country in the world wants them to do is…"

[Randal]

I don't think the rest of the world would mind that at all... if Israel wanted to give them equal rights.

[Bob from Ohio]

Arabs haven't won a war since 1187 [needed a Kurd even then] but they still largely think they are invincible holy warriors.

Losing to Jews is even more painful since they had 1500 years of abusing Jews and now they can't.

[Don Nico]

"The number of Gaza residents reported killed during Israel’s 10-week-old war in the territory has already surpassed the toll for any other Arab conflict with Israel in more than 40 years and perhaps any since Israel’s founding in 1948."
The moral: don't start wars that you can't win.

[Nige]

The US could do with learning that, too.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "there is no way any Israeli will ever agree to a palestinian state next to it with Hamas as a part of the government"

1. It seems we're making progress. Before you've said there was no way Israel would ever agree to Palestinian state, but now you qualify it. Please note no one ever suggested Israel accept a Palestinian state ruled by Hamas.

2. The answer of two states doesn't depend on Israel accepting Palestinian dictates. It doesn't depend on re-writing history, whichever history you accept. It is simply the best and only long-term solution for the Israeli state. You of all people should see that, since the only alternate you can devise is a rainbow unicorn fantasy that has zero relevance to reality.

[Commenter_XY]

grb, the people of Israel are deciding matters for themselves. They are engaged in an existential fight. That really does change everything.

I do think the tone and tenor has changed inside Israel. With increasing Gaza combat deaths (now ~150), the primary war aim, the annihilation of Hamas within Gaza becomes more important to Israel than the lives of the hostages. There are already an increasing number of media stories about the war dead, whose families are saying, 'don't let my [son, mom, wife, daughter] sacrifice be for nothing, you must safeguard Israel and win'. Their voices (war dead) are just as loud as the voices of the hostage families. It is changing, grb...very much so.

[grb]

Sigh. But Israel won't annihilate Hamas. They won't even come close. They'll go at this another month or two, kill (maybe) twenty thousand women and children, and eliminate (perhaps) a fifth of Hamas forces. Then they'll declare victory or "reluctantly" agree to a ceasefire.

And they won't stay in Gaza. The government has been insistent and emphatic on that point. I have no idea what they'll do and wouldn't be surprised if they don't as well. There's been talk of another Arab country or some NGO running things, but it all seems like wistful thinking to me. One thing they won't do is let the PA take over Gaza, despite the fact they've cooperated with Israeli security over twenty years in the West Bank. Why? Because said security is way less important than blocking any inching move towards a second state.

Hamas will have no problem recruiting their losses from the rubble and dead of their cities. Israel will have accomplished nothing except the months' long display of pounding Gaza flat with unguided munitions. Last year there was outrage and horror as the Russians destroyed hospitals and concert halls with rockets and bombs. A few days ago, a smirking Putin pointed to the Israelis and asked how dare anyone criticize him.

I understand you want this bloody mess to turn into something positive. After all, Israel didn't want this war and the ugliness of the Hamas attack was designed to ellict a harsh response. But there will be nothing positive and Israel's three long-term options will remain stark & unchanged.

[Randal]

vis-à-vis

[Joe_dallas]

Randal - You cant solve a problem if you dont understand the cause.

As others have pointed out to you - you have an extremely distorted understanding of reality with Israel and the palestinians. Though in your defense, most leftist have similar misconceptions.

[Randal]

Oh, please tell me it involves immanentizing the eschaton. Please?

[Tom for equal rights]

Randal 43 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Oh, please tell me it involves immanentizing the eschaton. Please?"

Randal - your response is completely off base and reflects your confusion on the palestinian situation. As previously stated, you cant solve a problem if your dont understand the problem.

[Nige]

So, everyone supporting Israel doesn't understand the cause? Because they're just continuing not to solve the problem.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige - Like most apologists, you need to become better educated on the history of the region.
The problem is the culture of the palestinian people. Until you and the other apologists understand that , you will never be able to provide a viable solution.

[Nige]

Sounds like the problem is also the culture of Israel. Their policies didn't prevent 10-7 and now they're just killing thousands of people. It's easier, apparently.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige - you keep making inane statements demonstrating you really have no grasp of the geopolitics or the region.

[Nige]

Oh I'm sorry did Israel with its understanding of the problem solve the problem? Or has the conflict become a horrifying slaughter?

[bernard11]

Oh STFU, Tom.

Nobody needs your endless comments about what an expert you are in the "culture of the Palestinians," while those who disagree are all ignorant fools.

It's empty, pompous, ignorant, offensive BS.

[Joe_dallas]

Bernard - I obviously hit a raw nerve from an apologist for the Palestinian behavior.

Several commentators such as Nige make frequent and repetitive factually incorrect statements. Several commentators such as you and Nige fail to see that the palestinian culture is driver behind the disfunctionality of palestinian people.

[Nige]

You make frequent repetitive statements about other commenter making incorrect fatual statements. That's it. Over and over and over. One of those was to me saying I was worried about something. I was being factually incorrect about whether I was worried about something. You're an idiot.

[Nige]

Also sounds like the sort of thing people used to say about the Jews. And the Irish, for that matter.

[Don Nico]

Why isn't the US #1 because of excessive racism

[Armchair]

The list isn't necessarily in order.

[Randal]

I think there's a good case that the US is the least evil country. I guess I simply love America more than Armchair does.

[Armchair]

Or you hate the Jews more than anything else combined.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Only certain Jews.

[Randal]

What would that [which isn't true (I'm rather fond of Jewish people)] have to do with your assessment of the United States as an "evil" country?

[Nige]

Are you saying you can criticise all those countries for the horrible things they did without being racist about the people who live in them? What a concept.

[Armchair]

Yes, you can. The literal dozens of countries that are "more evil" than Israel can be criticized.

But when you spend 99% of your time criticizing "Just Israel" and ignoring everyone else. It's because you're antisemitic.

[Nige]

99%? oh I see if you can make shit up, I'm antisemitic.

Hard to criticise other countries much when the Israeli/Palestine conflict is the actual topic of discussion. Does nobody remember when Russia was mildly criticised for invading Ukraine?

[Armchair]

Well, haven't seen you criticize anyone else. Maybe I missed your anti-Azerbajani creed. Probably not though. So...

[Nige]

I missed yours, too, you must be anti-semitic.

[Tom for equal rights]

Armchair - only correction on your list is that the Jewish exodus from algeria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya was more of an expulsion than an exodus. Though the history of those expulsions/exodus escapes the memory of the apologists for the palestinians.

[Frank Drackman]

Go fuck yourself

[Frank Drackman]

You left out a few you fucking faggot (sorry, that wasn't kind or gentle) Cuber, May-he-co, Haiti, Every "Stan" Country, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Angola, Congo, Mozambique, Tanzania, Namibia, Chad, Niger, Yeman, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and that's just off the top of my pointy haid'

Frank

[Randal]

Yeah, no, I thought about those.

Somalia's close.

[Frank Drackman]

So move there needle dick

[Jerry B.]

So, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon should be on the list as well, since they keep millions of Palestinians in “refugee camps”, and have since 1948.

[Tom for equal rights]

most apologists fail to grasp that no country has wanted the palestinians. Its been an issue with the palestinian culture at least since the early 1900's.

[Nige]

A group of people everyone hates and reviles. Sounds familiar.

[Randal]

Permanent refugee camps are bad, but not as bad as a permanent occupation. Accepting refugees at all is a good thing that I wish they would / could do more of. (Over a quarter of the population of Jordan is refugees already!)

[Darth Buckeye]

Yes, but since Israel is the only country on that list that is an ally of the US and is run by Jews, progressives want it destroyed and its population eliminated. Progressives and fascists are joined by their hatred of Jews and desire to commit genocide against them.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying that you must support Israel's current government in order to not hate Jews?

This would be news to a lot of Jews.

[Bob from Ohio]

You just think Haartz and Jews for Peace speaks for most Israelis. They didn't before but after 10/7 they really don't.

The post-Bibi government of Gantz or Lapid is not going to be much different at all.

[Sarcastr0]

You jumped from Jews to Israelis.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes. So?

I guess you are conceding my main point by making this nonsense comment.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm explicitly pointing out Israel and the Jewish people are different.
You seem to have trouble with that.

Your comment above about the undifferentiated 'Arabs' is really a telling one as well.

As I said above, you are very into the Good People and the Bad People. And Bad People aren't to be treated as people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’m explicitly pointing out Israel and the Jewish people are different."

How is the difference relevant to his comment?

[Sarcastr0]

Because his comment is replying to my comment where I am making that distinction.

How lazy a reader are you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

How lazy a thinker are you? You're talking about the opinions of Jews, he's talking about the opinions of Israelis, who are mostly Jews. Again, why does the distinction matter in this context?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Again, why does the distinction matter in this context?"

It doesn't. The point is he thinks the views of fringe elements are the voices of the majority in Israel or among Jews in the Dispora.

I guess I should have used B'Tselem which is the local version of Jewish Voice for Peace.

[Don Nico]

He did not say that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Countries more evil than Israel:"

Most of them. Israel has a right to defend itself. and Hamas is responsible for the deaths caused by its use of civilians as human shields.

[Nige]

See? It's OKAY to kill them! Thouands and thousands and thousands of them! IT'S FUCKING OKAY. Apparently.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's not OK that Hamas is causing the death of civilians by their repeated war crimes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And we have no idea how many civilians have been killed.

[Nige]

Oh we have a rough idea; it's a lot and it's getting higher. Israel kill the people they are killing, Hamas killed the people they killed. Lets not wash the blood off anyone's hands.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hamas raped and murdered innocent civilians, which made it necessary for Israel to defend itself.

Hamas then used innocent civilians as human shields, which caused many of them to become collateral damage to Israel's legitimate attempts to defend itself.

The blood's all on Hamas' hands, and your attempt to equate rape and murder of civilians with collateral damage during the response to said rape and murder is immoral.

[Nige]

It's not defending itself. Its slaughtering thousands and thousands of people.

Oh yes, human shields. Thousands and thousands and thousands of human shields.

'your attempt to equate rape and murder of civilians with collateral damage'

On the contrary, your attempt to use rape and murder to justify the killing of thousands, which you minimise as 'collateral damage,' is the most horrific piece of propagandising I've seen since post 9-11.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"On the contrary, your attempt to use rape and murder to justify the killing of thousands, which you minimise as ‘collateral damage,’ "

Why? Rape and murder as performed by Hamas on 10/7 is called an act of war.

Wars often result in the killing of thousands, if not millions.

Look at how many civilian deaths resulted from the attack on Pearl Harbor, a much more defensible action with a similar casualty count. The Palestinians should consider themselves lucky.

And my comment about collateral damage was pure fact.

[Nige]

You're justifying the killing of thousands and thousands of civilians with crocodile tears for a thousand.

Yes, that's one of the reasons why wars are evil. Hamas could just as easily say, well civilians die in wars, war is ugly, but hey, that's war. It would still be bollocks.

[David Nieporent]

You're being tendentious. "Okay" != "good." Was it good to kill thousands of German civilians in WWII? No. Was it okay? Yes. (Even if you want to say that some specific attacks that killed civilians were not.)

[Nige]

I disagree. Quite a few commenters here think they're good. In this they and Netanyahu's government are in agreement.

[Randal]

Israel has a right to defend itself. and Hamas is responsible for the deaths caused by its use of civilians as human shields.

I'm mostly with you there. The war in Gaza isn't why they're high on the list. The seemingly permanent occupation is the reason.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The seemingly permanent occupation is the result of seemingly permanent terrorist attacks.

And to be clear, suicide bombings and attacks on civilians justify occupation, but the converse is not true.

[Randal]

Then why is the West Bank still occupied?

[ReaderY]

The difficulty with this argument is that Israel completely withdrew from Gaza nearly two decades ago. There is no occupation. If sealing the border is occupation, Gaza is equally occupied by Egypt which has also sealed its border. The idea Gaza was under occupation is patent nonsense.

Military occupations lasting decades are common. Germany was under militarily occupation by the WWII victors for nearly half a century, from the de facto victory in 1945 until the de jure peace treaty that ended the war, and the occupation, in 1990. Parts of Japan occupied by Russia in 1945 remain under military occupation, with no formal peace treaty ending the occupation in sight. Part of Cyprus has been under military occupation by Turkey since the 1970s, and remains so. Similarly, there has been a decades-long military occupation of West Sahara by Morroco. I could go on.

[Randal]

Even if you ignore Gaza, they still make #7 because of the 3 million Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

[ReaderY]

When Israel completely withdrew from Gaza, it experimented with land for peace. It gave up a little land. It wanted a little peace. If that had happened, things could have continued. Instead, Hamas has turned Gaza into an armed camp, appropriating aid intended for civilian use for its own purposes, taking all the construction materials intended for homes and businesses and building war tunnels with it. And it then blames Israel for withholding the material it steals.

Enough already.

The Ku Klux Klan had a whole mythology about the evils of the military occupation after the civil war, how settler-colonialist carpetbaggers and scalawags unleashed niggers to rape, murder, and plunder. People just ate it up because it was just too ingrained in white culture to believe that if black people were allowed any power or freedom, they would become savage monsters, that they had to be kept down and suppressed.

Randal has been busy recycling old Klan literature and posting it on this blog, crossing out the word “nigger” and writing in the word “Jew” in crayon. He updates it with some current jargon, but it’s the same story of the Evil West unleashing savages on poor innocent people that the Klan told about the South, he doesn’t even attempt to conceal where his mythology is coming from. And he relies on the same stereotypes the Klan previously relied on about blacks to make it easy for his audience to believe that any government run by Jews has got to be brutal and savage.

Asa Earl Carter taught how Confederates can spread and gain sympathy for the Klan mythology simply by changing the races and a few other details of the story. Randal appears to have learned how to do this well.

[ReaderY]

Before the withdrawal from Gaza and its aftermath, I would have had more sympathy with the argument that Israel can’t put a foreign people under occupation indefinitely. But the Gaza withdrawal represented an attempt at land for peace. It is incumbant upon the Palestinian side to make a reciprocating move before anything further happens. Kidnapping and killing over a thousand civilians execution style in the opening stages of a surprise attack is hardly a move likely to make Israel interested in any further withdrawals.

[Randal]

Israel didn't meaningfully withdraw from Gaza as we all know. A full blockade of air and sea is not a withdrawl.

And as for you weird rant... well I'm loathe to even engage it but let me just point out...

Randal has been busy recycling old Klan literature and posting it on this blog... writing in the word “Jew” in crayon.

I haven't mentioned Jews at all except in the context of Israel's demographic conundrum... Tom's attempts to bait me notwithstanding.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"A full blockade of air and sea is not a withdrawl."

Sigh. Firing rockets into Israeli population centers justified the blockade. The blockade didn't justify firing rockets into Israeli population centers.

[Randal]

You keep going to justification. I agree with you it's (mostly) justified. But it's not a withdrawl.

[ReaderY]

Egypt also sealed its border and blockaded Gaza. Why aren’t you complaining about Egypt’s occupation of Gaza?

The idea that sealing ones border constitutes an occupation of another country is absurd. And it’s not like there wasn’t good reason to try to keep Hamas from getting arms.

[Randal]

Israel is surveilling the Egyptian border as well. If Egypt were to open the border, Israel would just shut it down again by reoccupying the Philadelphi Corridor.

So Israel is effectively blockading that border too.

[VinniUSMC]

If only you were as good at using your mind, as you think you are at reading other's.

[Randal]

So you think Israel would just throw up its hands and do nothing if Egypt opened its Gaza border?

You're dumber than I thought.

[David Nieporent]

You think it would, what, bomb Cairo?

[Don Nico]

Leadership by example:
"Harvard University, in the face of mounting questions over possible plagiarism in the scholarly work of its president, Claudine Gay, said on Wednesday that it had found two additional instances of insufficient citation in her work."

[Commenter_XY]

She'll be the second of the Three Elite Stooges who can't figure out what antisemitism actually is, to fall. There will more.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. And we already smell a lot of smoke.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Who knows?

I don't like lawyerly bullying by camera-hogging Congresscritters.

It should be sufficient to say that university regulations are as stringent as federal law:

"Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) [genocide] shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Construed in harmony with Brandenburg, this would apply to incitement to imminent lawless action.

So far, no federal incitement prosecutions at these universities.

The feds cannot pressure universities to go beyond what the First Amendment permits in banning speech.

So unless we're to attack Brandenburg, the Congresscritter was out of line.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091

[Commenter_XY]

I personally don't think Congress should waste their time, MoA, with that hearing. I think your first reason is enough = lawyerly bullying by camera-hogging Congresscritters

Note to witnesses at that hearing: Don't cross swords with Elise. 🙂

[Kazinski]

Federal law is inconsistent, Title 4 of the civil rights act does require schools to ensure there is not a hostile learning environment on the basis of race, religion, and national origin. And lots of speech and conduct that would be over the line creating a hostile learning environment based on those characteristics would be protected under the first amendment.

But just as the first amendment won't keep you from being fired from your job for offensive speech that disrupts the workplace, it can't keep you enrolled in school despite disruptive conduct.

Of course its hard to protect speech that legitimate, but disruptive because there is a lot of disagreement, but still sanction speech which targets others based on protected characteristics.

Especially when there are legitimate lines of research exploring inherent differences in health outcomes, intelligence, genetic differences, that are sex linked or race linked.

[Don Nico]

"Congresscritter was out of line."

If you are ever called before Congress, you'd better understand that Congresscritters are never out of line (as far as they are concerned.)

[Don Nico]

When a prize fighter gets knocked out in the ring that is not bullying, it is simply losing.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A government official was pressuring private institutions to adopt speech restrictions - restrictions which potentially go beyond the 1st Amendment.

[Don Nico]

Actually the problem on campus is not the speech but the visibly hostile actions against Jews that accompanied that speech

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Then let Congress investigate *that.*

[Don Nico]

Good idea!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Where there is smoke, there is fire. And we already smell a lot of smoke.

Indeed. And even where there isn't smoke FIRE arrives to provide it.

[ThePublius]

What's your beef with FIRE? They are the premier defender of freedom of speech on campuses.

[VinniUSMC]

FIRE protects icky conservative speech that SL, in his self-estimated infinite wisdom, would prevent from being seen through the power of his majestic publishing and editorial censorship moderating.

Just a run of the mill totalitarian leftist shit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

FIRE is a partisan hack operation. Clingers love it. Better Americans either are unfamiliar with it or disrespect it.

[Defenderz]

Why do you hate free speech? There's more to freedom than shooting off inside of your buddy, LawTalkingGuy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"FIRE is a partisan hack operation."

Evidence? This is more superstitious nonsense.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

FIRE ranks Harvard and Yale as less hospitable to free speech and academic freedom than Wheaton, Hillsdale, Liberty, Biola, or Ouachita Baptist.

Because FIRE doesn't want to offend the right-wing donors who fund FIRE's partisan, conservative hackery.

Carry on, clingers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"FIRE ranks Harvard and Yale as less hospitable to free speech and academic freedom than Wheaton, Hillsdale, Liberty, Biola, or Ouachita Baptist."

Evidence? Or is this more of your superstitious nonsense?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Look it up at FIRE's website, clinger.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius. FIRE publishes its own criteria, and then at least sometimes seems to ignore them. While my son was enrolled at Brandeis, FIRE insisted that it was fine with them if a campus imposed its own speech code. They seemed to do that in response to criticism that they were not downgrading Christian-oriented colleges which were openly censorious.

Brandeis did impose and publish its own speech code, carefully and in detail, with a booklet outlining it for everyone. Then FIRE called Brandeis anti-speech freedom, although without any explicit remarks to say why.

Maybe FIRE didn't like the Brandeis code. No criticism, however, for the right wing pro-Christian schools with far less speech-protective codes than that at Brandeis.

I think FIRE has done some good work, but it looks partisan to me.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaking of falling, Commenter_XY . . .

how long do you expect Israel to survive after better Americans respond to Israel's turn to racist, superstitious, hard-right belligerency by withdrawing the political, military, and economic skirts behind which Israel has been operating for decades?

You may express your answer in days, weeks, or months.

Thank you.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, you ask a fair question. After all, Israel receives something on the order of 5B annually (80% of which they are mandated to spend with American defense contractors). They GDP of Israel is roughly 320B. How long would they last...?

Days, Weeks, Months: oh, I'd say an eternity. How do I express that?

Am Chai Yisrael 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You intentionally ignore the breadth and depth of American support -- munitions, aircraft, intelligence, United Nations vetoes, naval support, etc. Mostly because you don't want to think about what happens when Americans turn off that spigot and leave Israelis to try to fend for themselves.

If those things -- provided at enormous and varied cost by America's taxpayers -- are not necessary or important, why are Americans asked to provide them and why do Israel's supporters engage in such strenuous, special efforts to arrange and preserve them.

Good luck when America's culture war victors cut off Israel's right-wing assholes (simultaneous with ditching Saudi Arabia, I hope). Losing a culture war, like aligning with the losers in a culture war, has consequences.

[Bored Lawyer]

Until 1967, the US provided no military or economic aid to Israel, and even had an arms embargo. Israel somehow survived.

But don't worry, when the Islamists take over America, you won't be the top of the list for elimination. Just second.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel will fall long before Islamists take over America. The wages of aligning with bigoted, half-educated, superstition-addled, right-wing culture war losers is . . . going to be severe and swiftly imposed.

I hope better Israelis emigrate to the United States before the consequences of Israel's right-wing belligerence are sustained.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So, Israel will be destroyed from the river to the sea?

To be replaced, I suppose, by a regime which is in the liberal/libertarian mainstream.

/sarc

[Don Nico]

See
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/us/claudine-gay-harvard-president-excerpts.html

Somehow I doubt Harvard students would get away with this kind of misconduct without penalty

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You prefer the academic freedom, academic work, etc. on conservative-controlled campuses, clinger?

