Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has declared on Truth Social, "Deranged Jack Smith, should go To HELL." https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111648440704900982

A significant portion of the Trump cult believes fervently in eternal rewards and punishments, including the belief that Hell is an actual place of torment. Trump has moved squarely into Henry II territory: "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

Solicitation to commit a crime of violence is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 373(a). It is time to consider whether Trump has violated his conditions of release and hold a hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3148, the relevant portion of which states:

(b) Revocation of Release.—The attorney for the Government may initiate a proceeding for revocation of an order of release by filing a motion with the district court. A judicial officer may issue a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with violating a condition of release, and the person shall be brought before a judicial officer in the district in which such person’s arrest was ordered for a proceeding in accordance with this section. To the extent practicable, a person charged with violating the condition of release that such person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release, shall be brought before the judicial officer who ordered the release and whose order is alleged to have been violated. The judicial officer shall enter an order of revocation and detention if, after a hearing, the judicial officer—
(1) finds that there is—
(A) probable cause to believe that the person has committed a Federal, State, or local crime while on release; or
(B) clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any other condition of release; and
(2) finds that—
(A) based on the factors set forth in section 3142(g) of this title, there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community; or
(B) the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.
If there is probable cause to believe that, while on release, the person committed a Federal, State, or local felony, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community. If the judicial officer finds that there are conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, and that the person will abide by such conditions, the judicial officer shall treat the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142 of this title and may amend the conditions of release accordingly.

[Krayt]

Deranged Jack Smith, should go To HELL.” https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111648440704900982

A significant portion of the Trump cult believes fervently in eternal rewards and punishments, including the belief that Hell is an actual place of torment. Trump has moved squarely into Henry II territory: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

Solicitation to commit a crime of violence is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 373(a). It is time to consider whether Trump has violated his conditions of release and hold a hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3148, the relevant portion of which states

In case initiative 37, keep him off the ballot fails, create initiative #40. One fails, move on to the next, to git 'im, a political opponent.

[not guilty]

Who held a gun to Donald Trump's head and told him, "Engage in stochastic terrorism, or I'll blow your brains out"?

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you vying for a place on Jack Smith's prosecution team?

[not guilty]

No. Jack Smith is holding his own quite admirably, and I am enjoying retirement.

[Frank Drackman]

Only thing Jack Smith is holding is his (Redacted), and if we're gonna be dropping Willie S quotes, here's one for all the (Redacted)s who think "45" isn't going to be "47"
"Expectation is the root of all Heartache"
BTW, why hasn't Hunter been booked/fingerprinted/mugshotted??and a DNA sample taken. Probably a few "Cold Cases" that could be solved with a little Cum of Yung Hunter B.

Frank

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Maybe they only said something like: "Those who refuse to engage in stochastic terrorism ought to get their brains blown out, don't you agree?"

[Darth Buckeye]

So saying "go to hell" is a threat and is not constitutionally protected? Good to know.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Praying for God to strike someone dead with a bolt of lightning is *not* an act of violence.

Think about this for a minute...

Yes, Christians believe in Hell but read Edmund Burke -- only God can arbitrarily deny someone's life (or liberty or property) because those rights come from God.

So Trump is urging God to do so -- that is a far different thing from urging other humans to do so.

Worry about the legal landscape you will have created with your TDS -- does asking God to help the Red Sox win constitute a criminal threat against the NY Yankees, as much as they may suck? Of course not....

[not guilty]

Does God subscribe to Truth Social?

[Magister]

Not a sparrow falls unnoticed, so presumably God is painfully aware of Trump's droppings.

No indication that Trump is addressing God, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

[Magister]

Trump wants to become a dictator, to the detriment if not outright destruction of the United States Constitution, which is not a mote. Rather than present any argument that Trump is addressing God (which Jesus says should be done in private, not on social media, per Matthew 6:5), Dr. Ed 2 chooses irrelevant lecturing of others past the beam in his own eye if not his own foot in his mouth.

[Dr. Ed 2]

*IF* Trump wanted to become a Dictator, Covid was his opportunity -- and what did he do?

[Mr. Bumble]

Caught Covid?

[Magister]

Trump's response was to worry more about his political fortunes than saving American lives. He reduced testing and denied resources to fight the pandemic for political advantage because it seemed to mostly affect blue states whose governors would be blamed; Kushner declared federal resources were "our stockpile". Vaccines were developed but little distribution was attempted when they were approved because overturning the election result was more important. The main obstacle Trump faced in becoming a dictator in his first term was that even his own appointees were not on board.

[Nige]

What does God need with a social media?

[DrCoke]

"I can feel your TDS, release it to me!"

[Krayt]

Create removal initiative #40 in case #37, 14th section 3 fails.

You're a non-sentient mechanism regurgitating memes power brokers order you to believe. There is no virtue here to be signaled. A long line of initiatives to "git 'im!" demonstrate that with statistical certainty.

Initiative fails, move on to the next, then the next, then the next. Go beyond normal political push and shove and turn the power of government against your opponent.

Trump will have his own issues with historians in the future. But these shameful efforts clearly indicate the wisdom of trying to prevent it in constitutional design, and the flaws, especially since other memes ride along in side cars saying "You're a good person for believing this!" as it slams into the gearing mechanisms in your head.

The power brokers lean back. Another productive soulless day.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

The line actually is "...who shall deliver me from this turbulent Priest?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

And NOT "God, please deliver me..."

"Who" is a mortal human -- a big difference....

[Frank Drackman]

Always thought it was funny that the people who go around quoting Willy S usually haven't read any of his stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what I think is funny? The Little Drummer Boy. Really cracks me up.

Think about who that king was. Herod.

[Frank Drackman]

Alice Cooper did the best King Herod ever

[Noscitur a sociis]

You cannot be serious.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can be serious, but get the title wrong. "Do You Hear What I Hear".

It's heck having a 65 year old brain, glad I'm retiring soon.

[John F. Carr]

That is the standard version, but it is surely not exact because the king did not speak English.

[Mr. Bumble]

Picky, picky, picky.