That is part of the reason you are a culture war casualty.

[SimonP]

In other words:

"Having failed to secure Gay's scalp through direct donor pressure, conservatives have moved on to attacking her academic credentials, even though this is a degree of scrutiny they never seem to apply to any of their own sources of information."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"conservatives have moved on to attacking her academic credentials,"

Which appear to be vulnerable.

[Nige]

All that matters is the smear.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You don't think the substance of the smear matters?

Does it matter that the President of Harvard appears to routinely violate academic integrity policies?

[Nige]

No, the smear is out there, the substance is irrelevant. This is an attack, any vector will do.

[TwelveInchPianist]

An attack you don't seem able to defend.

Perhaps you think allowing black people to copy the work of others is necessary for diversity?

[TwelveInchPianist]

That appears to be Harvard's position.

[Nige]

Why would I defend a malicious McArthyite attack? None of you give the slightest shit about academic integrity - quite the opposite.

Oh, is she black? Well, no wonder. Perfect target for the right wing hate machine.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why would I defend a malicious McArthyite attack?"

Because the motives of the people pointing out Gay's misconduct don't justify the misconduct.

[Nige]

They obscure the reality of it and feed lies, distortions, and false claims. It's a nice little fascist attack vector.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What lies, distortions, and false claims?

[Nige]

The ones that go hand in hand with right wing smear jons.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you're not able to point out any lies, distortions, and false claims?

[Nige]

I just assume they're there. They always are. I appreciate the 'here's more evidence that proves Biden is corrupt' crowd might not be terribly invested in anything that doesn't include them.

[Don Nico]

Smear? What part of copying someone else's work without attribution don't you understand?
Why are you defending that except that you are a hack propagandist?
The woman is a habitual plagiarist since she was a student.

[Nige]

I understand there's an accusation by people who hate her and hate colleges. Takes more than that for anyone with half a brain and a shred of decency.

[Don Nico]

John McWhorter gives a sound argument for the removal of Dr. Gay:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/opinion/harvard-claudine-gay.html

Her scholarship is scant and laced with academic misconduct.

[SimonP]

Are you engaged in a similar inquiry into the academic credentials of all university presidents? Why this sudden, intense interest in "academic integrity?"

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, I think President Gay should be removed for other reasons in addition to her lack of academic integrity and scholar bona-fides. For example, her treatment of Ronald Sullivan and her advocacy of DEI.

I don't expect everyone to agree with those reasons, but I certainly would hope that everyone would agree that she should be removed for her lack of academic integrity.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, because plagiarism is not plagiarism when pointed out by conservatives.

[Nige]

Not without double and even triple checking, that's for sure.

[SimonP]

No, it's something that you fuckers never gave a shit about before she was hauled before Congress to defend speech promoting "genocide." You (and wealthy donors) tried to pressure the schools to fire her over her congressional testimony alone, but when that didn't work, you started casting about for something else.

Why? Is it because you're suddenly interested in academic integrity? Is it because you have a vested interest in the quality of Harvard's academic leadership?

Or is it because you sociopaths just want to destroy lives and chaos among your perceived "enemies"?

[Bored Lawyer]

QED.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"you started casting about for something else."

But they found something else, right?

The academic integrity issues don't disappear just because you don't like the motives of the people pointing them out.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you have a vested interest in the quality of Harvard’s academic leadership?"

How many Harvard grads on the Supreme Court? Or the other federal courts? Or in the Executive Branch?

Even MLB front offices have many.

If Harvard wants to educate our ruling class, of course we all have a vested interest.

[Nige]

Now there's a lynch mob.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Professors get FIRED for plagiarism.

[Armchair]

The issues with Colorado's decision in regards to Trump.

There are several major issues. But let's list them.

1. There is a major debate whether the events of January 6th fall under the definition of insurrection. Critically, no individual involved in these events has actually been charged...let alone convicted...of insurrection. Typically insurrections are armed rebellions which require military force to put down. The January 6th events lasted less than 24 hours, and dispersed on their own.

2. Trump has not been convicted of "any" crimes in regards to the events of January 6th.

3. The crimes Trump has been charged with are not insurrection. They don't even come close. They are A. "Conspiracy to defraud the United States" B. witness tampering, C. conspiracy against the rights of citizens, D. obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding

4. Under the 14th Amendment, Congress, not the states, has the right to pass legislation to enforce the law. A major consideration is whether the State of Colorado is ursuping Federal power.

5. There are also the severe policy implications of the disqualification of a major presidential candidate, given such weak "evidence" by a state court thousands of miles away from what would be considered a federal crime. Allowing such a decision to stand would encourage other state to disqualify candidates they disagreed with.

--Other weak evidence would include supporting a protest that damaged a federal building. Or leading a group of supporters to illegally protest outside a Congressional figure's office. Or pulling a fire alarm.

5a. This would force the SCOTUS to come in on every decision to consider whether it was an insurrection or not, making it the arbitor of who could and couldn't run for president...a position which it very much does not want to hold. That leaves a few options.

5b. Consider that only federal authorities (AKA Congress) can disqualify individuals for federal office due to insurrection. This would neatly put a political question back into the political realm.

5c. Alternately consider that insurrection disqualifications must be met beyond a shadow of a doubt. I.E. an individual actually convicted of insurrection (or alternately an individual who actively supported a movement which requiremd)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Perhaps you'd embarrass yourself less if you read the decisions before bitching about them.

[Armchair]

As typical, ad hominems and personal attacks are all you have.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You haven't read the opinions at all.

How do I know? Because of the questions you posed.

It isn't ad hominem to rightfully point out that you're an ignorant fool complaining about shit you didn't even bother to read. Shit that actually addresses your nonsensical bitching.

Why should anyone type out the same responses contained within the opinion you've chosen not to read in the first place?

You're still the same old idiot.

[Armchair]

There are no questions posed in my original post. There are only statements. No "?".

To blame someone for not reading, then make it obvious you didn't read the OP is embarrassing.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You haven't read the opinions. Deny it, and let us all see how willing you are to boldly and blatantly lie your ass off.

Hell, 5b is answered less than 35 pages into the CSC opinion.

Lie for us, Armchair. We all know you do. Give us just one more. Keep trying desperately to distract from the fact that you're bitching about shit you can't be bothered to even read, let alone understand.

[Armchair]

"5b is answered"

No, not really. And more explicitly, not by the SCOTUS. You're having reading comprehension issues. The SCOTUS has never actually ruled on the insurrection clause. If you read the opinion (which it's clear you haven't fully comprehended) you would understand this.

One way for the SCOTUS to neatly solve this decision would be to put the insurrection question in the hands of Congress. Where such a political question really belongs

[Jason Cavanaugh]

30-34 does actually address the nonsense you're whining about.

States have the authority to judge the qualifications of Presidential candidates. SCOTUS has never held otherwise. Hell, one of the current SCOTUS members wrote one of the cited opinions directly relating to this.

You'd know that if you read the opinion. (You haven't.)

One of the qualifications is not being disqualified by having engaged in insurrection. Since it is self-executing, that gives States the authority to similarly assess that qualification. (That section starts on 49, which I presume is about 48 pages farther than you've read.)

Go read the opinion. Stop being a bitch and go do your due diligence before wasting people's time with stupid remarks already addressed in the opinion you won't fucking read.

[Darth Buckeye]

Progressives lust for "self-executing" laws. That way, they can bar anyone they want from public benefits without the need of legislation or litigation. Orthodox Jewish congregation won't marry same-sex couples? Well, then any state secretary of state can deny that congregation the ability to exist as a corporation. Any county recorder can deny them the ability to record deeds or other instruments. The right to same-sex marriage is now a fundamental right guaranteed by the US Constitution and any group that won't recognize that is not allowed to exist.

[Sarcastr0]

It's true - I lust for self-executing laws!

[Defenderz]

Sarcastro lusts for self-executing laws and butt play with the Rev Kirkland.

[grb]

Darth Buckeye : "Progressives lust for “self-executing” laws"

Ya got me. In my defense, lusting after "self-executing” laws is pretty far down the list. Starting with voluptuous naked women at Number One, it comes in somewhere around 27,654th place.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

What the hell is a "self-executing law?"

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

More than that, they have the authority to add qualifications of their own. SCOTUS has no right to overturn the Colorado decision.

[Armchair]

Since you like opinions so much, why don't you read this one.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/michigan-judge-dismisses-trump-disqualification-suits

Here's the punchline.

""In summary, the question of whether plaintiff is precluded from holding the office of President because of a Section 3 disqualification presents a nonjusticiable political question that is Congress to decide.""

[Armchair]

But, since you claim to be the expert on this opinion, why don't you tell me which of these is an insurrection...

1. Forcefully seizing an area of a city for weeks on end, removing local law enforcement.
2. Forcefully occupying a capitol (state or local) and refusing to leave.
3. Forcefully storming a Congresswoman's office with an illegal protest that restricts her from her business
4. A series of protests, demonstrations, and riots designed to prevent the lawful transition of power within a city.

[Randal]

1 and 4 could be considered insurrections against the local government, but not the US.

The definitions I've read don't explicitly include or exclude local governments as possible targets of insurrection. But it doesn't matter here, since 14/3 says insurrection agsinst (the Constitution of) the United States. None of your four examples meet that description.

[Defenderz]

It's okay with Antifa or BLM does it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You haven’t read the opinions at all."

I haven't read the opinions at all. But the case was 4-3 among Democratic justices, so it can't be too solid.

And I say this as someone who would personally be happy to see Trump removed from the ballot in all 50 states, setting aside concerns for what it would to people's faith in the process.

[not guilty]

You are boasting of not having read the opinions?

If Thomas Gray was right that where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise, you must be in hog heaven.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You are boasting of not having read the opinions?"

No, just pointing out that I haven't read them. Can't say I'm shocked that you don't understand the difference.

[not guilty]

Commenting on authorities that you have not read shows disrespect for the readers here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Commenting on authorities that you have not read shows disrespect for the readers here."

1. How so? It's a perfectly legitimate inference.

2. How about linking to authorities that you haven't read? I mean, if I didn't read something, I tell people.

[grb]

TwelveInchPianist : "I haven’t read the opinions at all"

Me either, and I probaby wouldn't understand it if I did. (best Deforest Kelly voice) I'm an architect, damn it, not a lawyer. Nonetheless, my opinions.

(1) It's not good for the country. Trump is a toxic cancer, but he needs to be defeated by the voters.

(2) But please remember : You can come up with few things more destructive to American democracy than what Trump did in trying to outright steal a presidental election he lost. But the consequences for that have to come from the two trials on the subject and in the voting booth.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't disagree with any of that.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nothing wrong with refusing to read the opinion, provided that you don't then:

1) Bitch about things you perceive as being wrong about the opinion you've never read.

2) Pass judgment on the merit of the opinion you've never read.

Armchair failed at #1. You failed at #2.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nothing wrong with refusing to read the opinion, provided that you don’t then ... Pass judgment on the merit of the opinion you’ve never read."

Why? Again, what's wrong with drawing an inference that the issue isn't clear cut from the fact that there's a deep division even among judges who might be motivated to take a particular side?

[David Nieporent]

.

I haven’t read the opinions at all. But the case was 4-3 among Democratic justices, so it can’t be too solid.

For the record, there were 0 "Democratic justices." (Also 0 Republican justices. It's a lazy framing that shows no understanding of how Colorado justices are chosen.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. OK, how about the NYT's framing:

But the case was 4-3 among 'seven justices who were all appointed by Democratic governors', so it can’t be too solid.

More to your liking?

[Armchair]

4 Ivy League Justices. 3 Local ones.

Guess what the split was.

[Bob from Ohio]

"4 Ivy League"

3, the 4th was Virginia which only thinks it is Ivy League.

[David Nieporent]

.

seven justices who were all appointed by Democratic governors

No, you still left out something: it's not like the federal judiciary. The Colorado governor doesn't just get to appoint whoever he wants. They're appointed from a list prepared by a nonpartisan commission.

[Randal]

As Jason noted, you're an idiot. The opinion addresses all of these. Read it!

To recap:

1 thru 3: Irrelevant

4: This is solved by the stay pending appeal to the Supreme Court. It's how these sorts of federal questions always work... the states take a crack, then SCOTUS fixes things up as needed.

5: As you said, a policy implication, so mostly irrelevant. But worth working through. As such... none of the other scenarios you mentioned meet the court's proposed definition of an insurrection. You really have to be trying to overthrow the US government, not just "damage a federal building" or whatever. It's a pretty high bar. So...

5a. This is not likely to be a problem given that high bar. You'd have to have some really badly behaved state courts.

5b. I mean... are you proposing a constitutional amendment I guess? There's no reading of the actual Constitution that could get you there.

5c. This doesn't solve the problem you're worried about. The cases would still get appealed to SCOTUS, which would still have to decide in each one whether it was an insurrection and whether the candidate participated "beyond a shadow of a doubt." It would also require a constitutional amendment.

5c.

5b.

[tylertusta]

The majority opinion has a big problem called "Section 5."

[David Nieporent]

If you mean Section 5 of the 14th amendment, it says that Congress has the power to enforce the 14th. Not that nobody else does.

[tylertusta]

Ah yes, the Air Bud canon of Constitutional law.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No, the understanding written English canon of Constitutional law.

[Michael P]

Well, there we have it: an insurrection against the Biden administration isn't an insurrection against the United States. Therefore, by your logic, there was no insurrection in late 2020 or early 2021.

It's amazing how rabidly leftists switch between "J6 was an insurrection" and "Trump's non-J6 behavior was an insurrection" in order to redefine things so that he seems guilty in their minds.

[Sarcastr0]

Preventing the peaceful transfer of power is an insurrection against the United States.

Which is why you, in defending it, should be ashamed.

[Michael P]

I'm not the one defending the current attempts to do that, Gaslight0.

[Sarcastr0]

This court case is peaceful, even if you don't like it.

The only threats of political violence on this blog have been from the right. And they are not uncommon.

[Michael P]

Court cases are not a peaceful transfer of power. No news goalposts!

[Sarcastr0]

This makes no sense.

[Michael P]

Your argument was that "Preventing the peaceful transfer of power is an insurrection against the United States." By your terms, it doesn't matter whether the means of prevent are peaceful or not, the prevention is the insurrection.

It's nice that you finally agree with the rest of us that you rarely make sense.

[Nige]

What matters is if they're legal and have provable grounds for dispute. Not that you'd care about that.

[Sarcastr0]

It's been quite clear from everyone talking about this that the violent nature of Jan 06 is important.

You being purposefully obtuse is not some big defense against my argument, it's you being obtuse.

[Randal]

Court cases are an explicit element of the peaceful transition of power. You're a nut!

[tylertusta]

Preventing the peaceful transfer of power is an insurrection against the United States. - Sarcastr0, Dec 21, 2023

Oooh! I like this game! I'm going to play too!

Here are two occasions:

- Democrats tried to prevent Trump from getting a majority in the EC by convincing electors to become faithless.
- Democrats disputed electoral college votes in 2000 and 2016.

These are all attempts by elected Democrats to prevent the peaceful transfer of power (from a Democrat to a Republican).

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. But since folks like you like to take comments out of context and without nuance in order to impeach your political opponents, stretching constructions beyond the permissible to achieve your desired result, I'm going to give you a dose of the same medicine.

[Sarcastr0]

Democrats tried to prevent Trump from getting a majority in the EC by convincing electors to become faithless.
Not violent; didn't have any hope of overturning the election; not actually against the Constitution (maybe we should fix that?)

Democrats disputed electoral college votes in 2000 and 2016.
Not violent, scattered protest votes, not anything that would have done anything. Nevertheless a bad practice I hope we do not see again.

The GOP thing these days is to equate things that are not equal, because Trump is unique and awful and y'all still support him and want to paper over the unique awfulness. It makes for some truly weak-ass complaints.

[tylertusta]

Whoa! Hold on there, friend.

Now you're adding conditions to your statement.

You said: Preventing the peaceful transfer of power is an insurrection against the United States.

You never said the 'preventing' part had to be violent.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nor did he say it had to have a hope of success.

[VinniUSMC]

Sarcastro's definition of insurrection only includes exactly whatever it needs to for Sarcastr0 to be referring only to Trump. Trump-surrection.

[Sarcastr0]

You never said the ‘preventing’ part had to be violent.

Nor did he say it had to have a hope of success.

Refuge in pedantry is a great way to show you are unserious. The violence part of the insurrection is a core part, as you can see in Baude's piece and in the Colorado court case. You can pretend otherwise, but it just makes you a fool.

And tilting at windmills has some symbolic effect but there's a reason why the violent breaking into our nation's Capitol is such an attention getter, TiP.

Jan 06 was not like past events. You know this; we all know this.

You defend the indefensible because you hate Dems more than you love our republic.

[tylertusta]

I don't think you fully read my comment. I'll copy it here:

Yes, I’m being sarcastic. But since folks like you like to take comments out of context and without nuance in order to impeach your political opponents, stretching constructions beyond the permissible to achieve your desired result, I’m going to give you a dose of the same medicine.

Thank you.

[Nige]

The non-violent parts were the fraud and conspiracy, if you want to include those in the overall picture of a man who wanted to overthrow a democracy.

[Armchair]

Problem is, no one here read the "other" opinion. Which is more appropriate.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/michigan-judge-dismisses-trump-disqualification-suits

[wreckinball]

Insurrection is made up. It's propaganda. The ruling is ridiculous. If J6 was an insurrection then the Summer of Love was WW3.

Watch the Fall of Minneapolis.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

If you can add qualifications for federal offices, you can enforce federal qualifications on your own.

Thornton didn't address presidential elections, and Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Gorsuch all thought that even the holding of Thornton was wrong. It's safe to assume that Kavanaugh, Roberts, Alito and Barrett agree, and I think Kagan will as well.

[Kleppe]

Current top headline on CNN's website: "Trump is creating just the kind of legal chaos he wants for 2024". Absolutely unhinged take. The Dems in Colorado just used the legal system to literally remove their chief political opposition from the ballot, but it's Trump who is creating "legal chaos", you see!

[Reallynotbob]

In other news, the House of Representatives expelled "George Santos" for appalling behavior and lies. And New Mexico threw out a county commissioner last year for participating in insurrection. The Democrats threw out Al Franken over disputed allegations about sexual harassment.

Sometimes it's the principle of the matter, you know?

P.S. Trump wasn't going to win Colorado anyway, so why would the Court bend over backward to "literally remove their chief political opposition from the ballot"? He was a dead candidate walking in CO.

[windycityattorney]

Republican primary voters filed the suit - because they were the ones who would have standing to contest who is on a republican primary ballot.

[NvEric]

18 U.S.C. § 2383 governs NOT the Colorado Supreme Court. Their recent actions are un-Constitutional , therefore, MOOT

[Randal]

What's funny is that in the real world, if Trump were convicted under that statute, he would not be disqualified from the presidency! That's how intensely wrong you are.

[Tom for equal rights]

Randal 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
What’s funny is that in the real world, if Trump were convicted under that statute, he would not be disqualified from the presidency! That’s how intensely wrong you are.

Randal - Odd that Trump has not been charged with any criminal activity with respect to the J6 "insurrection"

Perhaps because there is insufficient evidence for any criminal charge?

[not guilty]

There is ample probable cause to indict Donald Trump and his cohorts for insurrection. Jack Smith, however, elected to present to the D.C. grand jury multiple charges which are more easily proven to a jury, two of which carry twice as long a penalty of imprisonment as insurrection.

What would be the point of charging insurrection on top of the existing charges?

[Kleppe]

"What would be the point of charging insurrection on top of the existing charges?"

Fair question, seeing as Colorado doesn't seem to need a conviction of insurrection (or even a charge) to punish someone for insurrection. Process is so boring!

[Sarcastr0]

Not a punishment.

[Reallynotbob]

"Odd that Trump has not been charged with any criminal activity with respect to the J6 'insurrection'."

What? That is literally what Jack Smith did in the DC action. And the grand jury indicted.

[Tom for equal rights]

Which sentence of the indictment lists insurrection

[not guilty]

I suspect that Tom's observation was that Trump is not charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2383 regarding insurrection or rebellion.

That kvetch overlooks the principal that a prosecutor is not obliged to charge every offense that arguably applies to a particular set of facts. In the ordinary case, "so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996); Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978).

In the District of Columbia Trump is charged with multiple, serious offenses. He is unlikely to live out the sentences which may be imposed upon conviction. What would be the point of charging under § 2383 as well?

[Michael P]

If one wishes to attach the consequences specific to a criminal act, then one should charge that specific act.

The left would cry foul if someone argued that a gang defendant was convicted of fraud, but should be eligible for the death penalty because they allegedly committed (or participated in) uncharged murders.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Well, sure, if Jack Smith didn't want Trump to be able to run again, Smith should have charged Trump with insurrection. But the cases not guilty cites simply say that Smith is not obligated to charge Trump with insurrection. That doesn't change the Constitutional provisions on who is eligible to be President. Congress can waive a disqualification under the 14th Amendment; a prosecutor cannot.

[Randal]

The death penatly requires a criminal conviction. Disqualification from office doesn't.

[not guilty]

The petitioners in the Colorado action have not (and could not) sought imposition of any criminal penalties upon Donald Trump. Neither has the Supreme Court of Colorado entertained any criminal proceeding nor purported to impose judgment thereupon.

Some federal criminal statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 2071(b), 2381, 2383) include disqualification from holding office as a penalty upon conviction. Disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3, however, is not a criminal penalty. As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other.

Unlike § 3, application of federal criminal statutes is not limited to offenders who have previously taken an oath to support the United States Constitution.

Disqualification under the criminal statutes applies only to holding any office under the United States. Disqualification under § 3 extends to both federal and state offices.

Congress by a vote of two-thirds of each House can remove any individual's disability under § 3. Congress, however, cannot remove any criminal penalty imposed by an Article III judge.

[tylertusta]

I guess when Congress wrote Section 5, they didn't really mean it, eh?

[Randal]

Let's examine how stupid that is.

The Fourteenth Amendment includes due process. So you must think due process isn't self-executing. Can you point to the implementing statute for due process? If there isn't one, that means Colorado doesn't owe Trump any due process. Neat!

Section 5 gives Congress the power to legislate in these areas. It's not always clear how amendments interact with existing powers, so Section 5 makes it explicit. But that doesn't mean the Fourteenth Amendment is turned off if Congress doesn't want to turn it on. It's part of the Constitution. It's on.

[tylertusta]

So, you concede that if Congress wrote a law implementing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, then the courts have to follow that law?

[Randal]

Do I concede it? I mean sure, if it makes you feel better to characterize it that way.

[tylertusta]

I'm glad that we both agree.

Because Congress can and has written statutes enabling due process, specifically governing where, when, and how people can sue to get relief.

That's why laws like 42 USC § 1983 exists. That's why other laws allowing people to sue governments, their employees, and their officers exist.

[NOVA Lawyer]

But you understand that any such law cannot limit the rights under the Constitution, they can only recognize or expand them? Just because there is a statute, that doesn't mean the Constitutional analysis is limited to the protections afforded in the statute.

[tylertusta]

You're confusing process with the substantive.

Section 5 allows Congress to define a process. It doesn't grant that power to the courts nor to the states to define it.

And that's what Congress has done. Congress has written a ton of laws granting channels for people to seek redress for violations of the 14th Amendment in the courts.

Without Congress enacting those laws, there's no freestanding right for individuals to sue the government under the principle of sovereign immunity even if you have a valid complaint under the 14th Amendment.

And that's what Congress did when it wrote the law prohibiting insurrection. It specified what the crime is and it specified the procedures and venues for how to conduct the trial.

What Colorado did was say "Yeah, we aren't going to bother with all of that. We're going to assert enforcement authority on a freestanding basis and make up our procedures as we go."

[Reallynotbob]

First of all, Colorado isn't the first state to enforce Section 3. It's just getting the attention because y'all don't care about these things unless it affects Trump. (See, e.g. Couy Griffin in New Mexico last year).

More importantly, you're arguing that Congress' creation of a separate federal criminal offense called "insurrection" preempts state application of 14/3. That's not how preemption works, but...

...even if it did, that would leave a problem. The amendment contains mandatory prohibitive language (you know, like the 2A does) that is separate from the Section 5 authorization to create enforcing legislation. Congress cannot, by mere statute, undermine or limit the prohibitive language in Section 3. That means that the heightened procedural safeguards for defendants accused of criminal insurrection cannot be grafted by statute onto constitutional disqualification.

Your argument would essentially say, "because Congress has enacted equal protection-related statutes, those statutes are now the exact metes and bounds of citizens' equal protection rights." But we know that isn't correct because citizen's rights to equal protection exist regardless of whether or how Congress has legislated to facilitate them.

[tylertusta]

Yeah, the NM case is garbage for all of the same reasons as the Colorado case.

You raise a good point; I'm not arguing that rights don't exist sans Congressional statute. They do. But those rights are allowed to be enforced by vehicles provided by legislation.

Determinations of whether someone committed an insurrection have already been created by Congress. Yes, this preempts (and I do mean the term here) the states and their courts from independently determining whether someone has committed an insurrection for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.

State courts may make a determination whether the process that Congress has spelled out has reached a conclusion and then determine what that conclusion was, but they cannot independently reach a determination of disqualification without a conviction in Federal Court.

In regards to the rights protected Congress has written very expansive statutes so people can enter the court to get relief, but should Congress decide to, it can end those statutes.

That means that the heightened procedural safeguards for defendants accused of criminal insurrection cannot be grafted by statute onto constitutional disqualification

I think this is wrong. The Amendment provides such authority to Congress. Section 5 says Congress can use "appropriate legislation," and following the 5th Amendment seems to be appropriate in for an Amendment designed to protect due process rights of citizens of the United States.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Without Congress enacting those laws, there’s no freestanding right for individuals to sue the government under the principle of sovereign immunity even if you have a valid complaint under the 14th Amendment.

You do realize that people sue state and local governments all the time to vindicate their Fourteenth Amendment rights without relying on a Congressional statute, don't you?

Read Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and then get back to me with a more well-framed question.

[tylertusta]

From Brown V Board of Education:

The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284"

Thanks for playing.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284″

Thanks for playing."

You have no legal training whatsoever, do you?

Those statutes deal with the federal court procedure and were not in any way related to the substantive rights of the Fourteenth Amendment that were vindicated in Brown v. Bd., solely based on the constitutional text and interpretation of that text.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It wouldn't let me edit, but if you want a state court decision deciding a Fourteenth Amendment claim without reliance on any act of Congress, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) is state court decisions all the way to the Supreme Court. And I've elsewhere cited Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199 (1869) which is a Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 case in the state courts.

There are legions of others. The rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment can be vindicated without any "appropriate legislation" passed by Congress and those rights have been many times. Brown, Loving, and Worthy are but three examples. You just don't understand how the Fourteenth Amendment or constitutional law works, it appears.

[Randal]

Ok Tyler. You haven't convinced me you're right, but you have convinced me that this is the most likely way SCOTUS will dispose of the case.

Not because it requires a criminal conviction. Just that denial of ballot access is effectively "enforcement," and there's no cause of action available for such a remedy.

It's backwards logic, which is why I still think it's wrong. But given the court's recent attitude towards Bivens, I can see how they might find this to be the most appealing way out.

[not guilty]

Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, § 5, Congress could specify that a criminal conviction is a prerequisite to disqualification under § 3. If it chooses to do so, Congress knows what language to use.

Congress has not done so, however.

[tylertusta]

For the purposes of argument, I'll assume that you're right.

Where in the amendment does it say that if Congress doesn't write a law that the courts can take it upon themselves to enforce section 3 by themselves?

[not guilty]

The Fourteenth Amendment should be read in pari materia with the (pre-existing) Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a grant of authority to the Congress to legislate. However, it does not read "The Congress shall have the exclusive power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

"[A] State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies." Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972). "[A] state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office." Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App'x 947 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch, J.). See also, Lindsay v. Bowen, 750 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2014).

[tylertusta]

The Fourteenth Amendment should be read in pari materia with the (pre-existing) Tenth Amendment

Doesn't the 14th Amendment override the 10th amendment where they conflict?

One would think that an express command by Congress in Section 5 that Congress is the one writing the laws to enforce the 14th Amendment would suffice.

However, it does not read

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

What Colorado did was rewrite Section 5 to say: "Notwithstanding what Congress passes or the text of the Amendment says, the Courts will enforce Section 3 on our own using whatever process we want."

I'm skeptical of raw assertions of supreme judicial power not found in text, and you should be too.

[Sarcastr0]

Constitutionally, avoid before conflict.

Section 5 need not be exhaustive - you're reading that into the text.

[tylertusta]

I think we're right back to where I started in this comment chain:

I guess when Congress wrote Section 5, they didn’t really mean it, eh?

[Sarcastr0]

Try again: "Section 5 need not be exhaustive – you’re reading that into the text."

Something can be a granted power and not be exhaustive. You are doing violence to the text of the Constitution to serve your desired outcome.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You don't seem to understand. Just because Congress may write appropriate legislation to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment still limits the states even if Congress doesn't write any legislation. If you're going to make that argument, you'd have to show that the judicial enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment in a state court applying state law somehow conflicts with a Congressional statute such that there is a federal supremacy issue.

The mere fact that Congress "shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" does not mean there is no enforcement mechanism if Congress doesn't act at all or that enforcement is limited only to that provided by Congress if Congress passes enforcing legislation that does not encompass the entirety of the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth.

[tylertusta]

Try again

I guess when Congress wrote Section 5, they didn’t really mean it, eh?

the Fourteenth Amendment still limits the states even if Congress doesn’t write any legislation.

You don't even have a freestanding right to sue a state government in Federal Court. Congress creates the avenue and process via statute. It grants courts jurisdictions to hear matters.

Jurisdiction isn't up for grabs just because you feel like it, either.

But to some people, I guess Congress really didn't mean it when they wrote Section 5.

... does not mean there is no enforcement mechanism if Congress doesn’t act at all or that enforcement is limited only to that provided by Congress if Congress passes enforcing legislation that does not encompass the entirety of the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth

Actually, it does. It's called preemption. It's called the actual text of the 14th Amendment.

[Sarcastr0]

You seen to think the only way to 'mean it' is that a grant of authority be exclusive.

Why would that be?

You're working backwards from a conclusion, and it's making you say dumb things.

You don't seem to understand the requirements for preemption and how they differ from Constitutional grants of authority. Wiki is a good place to start.

[tylertusta]

I welcome your reasoning as to why you feel that Section 5 does not grant exclusive power to enforce the 14th Amendment to Congress through legislation.

Please provide citations where needed.

[Sarcastr0]

My reasoning is that it doesn't say exclusive, plenary, or anything like that.

If you need to make up words to put in the Constitution, you're probably wrong about the Constitution.

[tylertusta]

What words did I make up?

It literally says Congress, and it doesn't say anyone else can do it. It doesn't need anything like 'exclusive'. You're the one inserting the equivalent of "or state courts can do this by themselves" to Section 5.

Omitted-Case Canon of construction (Casus
omissus pro omisso habendus es): Nothing is to be added to what the text states or reasonably implies. That is, a matter not covered is to be treated as not covered (TT: Since it only says "Congress" in Section 5, it's not appropriate to read in additional nouns, like 'state courts')

Presumption of Consistent Usage: A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text; a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning. (TT: Congress means the Federal Congress.)

Avoidance Canon - If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems (TT: This avoids an absurd result coming from allowing state courts to independently disqualify individuals. That result is this: What is Trump was tried in federal court for insurrection, but was acquitted? Under the interpretation of the Colorado courts, Trump would remain disqualified despite being acquitted.)

See: https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring/CANONS%20OF%20CONSTRUCTION.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

My dude, you're adding 'only/plenary/exhaustive' in there and then saying I need to prove it says 'NOT'.

That's not how this burden works.

As for your apparently blind and totemic invocation of the cannons of interpretation, check out the Thirteenth Amendment, and then come back and say you're sorry.

[not guilty]

There is no conflict between the Tenth Amendment and the three post-Civil War amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment, § 2, the Fourteenth Amendment, §5 and the Fifteenth Amendment, § 2 grant supplementary authority to the Congress; they do not strip away pre-existing state authority in regard to the subject matter. If the drafters of the three amendments intended to strip away state authority, they would have conferred exclusive enforcement authority on Congress.

To illustrate, suppose a state criminalizes the enslavement of another person. A defendant is indicted in state court for that offense, and no other. He moves to dismiss the indictment based solely upon the Thirteenth Amendment, § 2. Should the trial court grant that motion to dismiss?

[tylertusta]

I think you skipped a step there, buddy.

What is the basis of the state's criminalization in the first place? I can guarantee you that it's not based on the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution (because to the best of my knowledge, no state does this).

States don't base base their enforcement powers on the Federal constitution. Rather, the states have their own constitutions that they utilize instead.

For example, Michigan bans slavery under 750.462b. The basis for the law is not the 13th Amendment, but rather Article I, Section 9 of the MI Constitution of 1963.

So, if you were arrested under Chapter 750, and you file a motion under the 13th Amendment to try to dismiss the lawsuit, the court would deny the motion because the basis of the criminal case doesn't involve the 13th Amendment at all.*

* Well, it mostly doesn't. The only occasion that it would enter into the conversation is whether the drafters of the 1963 Constitution adopted the same scope of the 13th Amendment and what that scope would be. But that doesn't change the state's enforcement powers derive from the MI Constitution and not from the Federal one.

[not guilty]

Uh, before ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, some but not all states prohibited slavery. Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, by vesting authority to enact legislation, did not preempt any state's authority to ban slavery, any more than the Fourteenth Amendment, § 5 preempted any state from protecting procedural due process, ensuring equal protection of law, or adjudicating whether disqualification of a political candidate is required under § 3.

[tylertusta]

Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with slavery from a statutory perspective.

did not preempt any state’s authority to ban slavery

Congress's enactment of laws preempted states attempt to enforce the 13th Amendment on their own.

Instead, they had to pass their own state constitutions and laws.

or adjudicating whether disqualification of a political candidate is required under § 3.

I agree. Colorado state courts are fit to determine whether someone is disqualified under Section 3.

But where the Court erred was determining that it could independently determine that Trump committed an insurrection on a freestanding basis. The role of the state courts was only to check to see if Trump was convicted under Federal law under the insurrection statute.

The state declared Trump guilty without following Congress's express commands on what it takes to convict someone of committing an insurrection.

[not guilty]

Uh, the Colorado courts have not convicted Donald Trump of insurrection or any other criminal offense. The trial court found as fact after a five day, vigorously contested trial, that Trump engaged in insurrection, and the Supreme Court opined that the record supported that finding. Disqualification from holding office under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 is not a criminal penalty.

[tylertusta]

Oh. You're right. They didn't hold a trial.

Man, it must be nice to punish people without convicting them.

[not guilty]

"Oh. You’re right. They didn’t hold a trial."

Tylertusta, is that as true as everything else you have said?

[tylertusta]

Well, if Trump was convicted of an insurrection then I can't find it.

And no, the Colorado district court's findings aren't a conviction.

[Randal]

But it was a trial. You've heard of civil trials?

[not guilty]

Tylertusta, you baldly asserted (without qualification) that "They didn’t hold a trial.” That is a flat out lie.

The District Court in Denver held a bench trial which began on October 30, 2023. The parties and intervenors presented proof for five days. The litigants submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the District Court issued a comprehensive final order on November 17, 2023.

In what universe is that not a trial? And what else have you lied about in your comments? Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

[mse326]

Perhaps you can point to a place in the constitution that isn't enforceable but for congressional statutes. Do you think the exqual protection clause has no force except what congress says it does? The constitution giving congress a power doesn't necessarilly mean it strips the states. Most things the federal government has power over the states have concurrent authority over as well unless specifically preempted. Silence isn't preemptive.

[tylertusta]

Perhaps you can point to a place in the constitution that isn’t enforceable but for congressional statutes.

14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Do you think the exqual[sic] protection clause has no force except what congress says it does?

Congress passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1957, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1987, and 1991. Each one of them are fairly ascribed to be enacting the 14th Amendment in different ways and to fit to different circumstances.

Congress also passed criminal laws dealing with insurrection such as §2383. I consider those laws to be the enabling statutes for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as provided for in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

The constitution giving congress a power doesn’t necessarilly mean it strips the states.

I would think that the 14th Amendment's clear command in section 5 would amend any consideration of the 10th Amendment since the 14th Amendment came... well... after the 10th Amendment (the hint is in the number... 14 comes after 10).

[mse326]

All it says is Congress has the power to enact legislation. Giving the government a power didn't strip the states. That isn't a 10th A. thing, that is very basic constitutional interpretation. If it doesn't want the state to have authority it says so. That is why state anti discrimination laws are perfectly ok. That is why you can challenge a state law for violating the EPC or DPC, you don't need to say it violates a statute.

Hell it is conservatives that fight against the one place it has been read the way you say with the dormant commerce clause.

[Tom for equal rights]

Do the states have the authority to enforce 14 - 3 for a federal office?

does Colorado have a similar provision to 14-3 in their constitution or in their statutes that apply to federal offices?

[not guilty]

Have you read the Anderson decision, Tom?

[tylertusta]

Giving the government a power didn’t strip the states

Even the 10th Amendment expressly says that powers not expressly given to the Federal gov't is reserved for the states. Congress granted the power to enforce the 14th Amendment to itself through legislation. Ergo, any ability for states to enforce the 14th Amendment as a freestanding matter is gone.

Think of this as analogous to that time when Arizona tried to enforce Federal immigration law, and the Courts said that only the Federal government could do that (Arizona v United States, 2012).

Here you have two commands: the 14th Amendment's command that Congress enforces the amendment, and the 10th Amendment saying that since the Congress has power over the 14th Amendment, the states do not.

That is why state anti discrimination laws are perfectly ok.

Did you note that states base their own discrimination laws on their own state constitutions? They don't use the 14th Amendment.

For example, when Michigan passed the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976 they based it on the Michigan State Constitution, such as Article I, section 2:

"No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation."

<That is why you can challenge a state law for violating the EPC or DPC, you don’t need to say it violates a statute.

True, but misleading. You do need a statute that tells you when and how you can file a lawsuit. Those statutes give courts jurisdiction to hear the suit.

For example, a few years ago California was sued over the state's laws banning possession of firearm magazines. While the underlying claims were that the state laws violated the federal constitution, in order to get into Court the plaintiffs had to establish jurisdiction and venue.

Specifically, the plaintiffs cited 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "since this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the State of California and political subdivisions thereof, of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and by Acts of Congress."

The plaintiffs also cited 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) for venue.

This is why Section 5 is so important. It tasks Congress to write the laws for enforcement, and Congress has not given Colorado nor the plaintiffs jurisdiction to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"There is no doubt that Congress may withdraw specified powers from the States by enacting a statute containing an express preemption provision." Arizona v. U.S.

There's no point going too deeply here, but you seem to think only if Congress passes a statute is there any enforcement of the Fourteenth or, alternatively, that if Congress passes any statute enforcing the Fourteenth, that necessarily preempts all other state laws and/or all enforcement by the courts. Go read Arizona v. U.S. as one example of why this is not the case. You may be particularly interested in Justice Scalia's dissent as he didn't think any of portion of the Arizona law at issue was preempted.

[tylertusta]

Yeah, we're not talking about the same thing. Arizona didn't involve an express Constitutional grant of authority to Congress like where the text of Section 5 literally says Congress.

But I guess Congress didn't mean it when they wrote section 5, eh?

Since we're here and since you pointed it out, please point out to me a case where the 14th Amendment was independently enforced through a state law. By that I mean where someone sued in State Court, under that State laws, and said that someone violated the 14th Amendment. And there's nothing else- no finding in a Federal court, no conviction in a federal court, no plea agreement, nothing like that. This State Court has a standalone issue where it's being asked to enforce the 14th Amendment.

Exclude the nonsense Section 3 cases for now, since that's what I'm saying are garbage.

Please find some and come back.

[NOVA Lawyer]

tylertusta,

"Arizona didn’t involve an express Constitutional grant of authority to Congress like where the text of Section 5 literally says Congress."

You cited Arizona v. U.S. It's always fun when someone cites a case, it's pointed out the case actually undermines their point, and then they say, "that case isn't relevant!" It's usually best to try not to be that person.

"But I guess Congress didn’t mean it when they wrote section 5, eh?"

You keep saying that like you think it's clever. You do realize most of this conversation is about what section 5 means and the fact that it doesn't mean what you think it does.

"please point out to me a case where the 14th Amendment was independently enforced through a state law..."

You should first read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion. You'll find cites such as The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1887) (noting that the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing without any ancillary legislation") and City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 524 (1997) (noting that, like the Bill of Rights, the substantive rights protected in the Fourteenth are "self-executing").

And note, there are many, many cases enforcing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments without the benefit of or reliance on any statute passed by Congress because they are and have always been treated as self-executing.

But, please, just read the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. Pages 49-61 address the argument you are trying, but utterly failing, to make. Then engage in the points they made, maybe steal from the dissent and the parties to the case as to why they believe the 14th isn't self-executing.

Continuing to just state that section 5 self-evidently solves the legal question isn't getting you anywhere because it doesn't what you apparently think it does and, moreover, it has never been interpreted the way you seem to think it has to be.

And, well, here's a case where the 14th Amendment was independently enforced through a state law:

Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199 (1869).

You really should read the Colorado Supreme Court opinion. It answers most of your questions (not that you are bound to agree, but you can at least disagree in an educated and rational manner rather than what you've been doing.)

[tylertusta]

NOVA Lawyer,

Thank you very much for your reply. I've been looking for someone who knows about the case to talk with, and I'm very pleased that you've chosen to start replying to me.

Please forgive me if I come across as flippant. I don't mean anything personal by it, but I am passionate about this stuff. I look at this as an opportunity to improve my knowledge and practice against folks who are better educated than I.

You cited Arizona v. U.S. It’s always fun when someone cites a case, it’s pointed out the case actually undermines their point, and then they say, “that case isn’t relevant!” It’s usually best to try not to be that person.

I cited it because there was tension the Federal and the State due to there being no express restriction in the Federal Constitution for Arizona's actions- the tension was statutory, not constutional. If you took that otherwise, my apologies for not being clear.

You keep saying that like you think it’s clever. You do realize most of this conversation is about what section 5 means and the fact that it doesn’t mean what you think it does.

I do think it's clever, yes. However, I dispute your conclusion that Section 5 allows for the construction that Colorado attributed to it. I will continue to make the remark when presented with arguments that words exist in Section 5 that doesn't actually exist.

The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1887)...City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 524 (1997)

Not what I was getting at. Every single one of those cases had a legislature create an avenue for lawsuit to even make it to court from the various Civil Rights Acts, which I consider to be the enabling acts that permits lawsuits under those amendments.

... it has never been interpreted the way you seem to think it has to be. (Emphasis mine)

Except for that one time it was. Come on, you've insinuated that you read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion. You've even pointed to the section where they talk about it, so you should know this.

Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199 (1869).

A good find, one that I hadn't seen yet.

But consider what I've been saying about preemption: That case was in 1869. Congress passed its insurrection statute in 1870.

Even if Section 3 was self-executing (through congressional inaction between 1868 and 1870), that self-execution ended once the Enforcement Act was enacted. The result is that Congress preempted the Courts from considering any disqualification requirement except as a result of a criminal conviction. Once Congress occupies the space initially set aside by the Amendment, the Courts and States must give ground. The 14th Amendment (Section 1) commands for states to follow due process. The process for Section 3 that they have to follow is the one that Congress has the power to make (Section 5), and Congress made it in 1870 and it survives today in amended form.