[jb]

Given the popular vernacular, I don't really think that saying Jack Smith should go hell can reasonably red as an incitement to kill him, but most of the problems that Trump is having today are very obviously of his own making. Even the "go to HELL" Tweet is the exact opposite behavior of almost every other criminal defendant in the world, because they generally are seeking to avoid antagonizing the legal system as they work their way through it. Trump has decided to push the limits on what he can do, and as a result finds himself running into the reaction that all of those other defendants are trying to avoid.

There's some interesting legal questions about what he should be allowed to do, but the unusual thing about the situation is not what the prosecutors are doing but what Trump is.

[Kazinski]

Come on not guilty, ease up a little on the gas why don't you?

Trump's doing pretty well in the polls already, if the government even filed a motion for a "Revocation of Release" that should be good for another 5 points in the polls.

If they succeed with pretrial detention that's likely 10 points. You saw what happened to his polling with every indictment.

Quit "helping".

[not guilty]

I posit that Donald Trump knew exactly what he was doing when he encouraged his followers to dispatch Jack Smith to eternal torment. In any event it would make for an interesting evidentiary hearing. As Justice Clarence Toady wrote for SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 577, 586 (2018), "Probable cause 'is not a high bar.'" Quoting Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 329, 338 (2014).

Locking up Trump prior to trial would not prevent him from running for president. If he wants to campaign from a cell while wearing an orange jumpsuit, let him have at it.

[Frank Drackman]

as Judge Judy, who has more legal acumen in one of her Labia Minora that you apparently in your whole Corpulent body (I know it's the Internets, but you write like a Fatso) used to say ,
"You can't tell me what Donal Trump knew, that involves your knowledge of the operation of his mind, tell me what he said!"
"Clarence Toady"?? oooh, good one,
NOT! (HT Borat)
"Not Guilty"?? I'm guessing you were a Prosecutor and heard that frequently, glad you're "Retired"

Frank

[not guilty]

No, I spent 28 years as a criminal defense lawyer, with a focus on appellate advocacy. I have been a yellow dog Democrat for longer than that. Any capable lawyer should be able to present both sides with roughly equal facility.

[Frank Drackman]

Capable lawyers of course, but we're talking about you.

[Bwaaah]

"Any capable lawyer should be able to present both sides with roughly equal facility."

"Justice Clarence Toady"

Was that the contemptuous side of lawyerly facility? Do they expect that now too?

[not guilty]

That is not language I would have put in a legal filing, but that shorthand reference makes my point on these comment threads succinctly. And for some reason it draws fewer brickbats than calling out Justice Clarence Uncle Thomas.

I wonder. If Lincoln Perry had lived a few years longer, would George H. W. Bush have nominated him to succeed Justice Thurgood Marshall?

[Frank Drackman]

Clarence Thomas (For years I thought his real name must start with a "J" because in the opinions it's always "J. Thomas dissents.....") has more Character/Legal Boner Fides in one of his Pubic Hairs than you have in your entire Morbidly Obese Corpus Disgusto. "Lincoln Perry"?? if you're going to make a race-ist remark, just make it, you fat pussy.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Eugene Volokh has censored comments for using that word, Mr. Drackman . . . but the record indicates your conservatism and support of Prof. Volokh's efforts will earn you a pass. On-the-spectrum bigots are privileged at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, "Coach" you're really right on top of my posts, I guess Senator Fetterman (notice I'm not insulting him? he's one of the only Senators including Re-pubic-clowns with the Testicles to support Israel) turned your commutation down again. (maybe try with President Parkinsonism? he's giving commutations again like they where Ju-ju-bes)

Frank

[Kazinski]

I'm surprised you have kinda quit using the blatantly racist "Uncle Tom" to describe him, but its still clear why you dislike him so much: he wandered of the plantation.

You "Yellow Dog" Democrats still think you own the Blacks.

[Nige]

Like 'the plantation' isn't fantastically racist itself.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It isn't.

[Nige]

Of course it is. Black people voting for the party that doesn;t pander to the venal insecurities of white people? They must be on a plantatyion, they must be slaves of the Democratic Party, they couldn't possibly be doing that of their own free will, black people don;t have free will!

(You may say that isn't racist because white Republican voters are constantly portrayed as having no free will either, doing stupid evil things because someone somewhere was mean to someone else or about someone else, but that goes with the idea that these people are the True Americans and if you're not pandering to them, you're straying off the True Path, whereas black people on the Democratic Plantation are basically children, easily lead.)

[Kazinski]

It's hard not to describe racism, in terms that reference it.

It's like the disuse of master and slave figuratively because it invokes racism, but when you are describing a literal master slave relationship, then your choices are limited.

[Kazinski]

And to be clear, I did not describing Black voters who vote for Democrats as being on the plantation. They are making up their own mind for their own reasons.

But it's very clear that a much of the anger at Thomas is because he is a Black Conservative, not because he is a conservative, thus the racial references, and assertions he's doing as he is told not as he thinks.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz: he wandered off the plantation

Also Kaz: And to be clear, I did not describing Black voters who vote for Democrats as being on the plantation

Took him 9 hours to realize he'd fucked up.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The plantation is who white liberals view the Democratic party, given the way they treat blacks who leave. It’s a dig at Democrats’ attitude toward dissenting blacks, not black Democratic voters.

Not racist.

(NG, below, demonstrates how to use the metaphor in a racist manner.)

[Sarcastr0]

'I only said plantation because that's what YOU think!'

LOL. Keep trying, Kaz.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"‘I only said plantation because that’s what YOU think!’"

That's literally correct. And you guys are telling on yourselves by getting worked up over the plantation metaphor but not NG's racial slur.

[Nige]

'but when you are describing a literal master slave relationship,'

You're just being more explicitly racist.

'But it’s very clear that a much of the anger at Thomas is because he is a Black Conservative,'

I think one of the reasons Republicans like to promote token Black Conservatives is so that they can say this when they're criticised.

'The plantation is who white liberals view the Democratic party,'

No, you use it because you refuse to examine why so many black people vote for Democrats instead of Republicans. Thomas 'escaped' the 'plantation' where he was 'enslaved.'