[NOVA Lawyer]

If you've read the Colorado Supreme Court's discussion of Griffin's Case, then you know the case had procedural and practical wrinkles not present here. Judge Chase was concerned with creating chaos in the rebellious states because many people had been put in office who would be disqualified. He was really deciding whether all of their actions were null and void, not whether they could have been prevented from taking office through a court proceeding challenging their qualifications. Those are two very different things.

While, yes, on its surface Griffin's Case challenges the self-executing interpretation, the holding is that some sort of judicial proceedings are required to adjudicate the disqualification. It does not stand for the proposition that those proceedings cannot be governed by state law. And to the extent it does, there are many cases, as I have pointed out, that adjudicate Fourteenth Amendment issues without reference to or reliance on any "appropriate legislation" from Congress.

If you're going to make the argument, it has to be that Section 3 is somehow different. You've just been making the broad claim that none of the Fourteenth Amendment is enforceable unless Congress acts. That just isn't so and has never been so.

[not guilty]

When the drafters of the Constitution intended to vest power in the Congress or in the federal government otherwise, to the exclusion of any state's exercise of authority, they knew what language to employ. See, for example, Article I, § 10 -- each paragraph thereof begins "No state shall . . ."

[tylertusta]

NOVA Lawyer,

Thank you for replying.

You've asked why Section 3 is different, and I shall explain.

Could there be absurd results from state courts independently assessing whether someone is disqualified to be President under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, using a self-effecting interpretation of Section 3 and Section 5?

I can think of many absurd results, but I'll start with probably the worst I can think of.

Let's say that SCOTUS endorses the Colorado opinion in full: state courts have the independent authority to determine whether someone is disqualified. We know that as a practical matter, red states won’t disqualify Trump, so he’ll be on the ballot in those states.

Here's the problem: what happens if Trump wins the election?

• Does Colorado recognize Trump as President despite Colorado determining him as being disqualified from office?
• Does Colorado recognize laws signed by Trump?
• What happens as more states get onboard the disqualification bandwagon?
• What happens if all of the deep blue states refuse to recognize Trump as President because their state courts determined that Trump is disqualified?

The answers to those questions are not good. If Trump were reelected, Colorado would either have to reverse its determination of disqualification, pretzel itself into pretending it doesn’t matter, or be in conflict with the rest of the states

If the number of states refusing to recognize Trump as President grows, then that's a recipe for disaster.

Are the blue states patriots, or are they rebels against the federal government?

Or does the winner of the resulting civil war get to decide?

I’ve provided a way out of the box canyon: Section 5. Congress decides, not the states. Colorado has no authority to independently disqualify a candidate.

[NOVA Lawyer]

tylertusta,

That's a bit far-fetched, including because this is Republicans trying to keep Trump off the Republican primary ballot, not keep a Republican off of the general election ballot. There are a number of steps between here and there which may never be taken precisely for some of the practical concerns you raise.

In any case, practical concerns such as or in the same vein as those you raise are why the Supreme Court likely won't uphold the decision.

Practical concerns of what sort of spiraling future consequences there might be in today's political environment say nothing about the text of the Constitution, however, and very little about the original intent (whatever you might mean by that phrase). And, so, it's not clear interpreting the Section 3 and 5 in a way that you think provides the best policy outcome is a very conservative, originalist way to do constitutional law.

I'm not really a fan of the Colorado approach, but that's different than saying the Colorado Supreme Court was wrong. If you prefer to discuss what should happen as a practical matter rather than what the law is, we can do that and we'll probably agree on that.

We've mostly been discussing the legal principles and on those the Colorado Supreme Court has the better of it.

1. The record was established through a trial that Trump did engage in insurrection. He had a full and fair opportunity to contest that finding and the other side had the better evidence.

2. The Fourteenth Amendment is routinely enforced without referencing or relying on "appropriate legislation" passed by Congress under Section 5. In other words, congressional action under Section 5 is not required prior to a state or federal claim to vindicate the rights established in the prior sections. That's just black letter. (And the fact that Congress has passed appropriate legislation, e.g. VRA, CRA of 1964, and yet courts still adjudicate non-statutory claims under the Fourteenth Amendment should tell you that, generally, Section 5 does not limit the citizens' rights under the Fourteenth. It, essentially, allows Congress to clarify or expand those rights.)

3. There is nothing in the text that indicates Section 5 modifies Section 3 in a way different than how it operates vis a vis the other sections (which is to say, it empowers Congress to act, but it doesn't provide that the rights are only enforceable to the extent Congress acts). If you want to argue Section 3 is different, then you have to have reasons. I don't think just being worried about the practical consequences of what the text says gets you there, at least under any originalist theory, otherwise conservative freak-outs about the Second Amendment are wholly misguided.

I think those are mostly what we've been discussing and I think the Colorado Supreme Court was right about each of them.

What legal holding (see the bullet points on pages 7-8 of the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion) do you think they got wrong?

I think the second is mostly what we've been discussing, but your argument has included the following:

a. Implementing, congressional legislation is required to enforce any part of the Fourteenth Amendment. (This is just wrong.)

b. Implementing, congressional legislation is required to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. (There is no textual support for treating Section 3 differently than the other sections, your argument has consisted wholly of future practical consequences in the current political environment. But, assuming intent matters, what was the original public understanding, what were their concerns? Another response is that, whatever the consequences, Congress can easily fix it with appropriate legislation specifying how these determinations must be made and, thereby, preempting the field.)

c. The legislation already passed by Congress to enforce the Fourteenth preempts the field. (But it doesn't. There is no reason legislation on other sections would prevent any enforcement of Section 3. The only thing I am aware of Congress has done that arguably involves Section 3 is the definition and penalties for purposes of the federal criminal code the crime of insurrection. It doesn't say and only a conviction for the crime of insurrection will suffice for disqualification. Note, if that was the case, Justice Chase, in Griffin's Case, could have said, I believe, that the judge whose actions were being challenged had never been convicted of insurrection and that's the end of the matter.)

Anyway, this is too long an attempt to clarify, what exactly do you want to discuss?

[tylertusta]

NOVA Lawyer,

Thank you again for replying.

I won’t retrod what we’ve already spoken about, but I will ask you to expand upon a few things before I ask for your insights into the case:

... because this is Republicans trying to keep Trump off the Republican primary ballot, not keep a Republican off of the general election ballot…

I don’t see how this matters, unless there’s something that I’m missing. I say this because it seems to me that since Colorado has determined Trump to already be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it would be a small matter to file a lawsuit to remove him from the general ballot after the Republican convention officially nominates him.

Even if Trump doesn’t put himself on the ballot in Colorado, I could see someone suing to prevent the consideration of write in votes.

Either lawsuit would leapfrog off of the existing Colorado case.

Is there something else here? Why does it matter that it’s a GOP plaintiff suing now versus a Democrat suing later next year?

...There are a number of steps between here and there which may never be taken precisely for some of the practical concerns you raise.

What steps are those? I’ve spelled out probably the worst case scenario, but I’m curious as to why you don’t think it’s possible that we end up there.

You also mentioned that you think that the Supreme Court will deal with the Colorado case as a practical matter. What grounds do you think that the Court will do it?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Why does it matter that it’s a GOP plaintiff suing now versus a Democrat suing later next year?

Because it's possible Trump won't win the Republican nomination, including if other states keep him off the primary ballot.

Because your theory is based on escalating lawfare on this between the parties and, so far, it's only intraparty Republican lawfare.

Both of which make your scenario much less plausible than if this were Democrats trying to keep him off the general election ballot.

What steps are those? I’ve spelled out probably the worst case scenario, but I’m curious as to why you don’t think it’s possible that we end up there.

It's possible. Almost anything is possible. But it's highly unlikely. I've laid out some of the steps, first, Trump has to win the nomination. Second, on the scenario you laid out, he would have to win the general election. Third, and this is by far the most implausible, Colorado would, in some way, have to not recognize Trump as President. It's not entirely clear what that means or how a state would do that. If everyone else recognizes him and he was the winner certified by Congress, that doesn't seem at all likely or in any way practical. They would try to ignore legislation he signed? But the full weight of the American legal and political system would come bearing down on whoever was that dumb because, in fact, the President certified by Congress as the winner is the winner (absent some bizarre scenario I can't even imagine). And the Supreme Court would weigh in if there was any legitimate legal doubt.

So it is highly, highly implausible that we would have a bunch of blue states refusing to recognize a Republican President or a bunch of red states refusing to recognize a Democratic President. There's just no practical or politically viable way to do that, short of the South Carolina actually start shooting method.

You also mentioned that you think that the Supreme Court will deal with the Colorado case as a practical matter. What grounds do you think that the Court will do it?

I'm not sure. I'm with loki and not guilty on this, I think they will issue a decision which makes this a non-issue this election cycle. I agree with them that the SC won't go the "President is not an officer" route and it won't be that the Fourteenth Amendment, generally, cannot be enforced without reference to an act of Congress. I doubt they'll say Section 3 is special, but that's possible. I think it's more likely to be standing, that the issue is non-justiciable and must be decided by Congress, that there wasn't due process because a full jury trial is required, or something else I am not thinking of at the moment.

And, though I think the Colorado Supreme Court is right as a purely legal question (at least with respect to whether Trump is technically disqualified under Section 3), I don't think disqualifying him is best for the country.

Shorter, hard cases make bad law. There is every legal reason why he should be disqualified. There is every political reason why he should be defeated at the ballot box.

[tylertusta]

NOVA Lawyer,

Thank you once again for replying.

and, so far, it’s only intraparty Republican lawfare.

This isn’t correct. Two of the plaintiffs in the Colorado lawsuit are unaffiliated voters, and the lawsuit was filed on their behalf by CREW, a Dem-aligned 501(c)(3) (whose claim to be nonpartisan is just as laughable as the SPLC’s claim to be nonpartisan).

Because your theory is based on escalating lawfare on this between the parties

I feel this is highly likely to happen.

It’s only been a couple of days since COSC’s ruling, we’ve seen multiple statements from Democrats in California and Maine to start their own processes of kicking Trump off of their ballots. Several prominent Republicans in a few states are promising to retaliate against Biden unless the COSC’s ruling is overturned.

It’s incredulous to say that both parties will settle down and play nice right now. Escalation is pretty much inevitable at this point short of a SCOTUS intervention.

...Trump has to win the nomination…he would have to win the general election

Going forward, please assume these have happened for our discussion.

If everyone else recognizes him and he was the winner certified by Congress, that doesn’t seem at all likely or in any way practical.

Sure, if Colorado is the only state that says that Trump is disqualified and everyone else says otherwise, then Colorado is gonna feel real lonely real quick.

But the danger here isn’t just Colorado, but rather the rest of the blue states joining in.

California, Maine, New York, and other Dem-friendly states could start saying Trump is disqualified to run as well like they’re already starting to do.

There’s just no practical or politically viable way to do that

We’re already in a hypothetical where several states have declared the sitting President to be disqualified, one in which it’s highly likely that Democrats are furious that Trump won the election.

Are you absolutely sure that every part of the Federal government will accept Trump as President, especially if the blue states contest the electoral votes? Every Federal judge? Every military officer?

What about the National Guard, who can be called up by the President?

If you are sure blue states won’t find ways, then you have too much faith in our legal and political institutions.

I don’t. I’ve seen what those institutions can do when Trump is in their sights. #notmypresident would take on a whole new and horrifying meaning.

short of the South Carolina actually start shooting method.

Yeah, that’s what I’m worried about.

Anyways, thank you for your thoughts on the case and how it will end up.

[NOVA Lawyer]

tylertusta,

Thanks for engaging. I'll check back to read any response, but this will be my last comment in this thread.

This isn’t correct.

It's the Republican primary, so meh.

It’s incredulous to say that both parties will settle down and play nice right now.

Fair enough.

Escalation is pretty much inevitable at this point short of a SCOTUS intervention.

One problem with your theory is that, surely you admit, there is at least a plausible argument that there was an insurrection on January 6. (I'll leave aside the separate question of whether Trump was "engaged" in it.) But I don't think it is serious to deny that there is a plausible (even if not convincing to you) argument that January 6 was a failed insurrection.

What insurrection was Biden in any way plausibly connected with?

And this is the first major hurdle of your argument. For your theory to work, someone has to pursue and courts all the way to the SC would have to endorse the view that something, I can't even imagine what besides the Civil War and January 6, was an insurrection and, further, that Biden somehow was engaged in it.

Republicans might want to play tit for tat, but they have no tit. Your theory is based on the idea that judges and other officials sworn to uphold their oaths will abandon all principle to go along with what you see as escalation that will destroy the country. I don't believe Republicans could get any federal appeals court to go along even if they could find a state court or a federal district court judge who would. Their lawfare would end the way Grenada's warfare did.

California, Maine, New York, and other Dem-friendly states could start saying Trump is disqualified to run as well like they’re already starting to do.

Saying he's disqualified to get on the ballot (and be president) is one thing, but once Congress certifies the election, it doesn't matter how many states disqualified whichever person wins the presidency. The Supreme Court, if asked (and if states try to ignore his executive orders or legislation he signs or what have you), they will certainly be asked), will say whoever Congress certified as the winner is the winner.

It simply isn't plausible that blue states (which have a lot of red people), or red states, would try to ignore the fact of an election that was certified by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court. Maybe MAGA voters would support that kind of nuttery from Trump, but Biden voters will not. We just won't. I'm not alone in people who would absolutely refuse to support any who rejected a duly elected president for any position ever again. I would march. And I think the bastard is disgusting in nearly every way it is possible for a human to be disgusting.

You simply won't have blue states refuse to recognize a Republican president who received the requisite electoral votes and was certified as the winner by Congress. You can probably speak better to red states, but I really doubt anyone would go that far, particularly on the incredibly flimsy grounds they would have to conjure up to disqualify Biden.

Are you absolutely sure that every part of the Federal government will accept Trump as president, especially if the blue states contest the electoral votes? Every Federal judge? Every military officer?

Yes. Or, if not to a man, those who don't will soon find themselves out of a career.

What about the National Guard, who can be called up by the President?

Yep, them too.

Yeah, that’s what I’m worried about.

That's what the right is always worried about, but it's only the right who ever threatens it. Chill out. No one on the left is starting a civil war over Trump. It's Trump supporters who were violent on January 6, it's Trump constantly using violent language and imagery, it's only Trump supporters in these comments threatening violence and civil war.

But this is of a pattern: The right says don't do this thing that has a plausible basis in the law and in the facts or we'll be forced to abandon all principle to even the score. (See Trump impeachment versus Biden impeachment inquiry.) People on the right need more integrity. And they need to stop blaming Democrats for all the fucked up shit they do or dream of doing.

(And, no, I don't think I've ever heard a Democrat excuse fucked up shit they did by blaming the Republicans for making them do it.

[Michael P]

States cannot add qualifications for federal office. There are a number of other implied limitations on state sovereignty, but that's the most relevant one here.

[Sarcastr0]

14A is what adds this qualification, not the court.

[mse326]

They aren't adding a qualification though. And that also isn't an issue of federalism or whether the 14th A is self executing because the federal government is similarly barred from adding qualifications.

There is a legitimate question as to whether and what form of process needs to be given before ruling someone inelgible under section 3, inlcuding whether a conviction is necessary. But that isn't the same as saying the state is adding a qualification.

[not guilty]

"States cannot add qualifications for federal office."

Perhaps not, but a constitutional amendment can add a disqualification. See, U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 787-88 n.2 (1995); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 520, n.41 (1969).

[not guilty]

"Perhaps you can point to a place in the constitution that isn’t enforceable but for congressional statutes."

To be fair, there are several such provisions, most of which are included in Article I, § 9. Coining and regulating the value of money, naturalization, bankruptcy, establishment of post offices, defining and punishing piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations, providing for armies and a navy. Also, Article I, § 10 states:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

[not guilty]

Oops. Where I typed Article I § 9, that should have been Article I, 8. It is frustrating that the edit feature is not working.

[David Nieporent]

.

I guess when Congress wrote Section 5, they didn’t really mean it, eh?

Of course they meant it, just as they wrote it: Congress has the power to enforce §3. What they didn't mean was something else entirely, that they didn't write: nobody else has the power to enforce § 3.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The petitioners in the Colorado action have not (and could not) sought imposition of any criminal penalties upon Donald Trump."

Insurrection is a crime. One constitutionally mandated penalty for it is disqualification. Ergo, yes, they have sought imposition of a criminal penalty.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Tip: When you don't understand what "criminal penalty" even means, you shouldn't be offering up your commentary on it.

As usual, you are completely wrong.

[Don Nico]

Question for you, ng.
You've covered this topic quite closely and fairly.
The CO GOP has announced that it will cancel the question of Presidential candidate on its primary and instead use the caucus system.
Does that automatically render the CO SC decision moot? Or does it depend on the exact wording of what is voted in the caucus. And if so what should be the response from the CO SC?

[not guilty]

An interesting question, indeed. The cancellation of the Republican primary would not render the proceeding moot at all, let alone automatically, IMO. The burden is on a party asserting mootness to establish that the action is indeed moot.

SCOTUS has opined in City of Erie v. Pap's A. M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000), that:

"'[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.'" County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). The underlying concern is that, when the challenged conduct ceases such that "'there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated,'" United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953), then it becomes impossible for the court to grant "'any effectual relief whatever' to [the] prevailing party," Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)). In that case, any opinion as to the legality of the challenged action would be advisory.

If Trump declines to seek review by writ of certiorari from SCOTUS, the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court will become final. If certiorari is granted, Trump could then suggest mootness and vacatur of the state court judgment, but I think he would fail in that SCOTUS could still grant the petitioners effective relief by affirming the judgment.

If the case were moot, there is an exception to mootness for disputes capable of repetition, yet evading review. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 462 (2007). Even if Trump does not appear on a Republican primary ballot in Colorado, it is foreseeable that the Respondent Secretary of State would nevertheless need judicial guidance in determining whether listing Trump on the general election ballot would be a "wrongful act" under Colorado's election statutes.

[Don Nico]

Thank you for your answer.

[Commenter_XY]

Section 702 FISA Reauthorization...Truly, I hope this is fully dealt with by April. The FISA Court should be abolished. It is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the FBI and NSA to spy on Americans and violate their rights. The examples of their (e.g. gov agencies) abuse of process and the FISA Court are legion; Mr. Horowitz was helpful here.

What percent of warrant applications to any judge sitting on the FISA court is rejected? Take a guess. It is a really depressingly small percentage. There is just a prosecutor, and a judge. No defense attorney, and no defendant. Just a summary decision. The FISA court is a 'Star Chamber' with a polite veneer.

What went wrong here?

[Randal]

Yeah, we Democrats have been saying that for 22 years now.

[Commenter_XY]

So....what went wrong here?

[Randal]

This is what happens when you legislate as a crisis response.

[Commenter_XY]

The Patriot Act? [my comment: that is very ironically named, considering the effects of that legislation]

[tylertusta]

They may have hated it before, but they learned to love it when they could use FISA against Trump. Too many on the left now love FISA, the FBI, secret courts, specious theories of criminal conduct to spin off unconstitutional investigations, and unlawful statements from the government in order to secure warrants.

[Randal]

No we don't. If House Republicans didn't have their heads up their butts, they could've gotten a lot of bipartisan reforms done. But they don't care about actually fixing stuff, especially if Dems want it too.

[tylertusta]

You're probably thinking of section 702, reforms of which are being debated in Congress between Republicans and Democrats.

Section 702 is just one small part of FISA. Section 702 is about a database of incidental data of US citizens gathered as part of surveillance on foreigners. This database has been abused by the FBI and other organizations in the past.

Notice how I didn't bring up this database in my comment.

I referred to FISA as a whole, not specifically section 702. Section 702 isn't about secret courts, incredulous theories of criminal conduct using unconstitutional statutes, or FBI officials straight up lying to get warrants.

There's no reform effort by Democrats to overhaul FISA. Yes, they're concerned about the database, but they're perfectly fine keeping everything else in place.

They changed their minds when they found out it could be used against their political enemies and to their advantage.

Democrats are perfectly fine with what happened to Trump under FISA and won't do more than tinker with it.

[Commenter_XY]

So....what went wrong here? Specifically, FISA.

(O/P: I was talking about both = 702, FISA...but failed to hit enter after my first sentence to make clear FISA was a separate thought from 702 - my bad)

[apedad]

"You’re probably thinking of section 702, reforms of which are being debated in Congress between Republicans and Democrats."

Think again Mujumbo.

The big fight in the House is between the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee and GOP-led Intelligence Committee.

"The House Judiciary bill would require the intelligence community to get a warrant to review any information they’ve already obtained on Americans. But the Intelligence bill focuses more on FBI reforms, arguing a warrant requirement would blind law enforcement to information it has lawfully collected and may need to act on in real time."

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4362684-gops-fight-over-surveillance-will-stretch-into-new-year/

[Randal]

Not just 702. I think Dems would be happy to gut FISA back to something more akin to its pre-Patriot Act form. The FBI should have no interest in FISA whatsoever.

[Sarcastr0]

A great way to tell you never talk to anyone on the left is saying they love the FBI.

You throw around unconstitutional and unlawful with no factual predicate.

You may have a legal background but are so partisan you ignore it, or you're just Man on the Internet with Opinions. Either way, do better.

[tylertusta]

Try again, buddy:

Why Democrats And Republicans Did A Sudden 180 On The FBI

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-democrats-and-republicans-did-a-sudden-180-on-the-fbi/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/402464/government-agency-ratings-cia-fbi-federal-reserve-down.aspx

I don't know what Democrats you hang around, but the polling doesn't lie.

[Sarcastr0]

You link some incredible indictments of the GOP. The Dems opinion seems to be trending up since 2003. The GOP turned on the FBI only when Trump was in office.

So it really looks more like Dems have opinions, GOP falls in line.

Also, it remains quite clear you have never talked to anyone on the left (not quite Dems). They do not like law enforcement, haven't for a long time.

The GOP's recent special pleading is another sign of their lack of a moral core. Will to power, own the libs. That's hardly a political platform, but that's where you are.

[Nige]

I mean it's fun to see someone hoist on their own petard and fascist friends falling out, but no, not 'love.'

[tylertusta]

Eh, I'm exaggerating for emphasis, but Democrats definitely like the FBI a lot more, and they like the FBI only because of Trump.

Gallup has been tracking agency approval ratings, and Democrats have a whopping 79% approval for the FBI, which is the highest among every government agency that Gallup polled.

That's higher than the CDC (65%), the EPA (54%), NASA (63%) and even the post office(68%)!

Source:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/402464/government-agency-ratings-cia-fbi-federal-reserve-down.aspx

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-democrats-and-republicans-did-a-sudden-180-on-the-fbi/

[Sarcastr0]

Look a the trends.
Both parties change their opinions over time, and both are influenced by who is in office.

Only one party turns on a dime and rockets negative when they are told to.

[tylertusta]

If this was part of the 'out-government' trend then we would have seen the FBI receive more approval from Republicans during the Trump years, not less. That didn't happen.

I will admit that it's possible for things to change after Biden leaves as only I can guess to the future.

But I doubt it will change that much. The paradigm has truly shifted when it comes to the FBI and how it's viewed from both parties.

[Nige]

My approval of the FBI is somewhat higher than usual inasmuch as the Republicans want to destroy it and replace it with something which will protect them while opressing everyone else, which would be way way worse than the current FBI. But it doesn't mean I approve of the FBI.

[Randal]

This, Tyler, is what I think you're seeing in the polls. Dems feel like they've gotta defend the FBI against Republican corruption. It's not really that we like the FBI. In fact, a less powerful FBI would be a good way to protect it from Republican corruption. You'd see support for that among Democrats.

I'm sure there are some Democrats who think we need the FBI if only to keep MAGA extremists in check. Not sure the relative size of those two groups.

[David Nieporent]

Criticizing Section 702 is fine, but these are nonsensical complaints:

What percent of warrant applications to any judge sitting on the FISA court is rejected? Take a guess. It is a really depressingly small percentage. There is just a prosecutor, and a judge. No defense attorney, and no defendant. Just a summary decision. The FISA court is a ‘Star Chamber’ with a polite veneer.

This is true of all warrants; there's nothing special about FISA warrants in that regard. Also, the Star Chamber had the power to punish, and the FISA court does not.

[Kazinski]

Former Illinois Speaker is requesting a delay in his trial until fall of 2024 to allow the Supreme Court to hear a related case:

"Madigan is currently scheduled to stand trial on April 1 on allegations that he participated in, and benefited from, a variety of corruption schemes. Among the charges he’s facing are counts of racketeering conspiracy, using interstate facilities in aid of bribery, wire fraud and attempted extortion.

He’s set to be tried alongside McClain, who is charged with racketeering conspiracy and individual counts of using interstate facilities in aid of bribery and wire fraud.

The court is expected to issue a ruling in the Snyder case by June 2024, and Madigan’s defense team recommended pushing the trial date back until next fall."
https://news.wttw.com/2023/12/19/michael-madigan-seeking-delay-racketeering-trial-supreme-court-hears-case-federal-bribery

Should Madigan be able to delay his case until next fall, while the Supreme Court hears a related case which could affect his trial?

[not guilty]

I don't know about continuing the matter until fall, but continuing until summer could serve judicial economy. The case now pending before SCOTUS could have a significant impact on how both parties present evidence at trial, as well as what jury instructions and argument of counsel will be appropriate, with an eye toward avoiding a wrongful conviction, reversal and potential retrial.

[Armchair]

A recent report has revealed that Conservative parents are simply much better at parenting than liberal parents. From the non-partisan study.

"As it happens, being raised by liberal parents is a much larger risk factor for mental health problems in adolescence than being raised in a low-income household with parents who did not attend college. Children of conservative parents score significantly better on mental health using either a comprehensive measure of mental health based on several items, or just asking either parent or adolescents to summarize their mental health on a 1-5 scale. The gap is large"

https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/briefs/ifs-gallup-parentingteenmentalhealthnov2023.pdf

[Randal]

This isn't remotely surprising. Liberals tend to have way higher expectations for their kids than conservatives do (especially "a low-income household with parents who did not attend college.") It's not easy bring a budding elite.

But I bet if you look at these same kids in their mid 20s, it's flipped. That's when the conservative kids start to realize they're losers and get sucked into 8chan.

[Defenderz]

Yeah, the low IQ blacks and Hispanics who vote 90% Democrat have really high expectations for their kids!

Moron.

[Guten]

Randal, google your second statement about liberals and conservatives in their 20's. Does it hold true?

[VinniUSMC]

It's unlikely that any of what Randal wrote is remotely true.

At any level of education and income, I'd wager children of leftists, and leftists generally, are always the least happy and most mentally ... challenged.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The study didn't "reveal" any such thing.

Among other issues, the study is based on the children's self-report of their mental health.

At least as important, correlation of the findings is not causation, meaning, even assuming children of conservative parents had better mental health outcomes, that does not mean conservatives were better parents. Just as an example (not suggesting any of these are actual correlations), if conservatives tended to live in safe neighborhoods and tended to be in more economically and socially stable environments such that they tended to have longer lasting marriages, then that would show up in better childhood outcomes but would have nothing to do with the correlated but causally unrelated fact of conservative parents.

But, again, the study doesn't reveal what you say it does. It shows correlations to self-reported items which is not the same as actually comparing the mental health or, even more remotely, establishing anything vis a vis parenting ability or success.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't consider that conservatives might live in safer neighborhoods, and have stabler livelihoods, not by sheer coincidence, but instead because they place a priority on that?

[bernard11]

Just as an example (not suggesting any of these are actual correlations)...

[NOVA Lawyer]

Right?

(And, Brett, if that were shown, I would consider it. But I would also consider whether various other historical and cultural factors were the actual cause of people being able to live in safe neighborhoods and have stable livelihoods and that they may tend to be more conservative because of those historical, etc., factors.

Given that you, Brett, have apparently bought into the idea that conservatives do tend to live in safer neighborhoods and have more stable livelihoods, have you considered the possibility that those facts (safety and stability) may tend to result in conservative beliefs rather than the converse. In answering this question, you may consider the fact that conservative beliefs (at least in the classical Burkean sense) tend to favor maintaining the status quo.)

[Armchair]

So, you're saying stable, 2-parent households, which end up in more successful parenting, ALSO happen to be more conservative in their beliefs?

And instable, single-parent households, which tend to be worse for children, also tend to be more "liberal"?

Just clarifying here.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"So, you’re saying stable, 2-parent households, which end up in more successful parenting, ALSO happen to be more conservative in their beliefs?"

No, you numb nut.

"Just as an example (not suggesting any of these are actual correlations)…"

It's an example that fits with your (and Brett's) priors, so you won't fight the hypothetical before getting to the point: you don't know, certainly not from this "study", which way any causal arrow points. And, of course, there might be other factors that would cause the correlation such that neither of the identified (hypothetical) factors is the cause of the other.

But you're going to do you. Which is glom on to a suspect study as if it confirms everything you wanted to believe about the world according to your political ideology. Be better.

[David Nieporent]

.

You don’t consider that conservatives might live in safer neighborhoods, and have stabler livelihoods, not by sheer coincidence, but instead because they place a priority on that?

There are many just-so stories that can explain these findings, some of which make liberals look good, some of which make conservatives look good, and all of which are masturbatory attempts by each side to make themselves look good. But I am pretty sure "Liberals don't place a high value on safe neighborhoods for their kids" would not be one of the explanations.

[NOVA Lawyer]

For real.

[Nige]

Or there's less stigma around mental health amongst liberal households.

[NOVA Lawyer]

+1 (which is why reliance on self-reporting is likely inherently biased towards children of conservative parents "having" fewer mental health issues).

[David Nieporent]

Or liberals teach their kids to be snowflakes who need to be hypervigilant about things that might be upsetting, and that anything they're exposed to can be triggering and traumatizing and require therapy, while conservatives teach their kids to be resilient and not to let things bother them.

Like I said: in the absence of evidence, people can masturbatorily spin it how they want.

[Nige]

Or your first paragraph is an example of the toxic attitude conservatives (saving yourself sir) have towards mental health.

[Armchair]

I see....

So, just so I'm absolutely sure here. Your primary objection is that the data on mental health status is self-reported? (Imagine that...someone self-reporting items in a survey)....

Just so I can bookmark it for later.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's one thing to self-report objective facts. Or your intentions. People lie about both of those things, so self-reporting isn't great. However, self-reporting one's mental health is inherently unreliable because you're basically asking people who may not be mentally healthy to diagnose themselves. And this is particularly problematic given there is no objective criteria. How much you make is based on an objective scale. How happy you are is not and can be heavily influenced by when the you were asked, cultural factors regarding whether it is okay to say you are sad, etc.

So bookmark away and abuse this information the way you're abusing the "study." (A survey is not a study.)

[Armchair]

I mean...that's why they ask lots of people. This is how social science works. You understand that people may lie, or be uncertain, but the errors average out given a large enough population.

When developing clinical trials for antidepressants or pain medications, you ask the patients how they feel, and if they feel better or worse. It's self reported, because that's the only way to do it. And yes, there's a large placebo effect that can occur, but given a large enough sample size, it averages out.

Just throwing away a study because you don't like that people "self report" is amazingly biased of you, and basically eliminates all social science or research involving pain, depression, anxiety, and other mental health diseases in humans.

You act like an expert, but you're just utterly wrong here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

A recent report has revealed that Conservative parents are simply much better at parenting than liberal parents.

Conservatives have demonstrated vividly and repeatedly, however, that they are too fucking stupid to navigate standard English, especially capitalization.

Carry on, half-educated, bigoted, worthless clingers . . . so far as better Americans permit you to do anything, of course. Your continuing compliance with the preferences of your betters is appreciated.

[Armchair]

Enjoy your liberal, mentally unbalanced households....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Enjoy your liberal, mentally unbalanced households….

My household has little in common with a conservative household.

Everyone (over the age of 6) graduated from high school.

Everyone (over the age of 6) has at least one undergraduate degree.

Everyone (over the age of 6) has at least one advanced degree.

Everyone (over the age of 3, under 25) attends a strong public school.

Everyone (over the age of 6) has at least one job and/or owns a business.

Everyone (over the age of 25) owns a home.

No superstition. No backwater religious schooling. No one who believes fairy tales or true, that religion improves bigotry, or that religion somehow transforms bigotry into anything other than bigotry. No faith-healing fans.

No un-American insurrectionists. No racists, gay-bashing losers, misogynists, Islamophobes, antisemites. No selfish, immigrant-hating pricks. No registered Republicans. No Chick-fil-A fans.

Everyone (over the age of 3) has attended at least one Rolling Stones concert and has a ticket for at least one more in 2024. No 'rasslin fans, car race fans, country music fans.

No one resides in a rural area. Everyone resides within a 20-minute drive of a level 1 trauma center.

No unplanned pregnancies. No addiction. No tobacco.

That's what you get when you base your life on reason, modernity, inclusiveness, education, progress, and science (rather than superstition, backwardness, bigotry, ignorance, insularity, and dogma).

Carry on, clingers.

[Life of Brian]

It's like a Martin Gardner puzzle! Minimum solution:

- A 3-year-old
- A 6-year-old in public school who has been forced to go to at least one Rolling Stones concert by....
- A 25-year-old who has at least one undergraduate degree and at least one advanced degree and has a job and/or owns a business, but doesn't own a home
- You

What do I win?

[Defenderz]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/politics/rudy-giuliani-assets-georgia-election-workers/index.html

No appeals, just "start paying." I guess these beasts need fake nails.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He can appeal, although his position seems weak.

The judge seems to have concluded Giuliani couldn't be trusted to refrain from attempting to engage in fraudulent conveyances, which seems a not only reasonable but indeed obvious judgment.

[David Nieporent]

Of course he can appeal. But — as with any judgment — unless one posts an appeal bond the creditors can start collection efforts w/o waiting for the outcome of an appeal.

[Defenderz]

Cut the shit. When George Zimmerman sued NBC for doctoring the tape, and when Nicholas Sandmann sued the media, the piece of shit leftist judges found ways to dismiss it. But when Fox calls out Dominion's bullshit, or when Giuliani exaggerates about the role these two fat joggers had in counting ballots, the courts award hundreds of millions in damages.

Like these two fat simians had reputations worth $150 million in the first place.

[David Nieporent]

Troll better.

[not guilty]

Team Trump has filed its opposition in response to the government's petition for writ of certiorari before judgment regarding the prosecution of Donald Trump in the District of Columbia. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24234096/trump-scotus-response.pdf

If Trump's lawyers were confident in their claims that Trump should not stand trial at all, why would they not want those claims resolved as soon as possible?

[tylertusta]

... why would they not want those claims resolved as soon as possible?

This one is easy. Trump's team explained why an expedited consideration isn't necessary:

By rushing to a conclusion, the Court could get it wrong.

[Krayt]

Both sides are power manipulator congenital liars. Some want it fast, so if the keep-him-off-the-ballot initiative fails, they can make maximal hay during the primary process. When initiative 37 fails, move on to 38, is the plan of congenital liars, claiming these are all independent, valid issues of disinterested concern, and not attempts to git a political enemy using the power of government.

The other side wants to delay for that same, but opposite reason.

Keep in mind, the former is buttresses by meme creation about how The People need timely prosecutions to feel justice in the law.

Except death penalty. Then timely prosecution and resolution to demonstrate effectiveness of the lawsssssOh lord, please send a giant asteroid to smear the Earth and destroy worthless life. Make it large enough to turn the crust to lava, even the deepest river caves and volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, which don't even need the sun to survive. Just to be sure.

[not guilty]

There is a strong public interest in prompt resolution of the pending D.C. indictment. An eminent authority on presidential criminality named Richard Nixon declared on November 17, 1973, "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M

Republicans who meet in convention during July of 2024 and the electorate who will vote in November 2024 deserve to know whether Donald Trump stands before them having been convicted of and sentenced for multiple felonies or having been acquitted of some or all charges.

If I were a Republican National Convention delegate, I would be keenly interested to know whether Trump will be locked up pending appeal before deciding whether to nominate him or another candidate.

[tylertusta]

I see you're also pulling from the esteemed legal theories of Otto Yourazzz.

[not guilty]

The Special Counsel has now filed a reply to Donald Trump's response in opposition to petition for writ of certiorari before judgment. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293970/20231221105032440_United%20States%20v.%20Trump_CBJ%20Reply.pdf

[tylertusta]

The cavalier attitude of those who think the Colorado ruling was correct is amusing to me, especially when they pooh-pooh the idea that it will be used against current Democratic officials starting with Joe Biden.

What goes around, comes around.

[Commenter_XY]

The best test (to me) is: The shoe is on the other foot, now how does it feel? I don't see much of that thinking in DC. You're right about cavalier.

In a race to the bottom, which is what is happening in America today, the likeliest outcome is yours: tit for tat.

[tylertusta]

Indeed.

I don't say that I relish the end result- that end result should scare many Americans. But for many, their hatred for Trump (and by extension Republicans) is so strong that they can't think straight.

This is absolutely going to be used against other politicians. Offhand I can think of a half-dozen Democrats that are at a similar legal risk under the ridiculous standard set by Colorado.

Well, I hope some of them read this. They'll be mad, of course, and will write long screeds as to why I'm wrong: why Trump is such a unique threat, why this won't be used against anyone else, why the case against Trump is so rock solid, and so on.

But in a few years after the ramifications sets in, when they are older and wiser, and perhaps have reflected upon the past, they might think back to my post and think "Well, he did try to warn us."

[Nige]

Yes, we know you're threatening and trying to intimidate everyone to protect your crooked disloyal leader. Y'know what? I think people like you will do what you want anyway. You don't need provocation, you just tend to lack imagination, and you certainly have no regard for the truth or for evidence.

[tylertusta]

It's a warning, not a threat.

This is a warning too: ignoring me and others like me is a dumb move, and we'll all live to regret it.

[Nige]

Oh no it's absolutely a threat. 'Ignore my threat at your peril.' We've heard what Trump's promisng, haven't we? The man who tried to overturn an election with fraud, conspiracy and violence will definitely do evil authoritarian things if he isn't held accountable. More, even, since he is shown to be above the law. Trying to hold him accountable enrages him and his supporters, but they've been threatening retaliations up to and including civil war for a while now.

[tylertusta]

Man, it must suck to be you being all paranoid all of the time since you can't distinguish threats from warnings.

Anyways, I can't help but think of the last time that Democrats were warned to not do something really, really stupid that they ended up doing.

That time was when the Dems nuked the filibuster in 2013. Republicans warned Democrats that they would get even if the Dems proceeded, but Dems did it anyways.

And what happened? 2016 happened. Not only did the GOP stiff-arm Obama's nominee, but when Trump won, the GOP steamrolled Dems and confirmed three Republicans to the bench.

Democrats were warned to not cross the line in 2013, and they paid for it by watching Roe go *poof*.

Now here I am talking about how the Colorado case is a bad idea, and that Democrats will regret it- and then Republicans will, too. I've even explained what will likely happen, and yet all you have is more pounding the table about "accountability!"

Well, I tried to warn you.

[Nige]

Republican bad behaviour is excusable no matter how bad. Democrats - or the legal system's - efforts to counter bad behaviour or hold them accountable are shocking and provocative and look what you made them do.

[Nige]

Maybe someone should have told Trump not to ignore certain things at his peril, like, y'know, laws.

[Nelson]

What kind of person says, "Look at the violent things you make me do!"?

Domestic abusers. And you want to bring that behavior to the general public? No, that doesn't sound psychotic at all.

[Josh R]

What other politicians would be subject to disqualification under the CSC's interpretation of 14.3 (other than those involved with J6)?

[not guilty]

Whenever I read the phrase "tit for tat," I think of Dennis Miller's questions: What is tat? Where can I get it? And how can I exchange it for the other?

[Nelson]

Dennis Miller makes me so sad. He was absolutely hilarious, then he lost his mind and his sense of humor. I remember reading "The Rants" and laughing out loud ... literally.

[Nige]

'I don’t see much of that thinking in DC'

We certainly didn't see it during any of Trump's election shenanigans. Funny that.

[Josh R]

As I said in another thread, with the same exact set of facts but just switch Trump and Biden, it is an easy call for me to conclude Biden should not be president.

[bernard11]

Tell me on what basis this can be used against Biden.

Try to overcome your Trump cultish thinking before answering.

[wreckinball]

No they feel it will be only one way. As it is in Russia and China. It's now "The Party"

[Sarcastr0]

Trump did some standout bad stuff as President when it came to the functions of our democracy.

Biden is not.

If you're so mad at the left you are going to advocate for tearing down our Republic out of revenge for your delusions, that's on you.

[Michael P]

If you have to remove someone from the ballot to win, you are who you say they are.

[Sarcastr0]

If you are supporting someone who tried to overthrow our republic, that's your own fault.

[wreckinball]

He didn't. The vote on J6 was to certify the election. It's aye or nay. Protesting to support a may vote is not overthrowing the republic.

Idiot!!

[ThePublius]

+1

[Sarcastr0]

Facts mean things. Trump lost the election. He was going to use violence to make it so he won, using the certification process to try and legitimize his usurpation.

It wasn't a protest. Protests don't look like that.

It says a lot of not good things about you that you're willing to defend this shit. Your side, Republic bedamned. Fuck you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Protests don’t look like that. "

2020 was not so long ago. You can't gaslight this.

[Sarcastr0]

Riots are not protests. You lot seem to have trouble with this, especially when blacks are doing the protesting.

[Don Nico]

Excusing the inexcusable again. That is the partisan in you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"especially when blacks"

The Race Card, never far from use.

[Nige]

Oh you think nobody noticed how all the brave opponents of excessive state power sided with state power when the protests were by and about black people?

[Bob from Ohio]

"protests were by and about black people"

Most of the Portland rioters, for instance, were white.

[Nige]

Like I said, also 'about.'

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Not gaslighting. Not even close.

[Michael P]

Ultra strong "your speech is violence, our violence is speech" energy there.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, so you believe:

Jan 06 - no violence, all protest.
Summer 2020 - no protest, all violence.

Here's the thing - everyone agrees there were folks in DC to protest on Jan 06 who just protested. No one cares about them.
MAGA, though, will not forget anyone who was near a protest in 2020, they are all violent criminals.

It's authoritarian and racist at the same time. Congrats Bob and Michael!

[Michael P]

That's even stronger projection. You can only think in straw men.

[Sarcastr0]

So because you're pretty thick, I pointed out a specific distinguishing note:

No one left or right is talking about folks who were in DC Jan 06 to protest only.

The left also manages to do this for the summer 2020 protests. By contrast, the right suddenly can't tell the protesters from the rioters.

Plus, who on this blog talks about political violence all the time? It's not the liberals around here, chief.

[Don Nico]

"Protests don’t look like that. "
Where in the world have you been?

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, if you are going to advance the argument that an insurrection happened, the first problem you have is no one has been charged with insurrection that I am aware of. Overthrow? What overthrow? You need adjudication of that in a court of law, with due process. That did not happen and that is the fundamental flaw, to me, in the CO-SC decision (assuming SCOTUS addresses any of the arguments).

J6 was a political protest that got totally out of hand and became a riot. A national embarrassment. Several hundred rioters are being punished for their acts, appropriately so.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You do realize that in Colorado, there in fact WAS a hearing before a judge, with testimony and everything. That qualifies as a court of law, and due process. Since that in fact did happen, that is the fundamental flaw, to me, of your comment.