[not guilty]

No, Clarence Thomas didn't leave the plantation. He is Stephen on the GOP Candyland plantation. (A role played masterfully by Samuel L. Jackson in Django Unchained.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

“I’m surprised you have kinda quit using the blatantly racist “Uncle Tom” to describe him,”

He didn’t quit. Read closer.

[Nige]

Between you with your plantation imagery and him with his Uncle Tom stuff, there's not much wriggle room.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You wish. So does he, I suppose.

[Nige]

You’re both talking about black Americans in antiquated terms of slavery on order to denigrate them. He's just talking about one person, you're talking about every one of them who votes for people you disapprove of.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Locking up Trump is crossing the Rubicon and would guarantee violence. I doubt the republic would survive.

[Magister]

But Trump destroying the republic, whether by becoming a dictator or by this guaranteed violence, is for Dr. Ed 2 only a mote in his followers' eyes, so quit complaining.

[David Nieporent]

No; sending one's troops to the capitol to overthrow the government is crossing the Rubicon.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump has troops?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Maybe you and NG can get a group discount on whatever meds your shrinks end up prescribing for you.

[John F. Carr]

The system will be prepared for violence. Perhaps Biden will call on the military to keep order. If we survived the long hot summer of 1967, if we survived Malcolm X's "The Ballot or the Bullet", if we survived the antifa riots, we will survive the attempts to spring Trump from jail or punish those who sent him there.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can't wait to see how the Democrat Convention works out in Chicago.

[Armchair]

Ahh, "Trump speech"

[DaveM]

Let me understand you. You want to throw someone into jail for saying "go to hell", is that correct?

[not guilty]

No, I want to see Donald Trump's pretrial release revoked for soliciting his unhinged followers to dispatch Jack Smith to the hell that they believe in, based on the legal authorities that I cited.

[DaveM]

Ahem. Read your comment back to yourself, slowly. Now run your finger down your list of citations, and stop over the one where it refers to unhinged followers dispatching people to hell. "Unhinged" is a very appropriate word to use here, but only ironically.

[not guilty]

Hey, I was reared among Republican fundamentalists who believe that hell is a literal place to which bad people go immediately when they die. I understand those folks' mindset. Donald Trump, by saying that Jack Smith should go to hell, wasn't using a dog whistle to suggest to his rabid followers that Smith should be sent to his eternal destiny.

He was using a bullhorn.

Trump's liberty pending trial is conditioned upon his not violating the law. Per 18 U.S.C. § 373(a):

Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1114(a), "Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States . . . while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties" commits a federal felony.

There is ample probable cause to find that Donald Trump has violated § 373(a) while on pretrial release.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Republican fundamentalists"; a formerly unknown denomination.

[not guilty]

I call myself, only partly in jest, a recovering Campbellite.

[Magister]

Unknown fifty years ago, maybe more.

[Armchair]

"I understand those folks’ mindset."

Do you really? Or are you projecting?

[DaveM]

So, if I say to you, "go to hell", I am ... killing you? Um.

[Michael P]

There's ample probable cause to believe that you have no idea how the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment to laws like these.

Similarly, by your logic, many Democrats in Congress have solicited crimes of violence. One notable example was Maxine Waters's tirade against officials in the Trump administration circa June 2018.

[Mr. Bumble]

Or Chuckie Cheeses tirade against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

[not guilty]

Michael P, please cite a Supreme Court decision holding, on First Amendment grounds or otherwise, that a federal district court cannot revoke a defendant's pretrial release upon a finding of probable cause that the defendant has committed a federal felony.

SCOTUS upheld the Bail Reform Act of 1984 in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987). The government's interest in preventing crime by arrestees is both legitimate and compelling. Id., at 749. "While the Government's general interest in preventing crime is compelling, even this interest is heightened when the Government musters convincing proof that the arrestee, already indicted or held to answer for a serious crime, presents a demonstrable danger to the community. Under these narrow circumstances, society's interest in crime prevention is at its greatest." Id., at 750.

While Salerno dealt primarily with the initial bail determination after arrest, its reasoning should apply with even greater force to one who, having once been granted conditional release from confinement, flouts the law while awaiting trial.

[Michael P]

It's not our job to cite a specific precedent that your inanely totalitarian misapplication of law is wrong.

[not guilty]

Michael P, you alleged that I "have no idea how the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment to laws like these." I have likely forgotten more First Amendment law than you will ever know.

You are the one who invoked Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence. When I challenged you to back up your claim by citing even a single decision, you turned tail and ran.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a bitch.

[Michael P]

I meant to say that it's not our job to cite something that deals with your specific totalitarian take in its specifics.

Brandenburg v Ohio clearly addresses much more specific speech than Trump's, and found that it was fully protected by the First Amendment.

You may have forgotten that case, in which case my earlier statement is entirely true.

[not guilty]

Uh, for what criminal charge was Clarence Brandenburg on bail and awaiting trial when he addressed the Ku Klux Klan rally?

[Michael P]

How about you cite some precedent that supports your idea that judges can revoke bail for speech that is at the core of First Amendment protections?

[not guilty]

I dispute your underlying premise. Donald Trump's speech here, to the extent that it solicits a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373, is not First Amendment protected. As Justice Black (a noted First Amendment absolutist) wrote for the Court in Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949):

It rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. We reject the contention now.

"Many long established criminal proscriptions—such as laws against conspiracy, incitement, and solicitation—criminalize speech (commercial or not) that is intended to induce or commence illegal activities." United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 298 (2008). Criminal solicitation is "categorically excluded from First Amendment protection." Id., at 297.

[David Nieporent]

.

Donald Trump’s speech here, to the extent that it solicits a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373, is not First Amendment protected.

Yes, but that begs the question harder than Oliver Twist.

[not guilty]

"Yes, but that begs the question harder than Oliver Twist."

Well, David, that is one reason we build courthouses, isn't it?

I wrote in response to Michael P's question begging, ipse dixit assertion that Donald Trump's speech is at the core of First Amendment protections.

Whether there is or is not probable cause to believe that Trump's speech while on pretrial release is criminal should be determined by the court that conditionally released him, based on evidence developed in an adversarial hearing.

[Michael P]

"Probable cause" is about uncertain facts given the existing law, not about certain facts given alternate-universe laws. The facts of what Donald Trump did are sufficiently clear given Supreme Court direction (yes, from cases like Brandenburg) that the answer is the same for any standard of proof from "probable cause" to "beyond a reasonable doubt": person X writing "Y should go to hell" is not a crime, even when person X is Donald Trump and Y is Jack Smith.

Criticizing government officials is very much at the core of First Amendment protections, which is why Judge Chutkan's gag order got narrowed on appeal. Again, Smith already lost on this question.

[Michael P]

But at least you've made it clear that your real game here is giving all of the authority to the same anti-Trump judge whose previous orders had to be revised in order to comport with the Constitution: you expect the same sort of distortion for the meaning of "probable cause". What a hack argument.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Michael P, please cite a Supreme Court decision holding, on First Amendment grounds or otherwise, that a federal district court cannot revoke a defendant’s pretrial release upon a finding of probable cause that the defendant has committed a federal felony."

Great! Now all you need is for a federal district court to make such a finding, and you're set!

You get that findings by rando ex-lawyers on the internet don't count, right?

[Michael P]

A leftist moron (but I repeat myself) might forget that Krazee Eyez Killa Jack Smith's team already litigated the question of whether Trump could be required to not criticize Smith as part of his bail conditions, and lost. A bad-faith leftist troll (sorry, more repetition) might then argue that Trump-y criticism of Smith is then a federal crime.

Making that argument doesn't make the bad-faith troll any more credible.

[not guilty]

Uh, Judge Chutkan did not make the partial gag order a condition of bail. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.105.0_2.pdf

By statute, every pretrial release of a federal criminal defendant is conditioned on the defendant not committing a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b) and (c)(1)(A). That condition existed prior to, and remains unaffected by, entry of the gag order.

[Michael P]

The only thing criminal in all of this is your rank dishonesty about the matter. Trump's post was not even close to a crime.

[Sarcastr0]

not guilty is criminal?

[Michael P]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

Paraphrasing, to the extent that it reflects a conspiracy (against Donald Trump's exercise of First Amendment rights) as described under section 241 of Title 18 of the United States Code, it absolutely is criminal.

[Sarcastr0]

Better report not guilty to the FBI, Michael! For conspiracy against Trump!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not sure what the smugness is about, it's less of a stretch than NG's making.

[not guilty]

TwelveInchPianist, have you read 18 U.S.C. § 3148 or not?

[TwelveInchPianist]

No. But if you say that it says that Trump gets his bail revoked, then I'm sure it's just a matter of time before Jack Smith makes his motion and they slap the cuffs on.

I'll betcha it'll be all over the news tomorrow, right?

[not guilty]

Thank you for your candor.

[Don Nico]

NG,
As bad as Trump is, your claim seems a bit of a stretch and seems based on denigrating people who believe that Hell exists.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is the leader of a cult of batshit crazy followers. I don't denigrate those who believe that Hell exists, but I do worry that someone may take Trump's pronouncement that Jack Smith should go to Hell as marching orders to send him to Hell forthwith.

King Henry II knew exactly what he was doing when he said of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" So does Donald Trump.

[Don Nico]

ng,
The threat of crazed followers deciding to take up arms for their leader is always a possibility. But to me "stochastic terrorism" is a political slogan rather than an actual threat of violence, and lies of a slippery slope of reasons to jail political opponents.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, if you specify MAGA types his claim is not only not a stretch, but perhaps an understatement. Stochastic terrorism is exactly what Trump is doing. It does not have to get someone killed to be a criminal attempt to obstruct justice. It is entirely reasonable for people Trump names publicly as foes, and to whom he publicly bids harm, to fear that. Pursuant to Trump's targeting them, some of Trump's victims among potential witnesses have been advised by law enforcement to flee their places of residence and to go into hiding.

Trump should have been in jail awaiting trial months ago. Any other defendant who did likewise would be. The only reason Trump gets special treatment is that Trump has succeeded in politicizing the justice process, and thus Justice Department decision makers have conditioned his treatment on prudential speculations about the political future. Such speculation is unwise, and ought to stop.

[Don Nico]

"Stochastic terrorism is exactly what Trump is doing. "
In that way lies tyranny.
Especially coming from you, this explanation is more akin to hysteria than to prudence.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, do you think Cassidy Hutchinson is a hysteric? Liz Cheney? They published accounts which confirm what I said.

As for, "In that way lies tyranny," we are talking about a guy who attempted a coup against the United States. And who will try it again if he can. Maybe you ought to get your focus off what I said, and put it instead on what Trump is doing. And what the Justice Department is not doing, and what folks are concerned the courts may be abetting.

Told in retrospect, every account of tyranny I have seen is full of reminiscences told in rue. They are all about preventive steps which might have been taken, if only people had acted with resolve to thwart disaster as it loomed plainly into view.

[Stephen Lathrop]

[Stephen Lathrop]

Come on Nico, let's see you engage. Tell me why a guy who is actively experimenting with tyranny, with conspicuous success, is less a threat than an institution to prevent tyranny. Is it shocking to you that a joint popular sovereign actually requires more power than than it can afford to cede to its most ambitious rival?

[Don Nico]

Oh, you challenge me!
You must be bored today,Or is that the small town newspaperman trying to provoke an interviewee. I was trained long ago how to deal with such guys were are better at fishing than reporting.
Your comments have the stench of tyranny, plain and simple. You just want to stretch the the law to imprison someone whom you hate.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No-engagement Nico. I ask questions. I get no answers.

[Frank Drackman]

Chucky Schumer was clearly calling for the assassination of Conservative Surpremes, just because he's a big Pussy doesn't mean some Nut job wouldn't take him up on it, oh wait, one did, and if they weren't such a fuck up, would have killed Big Brain Brett Cavanaugh and we'd have another Ka-grungy Jackson Browne who can't tell a snatch from a Schlong.

Frank

[Kleppe]

"I understand those folks’ mindset."

Whoops! You said the quiet part out loud. Reminder #9236: you cannot read people's minds.