[ThePublius]

Biden certainly has done some bad stuff! I argue more so than Trump did as president.

JRB ignores the border.
JRB ignores the courts: one example is the student loan "forgiveness."

Not to mention the mountains of evidence showing that he ran an influence peddling operation for years, and still does....

[Sarcastr0]

You being mad at politics isn't really a unique thing; you've blown through that take long ago.

[ThePublius]

I confess I don't understand your comment. How am I "mad at politics" simply for countering something you said?

As usual, if you can't argue with facts, attack your opponent.

[Sarcastr0]

You're mad all the time.

Your issues with Biden are 'I'm mad at his policies.'

That's not a proper issue; such 'patriotic' outrage is your baseline.

If it were up to you we'd be in some Trotskyite permanent revolution.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like I've said before, projection it's a thing.

[Sarcastr0]

You think I'm mad all the time?

I wouldn't post here if it made me miserable.

You also don't seem mad, just an asshole.

ThePublius, though, he's a very angry dude.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Mad" as in angry or crazy?
In your case I think it's equal parts of both.

[ThePublius]

That's just not true, you're attempting to delegitimize me and my comments by making up stuff. How can you possibly know my state of mind? You cannot. Your approach is straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, and transparently so.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"JRB ignores the border."

At least he doesn't advocate shooting women and children desperate for a better life. At least he doesn't have a policy of intentionally separating children from their parents in order to make undocumented immigration as harmful as possible to the children in an attempt to dissuade parents. (Remember, even people on his own side castigated him for that and he had to end the child separation policy)

"JRB ignores the courts: one example is the student loan “forgiveness.”

How did he ignore the courts? He adopted a plan that was struck down by the Supreme Court and so his administration no longer tried to execute that plan. They came up with various other more modest proposals under different laws. You might not like the policy and you might think the new plans have similar defects, but they are under different laws and, so, were not affected by the Supreme Court. In fact, they were crafted in an attempt to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. Whatever you think of the effort, it is the opposite of ignoring the courts.

Now do Trump and the Voting Rights Act, Trump and DACA, etc., etc.

"Not to mention the mountains of evidence showing that he ran an influence peddling operation for years, and still does…."

Yes, let's not mention those things that don't exist. But we can talk about Jared Kushner's (renowned for not being an expert in wealth management) $2 billion money management deal with MBS after he almost single handedly rehabilitated MBS's relationship with the U.S.. Or Trump's millions from foreigners and U.S. politicians trying to curry favor with Trump by staying at his properties. Ivanka's Chinese trademarks that sailed through a usually byzantine process. Etc.

Is it gross how people like Hunter Biden and Jared Kushner profit off of having close family ties to power politicians? Absolutely. But only one of those two was a government official.....

I'm all for strengthening laws against corruption and the sort of influence peddling we see if there is a way to do it. But, despite lots of trying, the Republicans in Congress have come up empty handed but for a lot of innuendo and their own farts they try to pass off as smoke.

[SimonP]

As usual, the response to this stupid threat of lawlessness as a response to lawfulness is just to say: let both sides be judged by the same standard.

Trump and the Republican party had every opportunity to try to prove, in Colorado, that he had not engaged in an "insurrection," and to make the argument that he is not constitutionally barred from running for the presidency again. He failed to convince the district court judge, and he failed to convince the Colorado Supreme Court. So now he is taking it up with the U.S. Supreme Court, who will examine the issue and hopefully articulate a standard that would apply to any similar challenge in the future.

It is no great threat to say, "What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?!" because all that means here is some Democratic voters taking it upon themselves to try to disqualify a Democratic candidate running for office. They will have to make the same case that the Colorado Republican primary voters did, and they may or may not succeed. But no one who respects what the Colorado Supreme Court has concluded would claim that the standard should not apply to "their" own candidates.

The truth of this asinine threat of yours is that you don't expect "fair play" from Republicans to run the other way. You don't anticipate a challenge, by Democratic primary voters, to remove a putatively disqualified candidate from their own ballots. You anticipate - and want - a Republican secretary of state to deny Democratic voters within their own state the opportunity to vote for a candidate that the Republican secretary of state hopes too defeat.

For you, the question is not whether the law might apply equally to all; for you, the threat is this: if this is the new legal rule, then Republicans should return fire by arbitrarily imposing their own standard. I suppose they can try, and one hopes that they will fail, if they cannot make the same case that was made in Colorado.

I am so sick of you fucking fascists. The rule of law is an utterly foreign concept to you. All you care about is the imposition of your will through force. You're all traitors.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Trump and the Republican party had every opportunity to try to prove, in Colorado, that he had not engaged in an “insurrection,” and to make the argument that he is not constitutionally barred from running for the presidency again."

Except, of course, that they were not allowed that opportunity. The judges in question treated the matter of Trump's guilt as having been settled by the Democrats' January 6th committee report.

Let me note the hilarity of the lower court judge treating the LACK of a minority report as proof of full minority participation...

[bernard11]

Again, Brett.

The minority refused to participate, unless they were allowed to completely disrupt the proceedings.

What that means is that they had no rational defense of Trump, just lies and bullshit.

[Don Nico]

"The minority refused to participate"
No, they were refused their choice of members. Whether they members were chosen for the purpose of disruption, I don't know. I was not in the caucus meeting.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, it's not really even true that the Rs were refused choice of members. They got two of their choices vetoed, on already-existing reasonable evidence that those two might have implicated themselves in events under investigation. Instead of availing themselves of an offer to replace those two with two un-conflicted alternatives, R leaders boycotted, apparently with an eye to creating the very talking point they now trumpet in response to all the evidence they can't refute, and refuse to discuss.

In all these discussions, it remains important to remember that the case against Trump made by the January 6 Committee was built almost exclusively on testimony of Republican witnesses and participants. It was not a partisan attack constructed mostly by testimony from Democrats.

[Don Nico]

SL,
You're twisting history, and you know it.

I despise the Orange Clown, but the CO court could have done better than they did.

[SimonP]

Except, of course, that they were not allowed that opportunity. The judges in question treated the matter of Trump’s guilt as having been settled by the Democrats’ January 6th committee report.

The onus was on Trump to explain why an official government report's factual findings were inadmissible as evidence against him. He failed to carry that burden. What more do you expect the judicial system to do? Take his say-so as law?

[tylertusta]

The truth of this asinine threat of yours...

It wasn't a threat. It was a warning.

Anyways, if this is allowed to stand, Republicans will be madder than hell, and this will go down one of two ways:

1. The GOP will through an amendment that overturns the CO/SCOTUS decision. I imagine that the amendment would probably install Trump immediately upon enactment, for good measure, but it'll be a sustained multi-year effort.

2. Use the new tool created by Colorado and CREW in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Combine it with Colorado's laughable "process" against Democrats elsewhere across the country, then sit back and collect scalps from the disqualified Democrats.

Can you guess which one Republicans are more likely to choose?

Republicans will pick number two: the one with instant gratification and maximum squealing from Democrats.

[Nige]

'Republicans will be madder than hell'

What'll they do, riot and storm a government building to install Trump as president? Again?

'then sit back and collect scalps from the disqualified Democrats.'

See? Threats. None of you defenders of democracy gave the tiniest shit about the people who voted for Biden potentially having their votes ignored by the clearly stated wishes and recorded actions of Trump and his supporters.

[tylertusta]

For anyone reading this, the above comment's irony isn't lost on me, too.

[Nige]

That's a no, you didn't and don't give the tiniest shit. None of you said, oh dear, Republicans and Trump, there might be consequences for this!

[SimonP]

So, yeah, you're just threatening that Republicans will respond with lawlessness, like I said.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here's a warning.

If right-wing rubes, superstitious bigots, and un-American Republicans don't improve their behavior soon, the culture war's winners may stop being so magnanimous toward that culture war's deplorable losers.

[David Nieporent]

It's amazing how many MAGA people rush to tell on themselves. "You shouldn't do this because we promise to illegally retaliate if you do."

[Commenter_XY]

A Question of Judicial Restraint, or Judicial Modesty

VC Conspirators, in a recent exchange, not guilty and loki13 briefly discussed the notion the judicial restraint, or judicial modesty. I believe the context was the CO-SC decision where the Court left the door wide open for a stay that could be extended for a long time.

I think I understand the sense of judicial modesty meant there - the CO-SC is deliberately making it easy to slow down the process so that the legal questions they asked (and answered) in their decision can be examined in a deliberative fashion (by SCOTUS?). It sort of makes sense to me.

Now I have to ask: What is judicial modesty and restraint? What do they teach in law school?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This is *not* judicial modesty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_Justice#/media/File:Sculpture_Spirit_of_Justice_Great_Hall,_2nd_floor,_Department_of_Justice,_Washington,_D.C_LCCN2010720236.jpg

[Commenter_XY]

Oh my...No it is not. I agree. LOL. 🙂

[ThePublius]

Seen on X:
"If you have to remove someone from the ballot to win, you are who you say they are."

I guess the irony escapes the left and the media. To save Democracy from Donald Trump, we must remove him from the ballots so people can't vote for him.

Who's the fascist? Who's the threat to Democracy?

We are not becoming a banana republic, we have arrived!

[SimonP]

We are not becoming a banana republic, we have arrived!

Well, I dunno, the fact that so many of the other Republican candidates quickly lined up to argue that Trump should be given every opportunity to beat every one of them in Colorado suggests to me that they're the sort of "fake opposition" an autocrat might set up to make elections seem like a genuine contest.

[Sarcastr0]

Why are you still living in the US, ThePublius? Banana Republics seem no place for a patriotic lad like yourself.

[Nige]

'Who’s the fascist? Who’s the threat to Democracy?'

Trump. He tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and have himself installed as president and has promised, if he wins again, to use the power of the government against all his enemies. Where was your concern for democracy whan all that was, and is, happening?

[Nelson]

"To save Democracy from Donald Trump, we must remove him from the ballots so people can’t vote for him."

Well, that's not why he was removed from the ballot. But you know that.

Trump is in legal trouble because he did illegal things. He (and his apologists) are just pissed because he's being held to account.

The rule of law sucks when you think the rules shouldn't apply to yiu, like Trump does. For a free society, the rule of law is awesome.

"Who’s the fascist?"

Colloquially? Trump. But not literally. Neither, for that matter, is anyone else running for President.

"Who’s the threat to Democracy?"

Trump. Literally. He tried to stay in power when he lost a free and fair election that has been repeatedly and definitively proved to have been free and fair. A President who doesn't leave office when he loses an election is the definition of a threat to democracy.

[ThePublius]

"A President who doesn’t leave office when he loses an election is the definition of a threat to democracy."

So, Trump isn't a threat to democracy because he did leave office, right?

[Absaroka]

I'm not sure 'threat to democracy' is a binary thing.

Nixon had his henchmen break in to the offices of the opposition party (or maybe just covered it up, but 'the buck stops here'). That's not a coup d'etat, but it's still a threat to democracy.

And J6 aside (I agree with Brett's description of that as a 'nano-insurrection') Trump's behavior from losing the election through the present surely hasn't been healthy for our democracy. Characterizing him as a danger to democracy doesn't seem particularly over the top to me.

[not guilty]

There seems to be quite a disparity in the caliber of Supreme Court advocates that Jack Smith and Donald Trump have hired. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/20/trump-jack-smith-michael-dreeben-supreme-court-lawyers-00132710

I wonder if Trump will seek an upgrade regarding the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Trump's crappy lawyers risk creating a bunch of bad precedent.

[Mr. Bumble]

Precedent is a function of the courts, not the lawyers arguing the case.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

If the correct position is poorly argued, the court might get the case and/or reasoning wrong. And then lawyers will preach that reasoning as if it's gospel, and the rest of us are stuck with crummy legal reasoning.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Rowe?

[not guilty]

"Precedent is a function of the courts, not the lawyers arguing the case."

I don't know about that. In my experience, good lawyering can sometimes win a lawsuit. More often, bad lawyering can lose one.

[ThePublius]

The AP and other media outlets continue to blame Israel for the atrocity of Oct. 7.

The discovery of a massive tunnel near the Israeli border, which Israel was unaware of, that was apparently used in the planning and execution of the attack is characterized as a mistake made by Israel that led to the attack. I mean, that's literally what the AP correspondent said!

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1736861568334189018?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1737271879973683471%7Ctwgr%5E5b36bcfd20f3f4ad50717532f7936fd1372fbe10%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F623150%2F

[Nige]

Remember, the hard-line stance of keeping the Palestinians caged in and marginalised and dominated by Hamas was supposed to protect Israel and Israelis. Can't have any self-reflection or accountability, can we? Similarly a planned attack can only succeed if defences fail. Israel failed to defend its people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. Doubling down on the blaming of Israel, eh? Yes, so many of those women failed to defend themselves! They are surely at fault, right?

[Nige]

Do you deny that there was a massive security and intelligence failure that allowed this attack to go ahead? Because I don't see what wrong with accountability for people who failed at their jobs so badly and at such cost.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh my god.

How Israel provides for its security and intelligence is its own business. If some Israelis want to hold members of their government accountable, that's their right.

But blaming Israel qua Israel for the attacks?

You're literally blaming rape victims for not resisting enough.

[Nige]

'is its own business'

Oh were we not supposed to notice? Is it a social faux pas to suggest that when a thousand of your citizens get murdered on your watch it's a bad thing?

I didnlt blame them for the attacks you utter twit. i blamed them for security and intelligence failures that failed to prevent the attacks.

No, the rape victims were the people raped by Hamas fighters. Netanyahu and Co are the guys who are trying to cover up the fact that they were supposed to be protecting their people from being raped and murdered.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I didnlt blame them for the attacks you utter twit. i blamed them for security and intelligence failures that failed to prevent the attacks."

Same thing.

[Nige]

Wow, you're being even harder on them than I am.

[Kazinski]

Certainly there were failures. He solution of course would have been more surveillance, tighter inspections on cargos, and recon operations for intelligence and disruption of potential terrorist attacks.

All of which they would have been condemned for.

[Nige]

A tighter and tighter surveillance state, more opressive treatment of Palestinians? No, you're right, that sort of thing failed to make Israelis safe either.

[Bwaaah]

"Israel failed to defend its people."

Is that what you think, Nige? That Israel "failed." You want Israel to succeed, Nige? Like that?

Nige-bot, channeling voices he doesn't believe. It's like there's a Universal Idiot out there who's doing a ventriloquist routine, and Nige is the dummy.

[Nige]

If Israel's security and intelligence services had succeeded first one thousand, and then over twenty thousand people would not have died, so yeah, would have preferred them to have succeeded. Wouldn't you, or are you just fine with the current situation? Were a thousand dead Israelis a small price to pay for tens of thousands of dead Palestinians? Because that's the only reason you'd think they did a good job.

[Nelson]

Don't be an ass. Hamas is a terrorist organization and there is absolutely no justification for what they did.

The fact that Israel's security wasn't able to stop them doesn't make anything their fault. That's called blaming the victim and it's complete bullshit. It's what rapists say. It's what men who beat their wives say. It's what evil people say.

Israel isn't on the side of the angels, but they aren't evil. Hamas is evil.

[Nige]

Both things can be true. It's not either or.

Israel's security forces weren't the victims, they were the people whose job it was to protect the victims.

The Israel/Palestine conflict is a seemingly intractable challenge to morality and modernity, and will only ever be resolved through the enormous task of sidelining violent extremists and everyone else agreeing to set past injustices aside, albeit without forgetting. But Netanyahu is evil.

[Nelson]

"Israel’s security forces weren’t the victims, they were the people whose job it was to protect the victims."

And the fact that they weren't 100% successful at preventing every one of the terrorist attacks by Hamas over the years doesn't mean they are responsible for Hamas' atrocities in any way shape, or form. They don't share any responsibility. They don't own any part of the responsibility.

As I have said repeatedly, Israel (especially in the West Bank) has a lot to answer for. But Gaza and Hamas aren't part of that. Hamas is a terrorist organization. It has always been a terrorist organization. It has stolen humanitarian aid intended for Gaza citizens to build tunnels and rockets and carry out terrorist attacks.

Israel is not prosecuting this war in a way that protects civilians, but the war is happening because of Hamas. No one else. Only Hamas.

[Mr. Bumble]

So the question is, why are Democrats so bent on keeping Trump off the ballot for President if Biden's presidency has been so successful and he would be a shoo in to be re-elcted?

[Randy Sax]

From my understanding the Dems in charge are not fans of this ruling either. They fear it will embolden Trump. And it happened in a state he was gonna lose anyway. The plaintiffs were just 6 civilian never Trumpers not necessarily connected the the Dems

[ThePublius]

Well, the answer is that they know he's not a shoo-in to be reelected, and that Trump will likely beat, both in the electoral college and in the popular vote (according to recent polls).

Keeping Trump off the ballot is but one of the strategies they will implement. Stand by for a pandemic, and massive vote fraud via mail-in ballots. Witness the Biden attacks on speech coordinated with the DoJ, such as the war on Musk. Witness the give-away programs. Stand by for huge numbers of newly arrived illegal immigrants being registered to vote, and voting!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Witness conspiratorial stupidity in all its splendor!

You are not a serious person.

[ThePublius]

Likewise, I'm sure.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sorry Blinky, I don't see and predict conspiracies around every corner like you do.

Try again.

[Sarcastr0]

It can't be that reality matters and there was an insurrection - it's gotta be outcome oriented somehow!

ThePublius, that you think this is the only possibility says a lot about your own character.

Do you ever support an outcome not in keeping with your politics? Seems like it's your way by hook or by crook.

No integrity. No honor. Just partisanship.

[Mr. Bumble]

"No integrity. No honor. Just partisanship."

Projection is strong in you as you've described yourself perfectly.

A four hour roit by unarmed geezers is not an insurrection.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and edit is STILL NOT WORKING!

riot

[Brett Bellmore]

We think there was no insurrection because reality DOES matter, and that's the reality: There wasn't an insurrection. The only reason for claiming otherwise is to attempt to invoke Section 3 against Trump.

If you genuinely thought January 6th was an insurrection, you'd be outraged that nobody has been charged with insurrection, (It is a crime, after all!) and you'd be open to calling other more violent anti-government riots "insurrection", too.

But you're not. The claim that it was an insurrection is totally motivated by the desire to get Trump, and nothing else.

[Sarcastr0]

It's on tape, it's on powerpoint, and now there are text messages from Trump's folks.

Your denial does not change reality.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Angry people with torches does not automatically equal insurrection.

And insurrection at the Capitol doesn't mean Trump engaged in it himself. Even if his negligence was impeachable that doesn't make it insurrection.

[Sarcastr0]

Agreed, the facts of Trumps involvement are separate. The PowerPoint and texts and subsequent behavior after it popped off.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm trained enough as a lawyer to know that crimes are not magic words. No one being charged with the magic crime insurrection doesn't mean anything.

You have been on this blog enough to realize that. In fact, I think you would agree if you didn't have to make these dumb arguments to defend your chosen side.

[Michael P]

Yes, we know it's all about your feelz that there was an insurrection.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and that you are a failed law student.

[Sarcastr0]

Why are you choosing to try and hurt people personally just because you don't like their politics?

[Sarcastr0]

Not what I said, and your retreat to strawman is a telling one.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"The only reason for claiming otherwise is to attempt to invoke Section 3 against Trump."

Odd then that he was impeached for inciting it then, eh? Will you ever stop being a partisan dipshit?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

There wasn’t an insurrection.

The Volokh Conspiracy is always a go-to spot for delusional, partisan, on-the-spectrum, antisocial, right-wing analysis and opinion.

[Don Nico]

"It can’t be that reality matters and there was an insurrection"
Like many things, that definition is in the eyes of the beholder, just like your statement above that the riots in Oregon were not an insurrection.

[Mr. Bumble]

A possible answer to my question is that Democrats are fearful of losing control in the Senate and that Republicans may retain control of the House. A real Dem nightmare.

[Josh R]

Do Bumble and Publius believe Trump should be permitted on the ballot assuming he engaged in an insurrection?

[ThePublius]

That's a difficult question, as I'm not a constitutional scholar by any means, and it seems there's some question as to whether 14.3 applies to a president. But if Trump, or anyone, had engaged in an actual insurrection there should, of course, be legal repercussions. I mean, a real, organized armed attempt to overthrow the government; which didn't happen.

[SRG2]

Perhaps some Democrats think that the rule of law require that Trump not be on the ballot. If that has undemocratic consequences inasmuch as it deprives people of the chance to vote for Trump. well, it also deprived people of the chance to vote for Jefferson Davis, and if Trump had wanted to let people vote for him, perhaps he shouldn't have been involved in an insurrection?

I note that neither incompetence nor brevity of time are defences to crimes.

[ThePublius]

There was no insurrection!

And now you're equating the events of Jan. 6 with the Civil War? Talk about unhinged....

[Sarcastr0]

Not a serious person.

[ThePublius]

So you and Jason are reading from the same page in the ad hominem handbook? Nice!

[SRG2]

There was no insurrection!

The court found otherwise.

And now you’re equating the events of Jan. 6 with the Civil War? Talk about unhinged….

No I am not.

1) For example, if a law disqualifies from X when they've been convicted of a felony, and I point out that this means that both a serial killer and someone selling steroids to willing athletes are disqualified, would you be stupid enough to think that I am equating serial killing with steroid-pushing? Apparently so. The events are not the issue.

2) The argument that Y deprives the People of the chance of voting for someone ergo Y is undemocratic is true as far as it goes but that in itself is not a reason to get rid of sanction Y. After all the People are deprived of the chance to vote for candidates on the grounds of the latter's age or birth - which are more arbitrary restrictions than being a fucking insurrectionist.

[Krayt]

Even Jefferson Davis supporters knew he was an insurrectionist.

Here, as with the impeachments, the declaration is a one-sided, foregone conclusion, to get a political opponent. It is approximately the 10th such initiative. As each fails to get the opponent, move on to the next.