[Kleppe]

"Donald Trump, by saying that Jack Smith should go to hell, wasn’t using a dog whistle to suggest to his rabid followers that Smith should be sent to his eternal destiny.

He was using a bullhorn."

Just the latest example of Democrats declaring Trump to be a literal criminal for doing ordinary things that ordinary people do every single day. See e.g. New York civil fraud trial. You and I can tell people to go to hell, but if Trump does it he must immediately be sent to prison.

[David Nieporent]

What ordinary people secure a bank loan by claiming that their homes have three times the square footage than they actually do?

[Sarcastr0]

Just the latest example of Democrats

It's one dude on a blog, chief.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There's also a Church & State issue here -- the state has no right to prevent someone to say that another should go to Hell.

[John F. Carr]

On the other hand, the state does have the right to prevent people from sending Jack Smith to Hell, Heaven, Purgatory, or oblivion. In my opinion, Trump's statement is on the legal side of the line. It is not a clear call to violence nor does it pose an imminent threat. Last time I checked he was allowed to attack Jack Smith without violating the gag order. (Has the mandate issued from the D.C. Circuit?)

[Michael P]

An optative statement that someone should go to hell is not an exhortation for someone to send that person to hell, much less a constitutionally unprotected solicitation to murder.

So it's amazingly bad faith for the leftist lizard people here to claim that this non-crime, that was allowed by the conditions of bail, is a valid basis for revoking bail under the statute cited originally.

[Frank Drackman]

and I want to see Hunter Biden hung from a stool like they do with Drug Dealers in Ear-Ron, we all have our dreams (mine tend to be wet)

[Darth Buckeye]

Locking Trump up would just increase his standing in the polls. The double standard would be jarring.

[Michael P]

Yes, that's correct, and it's a sign of how sick the Democrat party is these days.

[Nige]

He's so WEIRD. But I suspect you're barking up the wrong tree. How are you supposed to *prove* he wants one of his deranged followers to send Smith to Hell? His deranged followers hardly need his hints, however broad and heavy, to decide to do something like that.

[not guilty]

"The term `probable cause,' according to its usual acceptation, means less than evidence which would justify condemnation . . . . It imports a seizure made under circumstances which warrant suspicion." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235 (1983), quoting Chief Justice Marshall in Locke v. United States, 7 Cranch 339, 348 (1813). "While an effort to fix some general, numerically precise degree of certainty corresponding to 'probable cause' may not be helpful, it is clear that 'only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause.'" 462 U.S. at 235, quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 (1969).

[Nige]

If you say so, but what are the actual chances of them bothering without a much more explicit threat or exhortation?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nige, if it were anyone other than Trump, it would not be a close call. The threats you suppose are so vague and insubstantial have in fact already caused potential witnesses to be advised by law enforcement to go into hiding.

Nobody but Trump gets this treatment. It not only impairs ability to deliver justice at trial, it also strengthens Trump politically. It enables Trump to parade publicly as someone so imposing he can cow the Justice system itself, which delights his political base and encourages them to turn out on Election Day.

[Nige]

Oh I know that, but everything with Trump is a massive fight and a humongous PR headache, no-one would bame them for picking their battles.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I think you can see that I am blaming them. More folks ought to join in. For exactly the reason you mention. If it's a burdensome fight, and a PR headache, then blame for shirking it becomes more urgently necessary, to get some backbone into the effort. It will not prove easier to do that later.

[David Nieporent]

Dude. Take a breath. You're a bit too impressed with your own legal cleverness here. No judge on the planet is going to revoke release because a defendant — let alone Donald Trump — said that the prosecutor should go to hell, a common idiom that does not actually carry with it a threat.

[not guilty]

I don't expect for revocation of pretrial release to happen. But there is enough there to warrant a § 3148(b) hearing as to what Donald Trump intended for his remarks to convey to his Truth Social followers, a la King Henry II's famous rant. Trump could even testify at such a hearing as to what he meant without opening himself up to cross-examination about the offenses charged in the indictment.

[David Nieporent]

Why does it matter what he subjectively meant as opposed to what the words objectively mean?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Donald Trump has declared on Truth Social, 'Deranged Jack Smith, should go To HELL.'...Solicitation to commit a crime of violence is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 373(a). It is time to consider..."

So what should Trump be charged with if he tells Smith to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut?

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

If I were a cultist, I’d declare your post exhibition A of Trump Derangement Syndrome. I am not a cultist; I am not so sure about the derangement …
Trump is pushing the envelope on what is permissible free speech and what is incitement to violence. Blowing the dog whistle must not be the reason to abandon principle of law carved in stone. The fact that Trump is pushing the boundaries can be no reason to drop the “in dubio” part of “in dubio pro reo.” “Jack Smith should go to hell” is too distant from “somebody should do something for Jack Smith go to hell now,” to leave no doubt.
I for one would not forego civil liberties to stop 45. It would be the ultimate proof for non--libertarians that even libertarians think that the principles are pious ideas not fit for the rough and tumble of power politics.
Hence, “not guilty.”

[santamonica811]

BIG ISSUE One: If challenging the right of a person to be on a ballot, what should the process(es) be?

1 A single person (Sec. Of State) decides, with no judicial overview.
2 A single person decides, with state court review.
3 A single person decides, with state court review, and federal court review
4 Go directly to state trial court, in a bench trial, for determination, with state appellate review (ie, bypassing the office of the Sec of State).
5 Go directly to state trial court, for a jury trial.
6. No one can challenge it. Only the two parties, at their national conventions, can say to a putative winner, “Sorry, We're ignoring the will of the people, and you're not the winner...votes be damned.”
6. No one can challenge it at all. This person can win the primary, and can even get the most electoral votes on Election Night. Now, it's up to the electoral college to DQ the guy when it meets.
7. No one—including the electoral college—can challenge. After the election, it can be done only by judicial review.
8. Something else???

If #1, what processes must be put in place by the Sec of State, in order to satisfy due process? If #2, should this be a de novo review? Affirm the trial court absent abuse of discretion? Something else? If #3-4, what processes should be put in place to ensure due process? For all the above; should the due process vary, depending on the type of challenge? (eg, I want to DQ you because I say that you have not lived in the State/country for long enough vs I say that you participated in an insurrection vs I say that you don't meet the age requirements).

BIG ISSUE Two: Who has standing to challenge a person's right to be on a ballot?

Imagine that it's 2028. Vladimir Putin announces that he wants to run for US President. Due to world events spanning 2024-2027, he is now hugely popular in America, and all polls suggest he would easily win an election. Who gets to decide that he is not on the ballot of New Hampshire? Or Iowa? Or, he gets the Rep/Dem nomination due to a massive write-in campaign. Who gets to decide that he will not appear on the general election ballots?

Same sort of questions, but applied to Debbie Democrat and Randolph Republican—two freshman Representatives, who are both 26-27 years old, but are easily the most popular politicians in America. Both will easily sweep to victory in their primaries. Q: Who gets to decide that they should not be allowed to run? We all agree that Putin, and these two Reps (who each are almost 10 years too young) are sort of open-and-shut cases. But...who gets to decide, who has standing to contest inclusion on ballots, etc etc?

This is all (IMO) very interesting questions. There *has to* be some mechanism to challenge. But...also, it seems awful to allow one person (elected or appointed) to decide. And not much better to allow fewer than 10-20 people (supreme courts or en banc courts) to decide. I'm sure there are dozens more question that I didn't think of, and I have no doubt that more-knowledgeable people could have framed my questions more clearly, or in better ways. But I don't think that there are easy answers...at least, not to most of the above.

In Trump's case, he either did Bad Thing X or he did not. But who gets to decide? State official? A single judge? A panel of judges? A jury? God knows. But, surely, in my various hypos (clearly underage candidates; an evil foreign leader) we run into the exact same issues: Who gets to complain or contest? Who gets to decide, and in what forum, and with what due process (if any)?

[Krayt]

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

As discussed, this was to stop innumeral local political operatives from arresting them to tilt legislative votes.

Why in holy hell's name should innumerable local political operatives be able to unilaterally decide to keep a political opponent off their state's presidential ballot?

Oh, I understand the political weaselery to try it.

[John F. Carr]

In those days a civil case could begin with the arrest of the defendant.

[David Nieporent]

.

Why in holy hell’s name should innumerable local political operatives be able to unilaterally decide to keep a political opponent off their state’s presidential ballot?

One notes that you didn't answer his questions.

[Kazinski]

The answer is right there is black and white in the 14th amendment;

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Of course your 8 alternatives are useful because they do show how messy the alternatives are rather than just charging, and convicting Trump of insurrection if the evidence supports the charge. If he is convicted of insurrection then even the most diehard Trump supporter would have to concede he is ineligible.

[Martinned]

Now explain how all sorts of people ended up ineligible before Congress had passed any legislation, i.e. right after the entry into force of the 14th amendment.

[Mr. Bumble]

Winners, rightly or wrongly call the tune?

[Martinned]

True. And in this case they called the tune by adopting three amendments to the Constitution.

[Kazinski]

Actually Congress passed the first such legislation in 1862, and the 14th amendment made sure to obviate any challenges to that legislation.

But keep in mind that the Supreme Court never ruled that Congress or the states couldn't impose additional qualifications to federal office until about 20 years ago, so that legislation may well have been upheld without the 14th. Its the disqualification to state office that would have been the most contentious during reconstruction.

[not guilty]

Disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 is not a criminal penalty. If it were, it could not have been imposed ex post facto against ex-Confederates for acts of insurrection or rebellion which occurred prior to 1868. (Just as the 1862 Act prohibiting insurrection could not have been enforced as to acts occurring during the early stages of the Civil War prior to 1862.) Construing § 3 disqualification as a criminal penalty would have defeated the primary purpose of that section of the amendment.

[Martinned]

For the record, I'm not sure why you think the Constitution itself cannot impose an ex post facto criminal punishment.

[not guilty]

If that had been the drafters' intent, they would no doubt have said so. Repeals by implication, whether of statutes or constitutional provisions, are highly disfavored in the law.

[Martinned]

Section 3 is ex post facto, even though it doesn't say so explicitly. It just isn't a criminal punishment. But if it had said that all insurrectionists should go to prison, I have no hesitation in saying that that would have applied to people who committed their insurrection before the entry into force of the 14th amendment.

[not guilty]

The provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory. Section 3 and the ex post facto clauses can be harmonized by construing disqualification under § 3 as civil in nature. That construction avoids any tension with the ex post facto prohibitions.

The raison d'être of § 3 disqualification is its application to ex-Confederates who engaged in insurrection or rebellion before adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. It should not be construed to conflict with preexisting constitutional provisions.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Seems like several decades of legal practice ought to be enough to instill systematic legal thinking, at least among the upper quartile or so of legal practitioners. I remain at a loss to understand why not guilty seems to have got so much more out of it than other lawyers who contribute to these comments.

[Martinned]

Hang on, your claim is that Congress passed implementing legislation for the 14th amendment three years before anyone even thought about drafting such an amendment? Wow, was the 1862 Congress magic?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they were going back and trying to make their usurpations of power legit after the fact, knowing that sooner or later the courts would get involved and notice that they had no constitutional basis for what they were doing.

[tylertusta]

This wasn't an uncommon thing back during the Civil War.

Lincoln famously suspended habeas corpus, but the more interesting part is that not even Lincoln knew if he could do it unilaterally.

Congress would retroactively legalized Lincoln's actions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Now explain how all sorts of people ended up ineligible before Congress had passed any legislation, i.e. right after the entry into force of the 14th amendment."

SM811 pretty much did. Heck, in one case a dude was disqualified by the Postmaster General with no judicial review.

[Mr. Bumble]

“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Which at the very least would take it out of the hands of state courts and place it squarely in the federal courts.

[Mr. Bumble]

....and edit is still down.

Tried to add: (if such legislation existed).