He should not be the next president. We do not need tanks of Neo Hitler rolling through Europe. But nor should this nation violate all the protections built in to stop those in power from using the power of government to get a political opponent.

[SRG2]

AFAIC Trump supporters know that the protest was violent and were intended to stop the transfer of power such that the term "insurrection" is not obviously inappropriate, and they also fundamentally approve of it, or at, least, agree with the aims; but they know that such concessions or admissions would not be viewed favourably, so they have to pretend that the protest was largely peaceful, that there was no insurrection and nothing approaching one (and that St. Ashli was martyred).

[David Nieporent]

Even Jefferson Davis supporters knew he was an insurrectionist.

Odd how his modern supporters don't, then, arguing that actually the traitor states had the right to secede and that it was Lincoln that started the war.

[SimonP]

Democrats aren't the ones who brought this challenge.

Personally, I don't think Trump should be allowed near to the White House ever again. Whether his actions relating to January 6 count as an "insurrection" or not, they clearly showed someone with such deep disrespect for the rule of law and our democratic traditions that he's a danger to everyone if he is given that kind of power again.

But whether his actions, strictly speaking, constituted an "insurrection" sufficient to disqualify him from holding office again, under the Fourteenth Amendment, is an abstract constitutional law question. If it points towards him being disqualified, I'm fine with that outcome. If it doesn't, then I'm disappointed, but can accept that's the outcome, the same way I have to do with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Sometimes the Constitution doesn't provide for the outcome you personally desire, Bumble-boy. You would do well to acclimate yourself to that fact, even if the SCOTUS saves your boy from the fire this time.

[Mr. Bumble]

",,,they clearly showed someone with such deep disrespect for the rule of law and our democratic traditions that he’s a danger to everyone if he is given that kind of power again."
I would suggest that that applies to Biden and his administration in spades, Simon P-boy.

[SimonP]

Yes, Biden's most extreme abuses of power so far having been... forgiving student loans?

[ThePublius]

"...they clearly showed someone with such deep disrespect for the rule of law and our democratic traditions that he’s a danger to everyone...."

This is the Democratic, liberal, progressive narrative, but it is never substantiated. One can easily make the case that Trump, as president, obeyed the law and respected the courts to a much higher degree than Joe Biden.

How has he disrespected the rule of law?
How has he disrespected our Democratic traditions?

No one ever seems to be able to articulate that.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Prior to November 2020, Trump's administration was actually quite law abiding.

Particularly when it came pen-and-a-phone behaviors, he was miles ahead of Obama. Not always (e.g. the border wall), but nearly so.

[jb]

One can easily make the case that Trump, as president, obeyed the law and respected the courts to a much higher degree than Joe Biden.

Of course the issue here is whether or not he obeyed the law and respected the courts when he was no longer going to be President, not what he did in his role as President.

(I'm not sure how you'd get data or approach your actual proposition objectively, but I'm extremely skeptical that it's true, if only because of how bad the Trump administration was at following the APA. Sure, they obeyed the Courts when they were told they weren't allowed to do things, but so does the Biden administration.)

[ThePublius]

"Sure, they obeyed the Courts when they were told they weren’t allowed to do things, but so does the Biden administration."

What about the student loan "forgiveness?" Biden ignored the court on that one. There are others, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden did not ignore the Court on student loan forgiveness, what are you talking about?

[Nige]

Courts are in charge of dictating policy? Since when?

[Nige]

So many of his campaign and administration staff getting indicted and pardoned makes any accusation that Trump respects the rule of law entirely false.

[Bob from Ohio]

"why are Democrats so bent on keeping Trump off the ballot"

Mainly because it makes them feel good in their hatred.

Just part of the multi front lawfare against him. Seize his property in a NY civil case, file bogus criminal cases in biased jurisdictions and get Dem courts to declare him ineligible.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob: "it makes them feel good in their hatred."

Goddamn the irony.

[Nige]

Accountability. You wouldn't know what it is.

[EscherEnigma]

Oh, that's easy.

Your assumption is wrong.

None of the attempts to keep Trump off the ballot are at the direction of Democratic Party at large, and are the actions of small groups or individuals that are operating on their own authority, and not at the behest of any national organization.

[Mr. Bumble]

And who is paying for these individual actions?

[Nige]

...Soros?

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit has upheld Boston's 2020 changes to exam school admissions criteria despite the racist motives of the school board. The plaintiffs initially sought to try the case on the policy alone. When evidence of motive came out in 2021 plaintiffs' only recourse was a rule 60(b) motion, which is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. The School Committee for the City of Boston et al. (1st Cir. Dec. 19 2023)

Boston has changed admissions policy twice since the case was filed. The most recent change addressed complaints that it was impossible for students in the nice part of town to get into exam schools even with perfect scores.

[Ed Grinberg]

War on excellence. A crying shame...

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, but equity is what counts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The soft bigotry of low expectations. And fewer families will remain in the city.

[Randy Sax]

If you wana lop your dick and start calling yourself Susy-Q that's fine by me. If you are a nice person I'll even call you "she". (Never "they" though that's bullshit). But you are not and will never be female. Can we not have a word for biological sex anymore?

https://scnr.com/article/transgender-activist-charged-with-raping-two-young-boys-listed-as-female-in-court-records_215d79939ffb11ee9c930242ac1c0002

[SRG2]

If the brain says one thing and the body another, why do you defer to the body, not the brain?

[Randy Sax]

The brain is part of the body and every single cell of that persons brain has XY chromosomes. By saying "brain" I assume you are talking about feelings. If I feel like I am a cat that does not make me a cat.

In ~95% of daily life your sex doesn't matter and I don't care. But the 5% of the time still exists when it is important to differentiate between people who are male and are female.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the brain says you're fat, and you're actually 70lbs soaking wet and going into organ failure from starvation, why do you defer to the body? Maybe because there's such a thing as being "delusional"?

[Mr. Bumble]

Cue Karen Carpenter.

[SRG2]

The question is what is the brain's cerebrotype. A fat person's brain does not have a sexual cerebrotype different from a thin one's.

[Nige]

You'd probably be better off respecting medical reccomendations rather than going by your own quirky notions of how they should be treated.

[Michael P]

Disrupt the endocrine patriarchy!

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible scienceing.

Thank you for your service.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's check your credibility in the reality-based world.

What do you think of ostensible adults who claim to believe that fairy tales are true; conservative-controlled campuses that teach nonsense and force childish dogma; and homeschooling parents who suppress science to flatter silly superstition?

Thank you.

[Randy Sax]

I'm not religious. I don't care if you are but don't involve me in it.
I'm not a tranny. I don't care if you are but don't involve me in it.

[Sarcastr0]

You're not an expert, but you want to have an opinion as if you do.

And you use slurs. Which are pretty easy to avoid. Which also tells us something about you.

[Randy Sax]

Dude, it doesn't take an expert to know that there are biological differences between males and females.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it takes someone who thinks biology taught them all they needed in middle school.

And someone who is sufficiently ignorant to confuse sex with gender.

This is not a debated issue because it is an easy one. Have some humility.

[Randy Sax]

"And someone who is sufficiently ignorant to confuse sex with gender."

That is the exact point of my first comment in this thread. The word "Female" describes sex. Not gender. When courtrooms are using the term to describe people that aren't female that is the issue.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would someone be kind enough to throw GaslightO a life preserver.

[Sarcastr0]

See you are conflating again.

Language has a social component, turns out. You should look into it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe Randy Sax isn't a bigot.

Maybe he uses slurs just to make Prof. Volokh happier.

[Nige]

Why do we never get similar screeds about all the Christian pastors and youth workers who rape and abuse children and how they are not and never will be Christians?

Oh, beause one is a belief system, the other is a medically recognised condition, and you always defer to the belief systems.

[Randy Sax]

I do not defer to belief systems. As I've said several times now. I'm not religious. It's all nonsense bullshit if you ask me, but again, as long as you don't involve me in it I don't care. P.S. yes rapists are bad Christian or not dudn't fuckn' matter.

[Nige]

Nah, you ent out of your way to indulge in some transphobia. Because they're a tiny minority and easy to pick on, I guess.

[SRG2]

Trump the dictator?

https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/412327661_10227872643659516_3767540060807804321_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=gH0GWvihS3wAX_sKl7n&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&oh=00_AfDbPS4AN34GxBKzBvzZExK-ZEDM7zLI9SiMyQiRet1vBw&oe=65892635

[John F. Carr]

Thirty-four years ago today Nicolae Ceausescu gave his last speech. It did not go well.

And yet the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was overall mostly not a bloody affair.

[Ed Grinberg]

"the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was overall mostly not a bloody affair."
In Russia, Communists put up a fight, but it petered out pretty quickly.
And then, when democracy won out ... nothing happened (to Party members and their KGB enforcers).
From an interview with the director of this film:
I made [the film] to explain to myself and others the psychology of a degraded, raped country. ... We wrote about 1953, but it isn't just about that. ... This is our understanding of Russia, what it is, why we are so wretched... And first of all it's because we always forgive everything. ... After millions of victims, we just said: "Oh well, that was unfortunate, let's forget about it."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, movement conservative
blog with a vanishingly scant academic
veneer has operated for no more than

FOUR (4)

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

FORTY-SIX (46)

occasions (so far) during 2023
(that’s at least 46 different,
distinct discussions that include
vile racial slurs, not just 46 racial slurs;
many or most of those discussions
have featured multiple racial slurs
from Prof. Eugene Volokh and/or his
bigoted, conservative target audience.

This assessment does not address the
incessant stream of gay-bashing, white
nationalist, misogynist, antisemitic, racist,
Islamophobic, transphobic, xenophobic,
and Palestinian-hating slurs and other
bigoted content published daily
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding, disrespected, 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. (Imagine how intensely today's Republican clingers would have hated Jonas Salk?)

There are several other versions, but this old-timey website can't handle more than a couple of links.

Happy holidays, everyone!

[Ben_]

Harvard officially decided that if you have the right skin color and status you can plagiarize all you want.

Harvard was once a respected institution. That ended in 2023.

[Mr. Bumble]

No it ended much earlier than that.

[Bored Lawyer]

And, true to form, the fact that the VICTIM of her plagiarism happens to be black is ignored.

Legal scholar livid over Harvard president allegedly plagiarizing her work: 'Morally bankrupt'
https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/legal-scholar-livid-over-harvard-president-allegedly-plagiarizing-her-work-morally-bankrupt-claudine-gay-carol-swain-cambridge-massachusetts-university-antisemitism-testimony

[Nelson]

"Harvard was once a respected institution. That ended in 2023."

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that a 350+ year old university with a history of attracting and graduating some of the best, brightest, and most successful people in the history of the country is going to continue to be regarded as a respected and elite institution. You're fooling yourself if you think that the conservative outrage of the moment will make a scratch in the way Harvard (or Penn, or any other elite university) is perceived.

[apedad]

(New York) law would require Chick-fil-A to break with tradition and stay open on Sundays

(The) proposed legislation that would require food-service companies at rest areas and transportation facilities along the New York State Thruway — a nearly 500 miles long stretch of road that connects New York City to Buffalo — to be open seven days a week.

“While there is nothing objectionable about a fast food restaurant closing on a particular day of the week, service areas dedicated to travelers is an inappropriate location for such a restaurant,” the bill says. “Publicly owned service areas should use their space to maximally benefit the public. Allowing for retail space to go unused one seventh of the week or more is a disservice and unnecessary inconvenience to travelers who rely on these service areas.”

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/new-law-would-require-chick-fil-a-to-break-with-tradition-and-stay-open-on-sundays/

IANAL but it seems that a contract can be written to say the shop/restaurant must remain open IAW the days/times stated in the contract.

[Bored Lawyer]

I assume Chick-Fil-A already has a lease contract for some period of time. If NY now changes the terms of the deal, query whether there is a claim for breach of contract and/or a Contracts-Clause issue.

[apedad]

I agree that normal contract rules/laws apply.

How about new contracts?

Would this part about requiring restaurants to be open seven days a week be good?

It doesn't particularly target religion.

[Michael P]

There's a good argument that at least one restaurant at each rest area to be open on each day. For rest areas with only enough room for one concessionaire, that would imply that it's reasonable to require them to be open seven days. If there are two, then one could close on Saturdays and the other on Sundays, or whatever they negotiate with the state (as landlord) so that drivers have something to eat regardless of the day of the week.

However, passing this as a law rather than simply executive policy smells of anti-religious animus.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"However, passing this as a law rather than simply executive policy smells of anti-religious animus."

What?

Passing it as a law requires the cooperation of way more people. Executive fiat is much more susceptible to one person's prejudices.

You recognize that it's stupid to have a rest stop with only one restaurant that closes one day a week when you can have a rest stop with restaurants open every day of the week.

Now imagine how having a rest stop with two restaurants open every day is better for travelers than a rest stop with one restaurant open every day and a second one that closes one day a week. I mean, they might actually sell different things. From this little exercise, you can see there are non-discriminatory reasons for choosing providers that can actually provide all the time rather than only some of the time. It's irrelevant why the owners of some restaurants would like to only provide 83% of the value that other owners will provide.

If your religion requires you not to bid less than $2 trillion for government contracts, you don't get to win because your religion. Likewise, if your religion requires you to supply only 83% of widgets where others will supply the full 100%, you don't get to win because of your religion. If you do, something is wrong with the system.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When the tide turns against these religious hayseeds, and they no longer benefit from limitless privilege conferred by right-wing assholes, I will join better, reasoning Americans in celebration.

[David Nieporent]

If only there were a way to decide what vendors best serve the public. Instead of being arbitrary, maybe we could use some metric; let's call it — for lack of a better term — money.

The state could let vendors bid on the contracts for the service areas. The vendors that expect to make the most money would be the ones that bid the most. And if Chick-fil-a's offerings are so popular that it can make more in 6 days than other places can make in 7, then the government should respect the marketplace and award the spot to Chick-fil-a.

[NOVA Lawyer]

If this were entirely about the marketplace and making money, why is the government involved in rest stops at all? I'm not saying that's an illegitimate way to do things, plenty of states do allow the marketplace to dictate mostly where rest stops (just gas stations, restaurants, etc.) are located and what is provided at them. Others (like Virginia) have rest stops that just have basic restroom facilities and vending machines. Others have rest stops that are government owned, but have private vendors. It seems reasonable some states would just put the spots up for bidding, others would want more control over the times and types of services provided.

So, yes, just putting the spots up for bidding is one legitimate policy decision. Another legitimate policy is to specify in the contracts being bid that we want who will be open 7 days a week between the hours of 6am and 1am.

The marketplace isn't always right. At least, it's still okay for some people including U.S. policy makers to conclude it isn't. You or I may not agree, particularly on the specifics, when and whether that is true, but it's not legally or otherwise out of bounds.

[Bored Lawyer]

I think once the contract expires, requiring that on new contracts is permissible. The rest stops on the thruway are maintained for the convenience of travelers, and the concessionaires have a somewhat captive audience. People travel on weekends, so requiring them to be open is certainly reasonable.

Years ago, our firm had a client who was a tenant in a mall. (Yes kiddies, people used to go out to shop, not just order everything on-line.) I had to review their lease as part of a litigation. It had plenty of conditions as to what kind of business they could operate, when it had to be open, etc. The mall owner wanted and was entitled to have a coherent retail space. So this kind of thing is pretty standard in such arrangements.

[Josh R]

Would Chick-Fil-A win in court if we throw out the Smith standard in favor of the RFRA standard for Free Exercise cases as many on the right want to?

[Bored Lawyer]

Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961) would seem to indicate not.

[Josh R]

In Verner (the beginning of the era where laws which incidentally burdened religious exercise were struck down), the Court distinguished Braunfeld because there was "a strong state interest in providing one uniform day of rest for all workers [that] could be achieved, the Court found, only by declaring Sunday to be that day of rest." Is there a similar state interest in having one provider closed down on Sundays on the thruway? Also, it might be the case the standard is tougher on the government if RFRA analysis, rather than Verner, applies.

[Bored Lawyer]

The state interest here is having food stands open for travelers on every day of the week, including Sundays. It's the opposite situation.
How a RFRA or pre-Smith balancing would come out is anyone's guess. But part of the equation is that this is not a general law requiring businesses to open on Sundays. It is narrowly targeted to concessions at rest-stops on state thruways. Chick-Fil-A can have a thriving business, and keep its religion, without renting at those particular locations. So the burden here on the religious entity is less than the usual Free Exercise case.

[Josh R]

What case law supports a lesser-burden on religious exercise analysis?

[Krayt]

(Opens the god view lid. Oh, right. They hate Chick Fil-a because the owner had the temerity to speak out against abortion. Also religious crank aka religious, with which I agree. Closes the lid.)

[Create facetious law to kick them in the nutz. Launch talking heads to stand there and claim sudden concern one of many restaurants must open on a Sunday!]

When I was younger, I enjoyed using tricks like that. Watching "important philosophical points" being screamed with a loudspeaker, then abandoned later when it gets in the way, over and over through the decades, has emphasized it's all about winning.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Conservatives love their Bigot Chicken.

People who figure travelers can go hungry because of childish nonsense and silly superstition are lousy people.

Carry on, clingers. But only so far as better Americans permit.

[ThePublius]

Chick-fil-A apparently has a 32 year contract with New York State. Now what?

[Mr. Bumble]

The results of affirmative action and equity in education:
"The Democrat lieutenant governor of California is calling on the state’s top election official to “explore every legal option” to remove former President Donald Trump from next year’s ballot — but her appeals to the Constitution don’t hold up.

“The constitution [sic] is clear,” Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis wrote Wednesday. “[Y]ou must be 40 years old and not be an insurrectionist.”

The minimum age requirement for the presidency outlined by the Constitution, however, is 35. "

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, this misquote is due to black people being dumb.

[Michael P]

The Lt Gov in this case appears to be a Caucasian woman of Greek descent. What an odd case of your inner racist shining through!

[Sarcastr0]

Read Bumbles racist post again.

Blacks being dumb and then hired as teachers mean this Greek lady made a mistake.

[Michael P]

Aren't you always saying that DEI is about more than giving Black people unreasonable advantages?

[Sarcastr0]

I do. Walk me through how that leads to a misstatement by some Lt. Gov.

[Michael P]

It's not my job to explain obvious things to you. My leisure only extends as far as pointing out that you tried to play a played-out race card, and made yourself look like a racist in the process.

[Sarcastr0]

Here's how I read the sitch:

Bumble made a racist comment, and you tried to defend him because you're more tribal than smart.

When that didn't work out, you tried to deflect about DEI. Now that hasn't worked out so you're slinking away.

Not a great day for you on this thread, looks like!

[Mr. Bumble]

"The results of affirmative action and equity in education:"
if you equate this as racist it is you who are the racist, a term that has been so over used that it is virtually meaningless.

[Nige]

It was only ever meaningless to you.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

States can add qualifications if they please.

This view is right objectively. It also is held by most of the conservative justices.

[apedad]

‘I saw no desecration’: Judge inspects gravesites, approves Confederate memorial removal from Arlington National Cemetery

A federal judge (appointed by Pres. Trump in 2019), in Virginia approved the removal of a Confederate memorial inside Arlington National Cemetery after visiting the grounds himself and finding that allegations the Department of Defense had desecrated gravesites there as it dismantled the monument in question were totally unsupported.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/i-saw-no-desecration-judge-inspects-gravesites-approves-confederate-memorial-removal-from-arlington-national-cemetery/#disqus_thread

Losers gonna (keep) losing.

You'd think they'd start shooting after the Colorado thing but maybe they're just - losers.

[EscherEnigma]

According to a specific vocal subset of Republicans, they're always one bad day from declaring Civil War II.

Then they don't understand why no one is quivering in their boots in fear of Civil War II.

[Michael P]

All the best people: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/lincoln-memorial-temporarily-closed-after-vandalized-graffiti/story?id=105811958

[Michael P]

I often criticize leftist prosecutors, but it's also worth noting when they make the right call. https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/15/san-francisco-bridge-protest-charged-district-attorney/

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said her office will charge all of the protesters who were arrested after halting traffic on the Bay Bridge during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in November.

[Krayt]

Mr. Cynicism: "They so cleaned out the bums and poop and tents, something they wouldn't do for a decade fear of looking mean. Voter sensibilities are only a medium levem concern, though, compared to the international stage. Why should arresting blocking protesters in the same larger incident be shocking?"

[David Nieporent]

Michael P's fellow travelers in six months: "How come you never hear about leftist protesters being charged when they block traffic?"

[SRG2]

An Oklahoma judge has exonerated a man who spent 48 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit, the longest known wrongful sentence in the US.

Appalling but not surprising.

And thisL: "Wrongfully convicted people who serve time in Oklahoma are eligible for up to $175,000 (£138,000) in compensation."

This is absurdly small. For what he was deprived of, and the conditions of his existence, it's disgustingly little.

[Krayt]

I assume the people who hid that info will get sentenced to that long, plus one day? If they are still alive.

[SRG2]

Retired or dead. And recall:

1. Prosecutors have absolute immunity, and what stops them from misconduct is the threat of official sanction.

2. Almost no prosecutors ever get sanctioned.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Again:

How many of the best people from your law school class became prosecutors?

How many of the best people from the college class became law enforcement personnel?

How many of the best people from your high school class became law enforcement personnel?

We need to find ways to attract better classes of people to law enforcement. And the military.

[Michael P]

The ongoing retrenching of the Biden corruption standard has been fascinating. First it was that Joe never talked business with his son, then it was that his son never made money from China, then it was that they had never been in business together, and now it's that none of the money from influence-seeking companies went directly into Joe's bank accounts. What will be the next evolution of this argument?

[Sarcastr0]

You can't res ipsa your way into these things.

Appeal to incredulity is all you got. Which is nothing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Failed law student love to use Latin legal terms.