[Brett Bellmore]

The enforcement Act of 1870 was explicitly 14th amendment enabling legislation. It reads, in relevant part,

"Section 14. And be it further enacted, That whenever any person shall hold office, except as a member of Congress or some State legislature, contrary to the provisions of the third section of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for which such person shall hold office, as aforesaid, to proceed against such person, by writ of quo warranto, returnable to the circuit or district court of the United States in such district, and to prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office; and any writ of quo warranto so brought, as aforesaid, shall take precedence of all other cases on the docket of the court to which it is made returnable, and shall not be continued unless for cause proved to the satisfaction of the court.

Section 15. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall hereafter knowingly accept or hold any office under the United States, or any State to which he is ineligible under the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States, or who shall attempt to hold or exercise the duties of any such office, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor against the United States, and upon conviction thereof before the circuit or district court of the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than one year, or fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court."

I note that it explicitly excludes legislative seats, either state or federal, and doesn't seem to contemplate application to the Presidency.

By the way, the Enforcement act of 1871 pretty clearly settles the question of whether the 'autonomous zones' qualified as "rebellion". They did.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, quo warranto writs for Section 3 enforcement? Sure. Federal quo warranto writs, filed by federal attorneys. Only, Sections 14 and 15 were repealed in 1948. So, there WAS enabling legislation, only it got repealed.

That still leaves the Confiscation act of 1862, which could be considered out of order enabling legislation.

"Section 2

And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.

Section 3

And be it further enacted, That every person guilty of either of the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States."

[Brett Bellmore]

The Confiscation act lives on, in 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection.

"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

It's a felony, and you need to convict people under it to invoke the penalties.

So, I still say: Convict Trump of insurrection, or go away.

[Bwaaah]

^this

[John F. Carr]

Thanks to the ballooning of penalties for other crimes, insurrection is by now less serious than putting on face paint and goat horns and helping scare Congress away (20 year statutory maximum).

[Randal]

Notice how poorly that crime aligns with 14/3. Yes, it includes the word "insurrection," but that's about it. Trump would not be disqualified if he were found guilty of insurrection under that statute, because a) the elements don't prove that he "engaged" in insurrection, he may have just "set it on foot," and b) you can't add qualifications for President in a statute, so someone merely setting an insurrection on foot couldn't be disqualified.

So no, this tree doesn't bark. A much better argument is that there is no enabling legislation for 14/3, which doesn't mean it's impotent, but does mean that there's no mechanism to sue for its enforcement, even in state court. It's still not a good argument, but I think it's SCOTUS's most likely out.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Trump would not be disqualified if he were found guilty of insurrection under that statute, because a) the elements don’t prove that he “engaged” in insurrection, he may have just “set it on foot,” "

Unclear about how "or" works in English grammar? Or maybe you just meant NOT found guilty? The latter, I think.

Yes, if they do get around to charging him with a Section 3 relevant crime, they'd best charge him with one they can prove he committed, rather than one he happens to be factually innocent of.

They're actually far more likely to go the "set it on foot" route, because they can exploit a lot of ambiguity about what that means, while "engage" is a lot more objective.

[Randal]

That's the point. There are a lot of actions that violate the statute but not 14/3. Therefore, violating the statute doesn't imply violating 14/3.

Imagine if the statute included "observing" an insurrection as part of the crime of insurrection. Would you still say that someone convicted of insurrection is disqualified under 14/3?

[Brett Bellmore]

By your reasoning, that wouldn't mean the statute wasn't enabling legislation. It would just mean that it was over-broad enabling legislation.

[Randal]

lol

[not guilty]

Brett, nothing you have cited requires a criminal conviction as a prerequisite to disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3.

[Michael P]

It very strongly indicates that Congress of the time did not see 14.3 as self-executing, and that the same Congress prescribed an enforcement mechanism involving one lawsuit rather than 50+ to resolve the question, including prescribing when such lawsuit should be initiated.

To the extent that these provide were later repealed, that leaves criminal conviction as the remaining mechanism. The case of Victor L. Burger is illustrative: Congress refused to seat him after his conviction, but sat him later after that conviction was vacated. He notably was allowed to run for re-election in spite of being under indictment, and the enforcement mechanism was Congress refusing to seat him.

[Brett Bellmore]

The usual suspects here say, "But Congress said they didn't need the court to have convicted him!"

That's because he was running for Congress, and Article 1 authorizes each House to judge the qualifications of its own members, so they can reject elected members on their own judgement, with Section 3 not having anything to do with it.

But... They still did wait until Berge was convicted before doing it, and relent after the conviction was overturned. They might not have thought they were legally required to do, but they sure as hell thought it was the right thing to do.

[David Nieporent]

.

The case of Victor L. Burger is illustrative: Congress refused to seat him after his conviction, but sat him later after that conviction was vacated.

I see you've taken disingenuous lessons from Brett. They didn't say, "Oh, your conviction was vacated? Come on in." They sat him after he ran for office again a few years later and won again.

They expressly said when they refused to seat him the first time that they were not relying on his conviction.

[Michael P]

Sure, because they wanted to reserve their constitutional prerogative to judge the returns and qualifications of their own members.

Q: Does Congress have such discretion when counting ballots from the Electoral College?

[Sarcastr0]

I see people ,Israeli g ought for should all the time. You are going the other way somehow.

[Mr. Bumble]

?

[Bob from Ohio]

Early drinking for NY eve?

[Don Nico]

That was a complete garble. Please repost.

[Frank Drackman]

Day drink much?

[Bwaaah]

e mi du?

[jb]

Two thoughts here:

1) Is your theory that none of the other portions of the 14th Amendment take effect without Congress passing laws as well? (i.e., equal protection doesn't apply absent something like the Civil Rights Act?) Or is it only Section 3 that needs an act of Congress to somehow become operable?

2) Okay, assume Trump were found guilty of insurrection. I still don't think that answers the question of the mechanism for his disqualification. Is it one of the scenarios that santamonica lays out (only without the need to adjudicate whether or not he is actually an insurrectionist), or something else?

[Stephen Lathrop]

There ought to be a state administrative official—not a legislator or member of the judiciary—or a group of such officials, sworn to support and defend the Federal Constitution, and charged to decide questions of candidate eligibility to serve in office. Those administrators should perform no other duty. They should be chosen by an objectively non-partisan process prescribed by law.