[Sarcastr0]

Graduated cum laude and am still a member of the bar.

You are an asshole.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you excelled at beer pong and now frequent bars. Kudos.

[Bob from Ohio]

All those terms from freshman Logic class come in handy!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How is someone with a law degree still mired in can't-keep-up, backwater Ohio?

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow, now you've taken to libeling the entire bar in Ohio.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I referred solely to the inhabitants of Ohio's rural, backward, bigoted, clinging communities. How many Jones Day partners, for example, reside and practice in the can't-keep-up, desolate, backwater sections of Ohio?

[Nige]

Lol you devolve into personal abuse after having your weird straw men challenged. Classic!

[EscherEnigma]

What will be the next evolution of this argument?

"Call me when you've finally figured out what you're impeaching him for".

Seriously, Republicans have been talking about impeaching Biden since before he was elected. If you want me to care about the supposed drama of the "Biden crime family", you'll need to figure out what charges you're willing to commit to paper and defend in the senate.

[Nige]

You're having a conversation with yourself to gloss over the complate lack of any evidence of corruption.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

I'd like to see a conservative stand up and defend U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton.

Several people (Baude, Blackman) have cited it in their articles, always in passing, and none of them even acknowledge that there was a dissent.... joined by the four conservatives.

Can I hear a conservative straight up say that Justices Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor and future Gorsuch were all wrong?

It's potentially relevant to the current Section 3 debate.

[SRG2]

Thomas: "My dissent in US Term limits was at a time when Donald Trump was not the candidate, hence is not relevant. Alternatively, I was wrong then and so I correct my mistake by granting cert. today."

[Life of Brian]

Dissent, at 861:

As for the fact that a State has no reserved power to establish qualifications for the office of President, see ante, at 803-804, it surely need not follow that a State has no reserved power to establish qualifications for the Members of Congress who represent the people of that State.

What's yer beef?

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

See that same page (861) further down. States have full authority to decide who can and cannot be an elector.

[Life of Brian]

Are you drawing some sort of parallel between a state selecting its Presidential electors and a state defining its own criteria for Presidential candidates?

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Yes.

Consider the possibility that:

The presidential election itself is a national election.

The election of electors, while it occurs so that a national election can take place, is a state election. Just as the election of governor or mayor of Denver is.

Aside from the date of choosing electors, how those elections are run is up to the states, including whether they are elected by the people or by the legislature or appointed and who is eligible for the office, and in the case of electors, whom they are pledged to vote for.

Are such things reviewable in federal court? Sometimes yes. If Colorado said Asian people can't be mayor that makes for federal review. If Colorado said it allowed Asians to run but in practice was clearly playing games to stop them that could be taken to federal court too. But it takes something like equal protection or due process violations to trigger federal authority to reverse, not mere misinterpretation of the law. I don't think elections of electors are any different. If that puts me at odds with Bush v Gore, well, SCOTUS shouldn't repeat that mistake.

[Life of Brian]

OK, I understand your position now. Thanks for clarifying.

But the USTL dissent apparently disagrees with your position, since it says not only on the same page, but in the very same sentence: "While the individual States have no "reserved" power to set qualifications for the office of President, we have long understood that they do have the power (as far as the Federal Constitution is concerned) to set qualifications for their Presidential electors."

It seems to me this juxtaposition directly rules out your notion that the argument in the dissent somehow supports a state doing an end-run around the prohibition of setting qualifications for Presidential candidates by relabeling it as an electoral "qualification" (i.e., electors must only vote for candidates that satisfy additional state qualifications).

And certainly if a state has no reserved power to do that, going through the motions of baking it into its election procedures or even its constitution should be of no moment.

[Z Crazy]

We’ve seen anti-Jewish protests on college campuses, some of them violent.

And not just in deep Republican areas, or swing areas, but deep DEMOCRATIC areas. Colleges like Harvad and Colombia University.

If Trump is literally Hitler, then he’ll literally win in a landslide.

[Krayt]

I've said this before. Everyone, especially if honest, hating on Israel because of policies, and not because "Jews!", should be taken aback by how easily all this has resurfaced, buried just under a thin sheet, like people have been saying (and saying for decades, long before this context.)

"Hate with a clear conscience, hate the policies, not the people" is pushed by people fine with the latter. It was a genius invention.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel -- Netanyahu, settlements, bloodlust, racists in government, superstition-laced government, right-wing government, etc. --sucks.

Jews deserve better than current Israel.

In general, as others have aptly observed, liberals tend to embrace Jew and dislike Israel. Conservatives tend to dislike Jews and embrace Israel.

Carry on, clingers.

[Nige]

'“Hate with a clear conscience, hate the policies, not the people” is pushed by people fine with the latter.'

Checkmate, libs.

[M L]

Not sure, but don't states generally have the right to decide who is on the ballot?

I'm not certain that a SCOTUS decision overturning the Colorado decision is the right thing. Possibly, this would be another incremental aggrandizement of the centralized government.

[SRG2]

That's what makes the US Term Limits case so interesting and relevant.

FWIW I think that SC will overturn the Col SC ruling, being very careful to state that their decision is incredibly narrow owing to the highly specific facts of the case (cf Bush v Gore...)

[mydisplayname]

The Washington Post joins, well, almost every other publication in the known world, in questioning Israeli propaganda: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/21/al-shifa-hospital-gaza-hamas-israel/

Who will win this year's Goebbels Award for Truth In Media? Israel is certainly a contender, but so are others.

[ThePublius]

Have they covered this?

"The head of a Gaza hospital has admitted to being a senior Hamas commander — and detailed how the terror group transformed the medical site into an operational hub that once housed a kidnapped Israeli soldier.

Ahmad Kahlot, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in Jabaliya, made his taped confession to the Israeli security service Shin Bet after his arrest during last week’s raid on the facility in northern Gaza."

https://nypost.com/2023/12/19/news/gaza-hospital-chief-admits-to-being-hamas-commander/

[Sarcastr0]

I might look for independent corroboration: made his taped confession to the Israeli security service Shin Bet after his arrest

[tylertusta]

Looks like the WaPo editorials are starting to gets it Re: Colorado and Trump:

Disqualifying a candidate based on an accusation, albeit one blessed by a state court judge as in the Colorado case — but not an actual conviction — is dangerous. What’s to stop a Republican politician from seeking to bar his Democratic opponent because the opponent attended Black Lives Matter protests, claiming that those protests, some of them nominally in service of abolishing the police, qualify as insurrection?

I think it's starting to sink in among some on the left that the Colorado decision is a bad idea.

Here's hoping the outbreak of sanity continues.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What the Left fails to understand is that everything it does can also be done to it. And unlike in Colorado, which Trump would never win, were this done to Biden in Wisconsin or Georgia, it could toss the state to Trump...

[tylertusta]

Georgia was the first state that came to mind for me. Republican legislature, Republican Supreme Court.

But the Colorado case isn't limited to just Presidents. Once people really think through the implications, this is a disaster for our nation.

Consider that Senators Tester (D-MT) and Brown (D-OH) are up for reelection in 2024. Imagine what would happen if they suddenly found themselves disqualified under Colorado's rationale.

[not guilty]

What facts suggest that Senators Tester or Brown engaged in insurrection? Please be specific as to each.

[tylertusta]

Oh, I'm sure someone can find the one or more times they publicly expressed support for the BLM movement. Their twitter history is public and someone only has to look through it.

That'll be enough.

[not guilty]

I see. You are getting your information from that notable source, Otto Yourazz.

[tylertusta]

That's basically what the J6 committee and the district court did, so I don't see any problem here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kamela Harris' support of BLM is way more than Trump ever said/did.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Brown hasn't done anything to be disqualified.

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, Trump already tried to steal an election, by pressuring states to not count votes, by pressuring states to count votes that didn't exist, by pressing states to send invalid electors, by pressuring Pence to commit unconstitutional acts, by pressuring his supporters to violently stop the certification, etc. and so-on.

Sorry dude, but Trump has already done worse then this. The threat that he might use the 14th Amendment to have someone thrown off the ballot is laughable because it'd be a step back from his priors.

[Bob from Ohio]

"pressuring" = talking

[Nige]

It's only pressure if it's in Morse Code.

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, see NOW the GOP is going to be TRULY mad and TRULY lawless.

Ed and tyler, the GOP has pegged those meters years ago. There are no new limits to be crossed; your stupid threats are childish nonsense.

[tylertusta]

I see that you're worried that the same stupidly loose standard will be misapplied in other contexts.

I'll just say this: it will be misued. It's absolutely going to be. You have a right to be worried.

Heck, I'm worried, and I don't even agree with the dumb ruling!

Here you are talking about how lawless us Republicans are. Well, if we are lawless, then you should agree that we'd use something like this!

[Sarcastr0]

My concern is utterly independent of this lawsuit; it's that y'all don't care about rules and norms, only what would be politically nonviable.

Biden hadn't gotten impeached, not for lack of trying by the GOP. Same with Obama. Trump being impeached twice did not make the GOP suddenly try harder to fabricate something that would play , because they are already straining at the max.

This lawsuit changes nothing in what the right thinks is in-bounds. The right thinks everything is in-bounds.

[tylertusta]

Oh, grow up.

Are you seriously so hopped up on your holier-than-thou rhetoric that you believe this?

I could point out the bazillion times that Democrats blew through norms and were hypocrites just like you can point out all of the times that Republicans have done it. I won't waste our arguing which one of us are worse, because it's pointless.

It's pointless because hypocrisy isn't a Republican or a Democrat affliction- it's a human one.

He's an observation about humans: when pushed, they like to push back.

Democrats are doing it now, so Republicans are going to retaliate.

If Republicans had done this, then Democrats would be retaliating.

Are ya getting me now?

Except this time, it's gonna be really, really bad once states stop recognizing Presidential candidates.

[Nige]

'If Republicans had done this, then Democrats would be retaliating.'

Democrats are mostly timid moderates. You would never predict they would engage in the level of lawless retaliation you're confident Republicans will. You're telling us over and over again that the Republicans will engage in widespread lawless retaliation - Trump has promised as much - yet you keep claiming Democrats are the problem.

[tylertusta]

If all you got out of my post was me saying that Democrats are the problem, then you need to go outside and touch grass.

Then read my comment again.

Think about what you wrote and then come back.

[Nige]

That is what I got out of it. If you think you're saying something else, you're kidding yourself. 'Both sides are just as bad.' Well, one side tried to overturn an election with riot, fraud and conspiracy. The other thinks there should be accountability and legal consequences. Equally bad!

[grb]

I dunno. I have a theory the Right is regularly seduced by their own hysterical accusations. The political side that used to rail at busted budgets and insist 2+2=4 became the champion of Supply Side lies and regularly buried the country in red ink all these past forty years.

The side that used to champion law enforcement has made the FBI public-enemy-one. The side that used to stand for "personal responsibility" now celebrates criminals and seedy hucksters. The side against "identity politics" has made that the very core of their messaging. The side against "victimhood mentality" became the biggest bunch of snowflake whiners the political world has ever seen.

Recognizing this psychological mechanism, we can safely predict the Right's future development. They may all start flouncing around in crossdress attire, but that's less likely. More probable & troubling is this : The people who brought us endless phony charges of voting fraud will decide to voting fraud themselves. As I said, they adopt the conduct of their accusations, even if their accusations were only a caricature to begin with.

[David Nieporent]

.

What the Left fails to understand is that everything it does can also be done to it. And unlike in Colorado, which Trump would never win, were this done to Biden in Wisconsin or Georgia, it could toss the state to Trump…

Even eight years into the Trump era, it is astonishing to me how the MAGA right is willing to tell on itself. "What the left fails to understand is that we're corrupt and will act in bad faith." (Note: I don't think the left fails to understand this at all.) There are two possibilities:

1) You believe that Biden has engaged in insurrection.
2) You don't believe Biden has engaged in insurrection.

If the first, then what you're saying about Biden is, "Yes, we think he's disqualified, but if you agree to overlook my guy's crimes, we'll agree to overlook your guy's."

If the second, then what you're saying is, "We know this is wrong, but we're going to do it anyway as an act of revenge."

[Kenneth Almquist]

From the Washingon Post editorial:

What’s to stop a Republican politician from seeking to bar his Democratic opponent because the opponent attended Black Lives Matter protests, claiming that those protests, some of them nominally in service of abolishing the police, qualify as insurrection?

Nothing is stopping Republicans from claiming whatever nonsense they want. Remember Trump and other Republicans claiming that Obama was barred from the Presidency because Obama was supposedly not born in the United States?

I don't know of any Democratic politician who has tried to bar Trump from the ballot. But if a Republican politician files a lawsuit to bar his opponent from the ballot, the function of the court system is to rule on the merits of the case.

[ThePublius]

" Republicans claiming that Obama was barred from the Presidency because Obama was supposedly not born in the United States?"
Then why did Obama claim he was not born in the United States? (See his literary agent.)

[David Nieporent]

Obama did not claim, at any time, that he was not born in the United States. It was not "his literary agent." There was some junior clerk at an agency preparing promotional material for the agency, writing short blurbs about a bunch of people, who included this about an unknown person not in politics that nobody cared about, for a book he never even published.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Prague, now part of the Check Republic, has a university shooting, 15 dead, 20 injured, most seriously. Perp was 24 years old.

Thoughts:

1: So much for gun control -- he reportedly had multiple weapons, and the cops are searching for explosives. That may be an abundance of caution, but multiple guns, in a place where it is hard to get one.

2: The Chec system is different from the US, but in the US, age 24 is often when someone learns that he either isn't going to make it in grad school -- or doesn't want to. Perp also shot his father.

3: I'd really like to see the way that students are treated be addressed. It won't be -- it will be the gun or the mental illness or the stage of the moon or anything else BUT the fact that institutions are pushing kids over the edge, and there is no need of it.

https://www.courant.com/2023/12/21/at-least-15-people-die-in-a-mass-shooting-at-a-prague-university/

[Absaroka]

It's 'Czech'.

Gun laws there aren't particularly onerous:

"In the Czech Republic, firearms are available to anyone, subject to acquiring a firearms license. Firearm licenses may be obtained in a way similar to a driving license; by passing a proficiency exam, medical examination and having no criminal record."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In news that is shocking to everyone, the MAGA crowd around here can't bring themselves to criticize Orange Hitler's remarks regarding immigrants.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-sparks-republican-backlash-saying-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-rcna130493

[Mr. Bumble]

That's your job.
Have at it, you vermin.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's the 'job' of everyone with a moral compass and of decent character.

A rather low bar that you still can't meet. Are your parents proud that they raised a racist Nazi idolizer? (I know you can't answer that with certainty due to the fact they won't speak with you.)

You are of no value to society whatsoever. Goodbye.

[Mr. Bumble]

Feel better after your rant?

[Mr. Bumble]

This is hilarious. The NYT did a deep dive to calculate how an imaginary movie family could afford their lifestyle.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/movies/home-alone-mccallisters-wealth.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes (may be paywalled) Try also:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12890087/home-mccallister-family-kevin-parents-jobs.html

Now I'm waiting for the story on how Joe Biden and family managed their lavish lifestyle.

[grb]

Joe Biden's lavish lifestyle? Kevin Drum looked at the history of his house purchases over Biden's entire life:

"In 1974, Biden bought a home in Greenville for $185,000. Monthly payments on that were maybe a little high for a Senate salary of $44,000, but well within normal. In 1996 he sold the house for $1.2 million and used the money to buy a smaller house in Greenville that was, at the time, easily affordable on a Senate salary of $133,000. Then, a few years ago, using money from speaking fees, he bought a vacation home in Rehoboth Beach for $2.7 million.

That's it. Biden currently owns two homes, one that was easily affordable on a Senate salary and a second that was paid for out of post-vice-presidential largesse. There's nothing here"

So where can Joe Biden's lavish lifestyle be found?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump Jr used his father’s influence to rip off North Charleston for several million dollars. Neal Bush has been on China’s payroll for over 25 years. Buh Hunter

[Defenderz]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/us/manuel-ellis-tacoma-police-trial-verdict/index.html

"The officers were accused of unlawfully using deadly force on Ellis, 33, when attempting to arrest him in March 2020, for allegedly “trying to open car doors of occupied vehicles.” "

You can take the jogger out of the jungle, but...

[Estragon]

Rudy’s bankruptcy filing. He lists Hunter as a creditor! And lady Ruby, of course:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysb.319064/gov.uscourts.nysb.319064.1.0.pdf

[Dr. Ed 2]

You have to list everyone suing you, regardless of the merits of the suit, as a creditor.

This is a really bad precedent that is going to come back and bite folks like the SPLC.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Rudy Giuliani being held to account and bankrupted -- hounded by creditors for the rest of his deplorable life -- is a glorious precedent. His lies, delusions, and unprofessional conduct have caused enormous harm. He deserves every bit of misery he will experience. May his penalties and sadness constitute an example for others tempted toward depravity, recklessness, malpractice, and boorishness.

[Estragon]

Lady ruby is a creditor, that’s for sure

[Estragon]

Are you really going to try and explain bankruptcy filings to me from the Applebees in bangor after 7 labatts? Check yourself dingo

[apedad]

HA!!!!!!

[David Nieporent]

.

You have to list everyone suing you, regardless of the merits of the suit, as a creditor.

This is a really bad precedent that is going to come back and bite folks like the SPLC.

Look, Dr. Ed posted one whole sentence that wasn't wrong (wasn't precise, but wasn't wrong), so by the Law of Conservation of Wrongness, he was compelled to post a second sentence that was not just wrong, but openly corrupt.

[Kenneth Almquist]

hanks for posting this link.

Giuliani claims of have somewhere between $1 million and $10 million in assets, which doesn't seem too bad, but he owes $989,918 in back taxes. He is being sued in ten different lawsuits. One of those lawsuits is to collect unpaid legal bills ($1,360,000). He also owes $387,859.98 to another law firm that hasn't sued him yet. He is also being sued for not paying $30,000 in phone/internet bills, and $10,000 for accounting.

There is a lawsuit stemming from an altercation with a supermarket employee; I don't know whether than one has any merit. There is a lawsuit over sexual harassment, which looks pretty bad for Giuliani.

There is, as you note, the Hunter Biden lawsuit; Giuliani is supposed to file an answer to the complaint by January 3.

Then there is the Freeman/Moss defamation lawsuit, where Giuliani continued to lie about the plaintiffs even after a judicial ruling that his claims were false. That's just begging the jury to impose punitive damages, and they did. That suggests he won't fare well in the defamation lawsuits still to be decided. Both Dominion and Smartmatic are suing him, as is a Dominion employee who Giuliani singled out by name. Giuliani appears to be a compulsive liar rather than a strategic liar, and I don't know whether he can stop even now that his lying has forced him into bankruptcy.

[David Nieporent]

.

Giuliani appears to be a compulsive liar rather than a strategic liar, and I don’t know whether he can stop even now that his lying has forced him into bankruptcy.

Well, on the plus side for him, it's moot; you can't get the proverbial blood from the proverbial stone. It doesn't matter how many more people sue him; he ain't gonna ever be able to pay them off anyway.

[mydisplayname]

We can all be proud that the United States is ready is vote in favor of a legally binding UN Security Council Resolution which, among other things, expresses an “unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-state solution where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders” and “the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority.”

As Americans, we have stood behind Israel long enough to allow that nation's understandable anger to subside and to allow that nation's citizens to voluntarily decide to live in peace alongside their equals: Israelis have instead chosen a path of deliberate evil.

As Americans, we stand behind Israel: it is the prefect position from which to kick Israel in the ass when it is behaving as a vicious, lying, spoiled rotten child.

[apedad]

The NRA Is at Rock Bottom—And 15 Years of Tax Filings Tell the Story

The NRA’s most recent tax return, filed in November of this year for 2022, reveals dramatic declines along almost every conceivable metric: revenue, assets, member dues, lobbying, and political spending—with conversely sharp increases in legal costs and deficits.

And as the NRA’s power and influence has waned, gun violence has perversely soared, particularly suicides, especially in the wake of the pandemic.

In 2022, 15 GOP senators repudiated the NRA, passing the first meaningful gun control package in decades. That could be a signal of the NRA’s demise, but it also could be interpreted as a reaction to the surging gun violence that continues to this day in part because of the lax gun laws that the NRA advocated for and won over that time.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-nra-is-at-rock-bottomand-15-years-of-tax-filings-tell-the-story

Bad management and being on the wrong side of history can just ruin an organization.

[VinniUSMC]

And as the NRA’s power and influence has waned, gun violence has perversely soared, particularly suicides, especially in the wake of the pandemic.

Damn guns, killing people who just want to die in peace. And fuck the NRA, for losing power and influence causing gun violence to increase... /s

This may have been the stupidest anti-gun screed of 2023.

Aren't you supportive of people's right to end their own lives? Is it only different when it's about the jews guns?

[NvEric]

Joe Biden and his "administration" are the greatest threats to World peace, the United States of America, and the well-being of all life on the planet.

"We have assembled the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of the United States" Joe Biden 2020

Stealing elections have had grave consequences for which honest people weep. For the injured and the dead caused by the illegal actions and negligence of you and your "administration," may GOD have mercy on your "souls"

GOD bless the United States of America - a Republic of Free States and a Free People aligned to their respective States and their counties.

[Nelson]

Is there a note of sovereign citizen ideology in your post?

[Jmaie]

Read an article headlined, "Stirring images show African elephant sanctuary run by indigenous women just as animals are set to reunite with their wild herd"

Just me or does it seem strange to refer to a Kenyan woman in Kenya as "indigenous?"

I think we sometimes get lazy with our choice of verbiage. Reminds me of a long-ago winter olympics in which the French two women's bob-sled team medaled. The (American) announcer said something along the lines of, "This is the first time an African-American has won a medal in bobsledding " followed up by, "In fact this is the first time an African-American from any country has won a medal in bobsledding."