Ideally, such administrators would be persons who followed a life-long custom formerly practiced by some American professional military officers, to avoid political participation altogether. When Dwight Eisenhower was considered as a likely candidate for president, no one at first knew which party he might choose to represent. Eisenhower had made it a point of military duty never to register, and never to vote. Eisenhower took seriously his oath to defend the Constitution, and wanted no taint of political involvement to call that into question, no matter what the politics might be of any administration he might be called upon to serve.

Beyond staying apolitical, administrators charged to decide candidate eligibility ought to follow procedures set forward in advance to review candidate qualifications. In every such review, there should be specific reference to each potential cause of disqualification. If such an administrator, or group of administrators, decides by that method that a would-be candidate is unqualified, that satisfies due process.

Judicial review could still happen. It would be confined strictly to questions about whether qualifications criteria have been considered systematically by duly qualified administrators, and whether prescribed administrative processes have been followed.

But with one exception. There needs to be a law passed that makes it a felony to break the oath. A court empowered to review due process cases involving candidate qualifications must also be empowered to try and punish oath breaking by administrative officials who review candidate qualifications. But that judicial power must not extend to modifying an actual qualifications decision made in any particular case. The reason for that being that candidate qualifications are matters of sovereign prerogative, and thus beyond any court's proper power to review. Performance of administrative functions related to elections are properly reviewable by courts already empowered by law to review administrative procedures generally.

[Commenter_XY]

Good luck in lathropstan. 🙂

[Stephen Lathrop]

Which troubles you more, the law against oath breaking, or ineligibility for a candidate who attempted a coup?

[Frank Drackman]

That our current POTUS is a demented blithering Idiot who expressed more concern over the death of a piece of shit in Minneapolis than Americans murdered by Ham-Ass.
Oh, and his VPOTUS is even worse (and can't blame her Idiocy on Parkinson's Disease)

Frank

[Don Nico]

"Which troubles you more.."
your imaginary ought-to-be world

[Stephen Lathrop]

Coups and oath breaking okay with you, or just impossible to imagine?

I had been taking your input seriously. As empty replies have grown more frequent, I doubt many bystanders still are.

[Kazinski]

Yes the fact the constitutional convention failed to institute such an obvious constitutional office is a lasting blot on their record.

They were so besotted by the idea of a political congress and executive held in check by an appointed judiciary with lifetime tenure to help insulate them from politics they neglected such an obvious absurdity as a non-partisan office held by one person in Washington.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, you are generally correct. History has demonstrated a constitutional weakness that the founders did not anticipate. They presumed that popular sovereignty would remain active at the apex of American constitutionalism. This from founder James Wilson expresses that expectation:

There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable . . . Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions . . . This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is, that in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitution, control in act, as well as right. The consequence is, the people may change constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.

Franklin's less dramatic but famously pithy aphorism expressed a similar idea in fewer words: "A republic if you can keep it."

Those are ideas which remained influential during the first presidential administrations, but which after the administration of John Quincy Adams began to fade from influence and legal practice. The result ever since has been unnecessary confusion, and insistence on inappropriate paradox in constitutional interpretation—a practice I have termed decapitated constitutionalism.

The current crisis renews the need to create an institutional presence to embody that now-missing element of sovereign control at the apex of American constitutionalism. The problem to structure it correctly, and get it implemented, ought to be a major focus of public life which the nation takes from it baleful current crisis. As Trump has shown, without empowering such an institutional embodiment, it is all too easy for a would-be tyrant to turn himself into a rival for the People's sovereignty.

[Kazinski]

Shorter Lathrop: people aren't voting the way I think they should.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nah, that’s you Kazinski. I'm an institutionalist.

What you don’t like about joint popular sovereignty is the, “joint,” part. You want every man a king. You hate the thought of sharing sovereign power, because you cherish a nonsensical notion that you shouldn’t have to share. You want it all to yourself. And if you can’t get that, you hope at least to find a real king who is a match to your ideology, and put him over everyone.

You love uncontrollable power. You just want it personally.

[Michael P]

You still don't understand what Wilson meant by that passage, even when you end the quote with the sentence that dynamites your core thesis. Sad.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So tell me what Wilson meant.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Still waiting Michael P, what did James Wilson mean? Don't make me guess what you think. I might guess unkindly.

[Michael P]

I told you before, and you didn't understand it. I'm not going to repeat myself to a broken record.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You did no such thing. Your whole schtick is two-line denials.

Also? Quit lying.

[ReaderY]

President is potentially different because ballots for President exist only by state law, not by the constitution. The people have no constitutional right to elect a President, and nobody has a constitutional right to stand for popular election.

That said, the 14th Amendment requires fair procedures to address disputes in the laws states establish.

At common law, the writ of Quo Warranto was used to challenge somebody’s qualifications for office. It was done through a civil proceeding in a circuit court.

So I think that here, history and tradition guide the process due. An administrative proceeding or decision by an executive officer is insufficient. A court hearing is required . But a civil procedure rather than a criminal one is adequate. Moreover, the proceeding could be done in one of several alternative ways to a regular civil court mentioned in the constitution or established in our history, such as a court of impeachment, or a military tribunal in time of war or for someone in tbe military.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The people have no constitutional right to elect a President,

ReaderY, correct, but not correct in the way you suppose. What you refer to is not a right. It is a sovereign power, and it encompasses the entire power of governance. It is far more than some mere right.

Note also, the Constitution does not and cannot constrain the jointly sovereign People. It is their decree. They can abide by it, ignore it, amend it by empowering government to do so, or change it by any other means, without respect to its text. That is what it means to be sovereign. The jointly sovereign American people act at pleasure, without constraint. They constrain government. Government does not constrain them. Not even their own Constitution constrains them.

[John F. Carr]

If the fact of disqualification were clear one way or the other it wouldn't matter much who decided. The candidate will be 35 years old on a certain date or he will not be. The birth certificate says he was born in the United States or it doesn't. He has 5 unpaid parking tickets from the early 1990s or he does not.

(Candidate Obama paid his old parking tickets around 2007 or 2008, not to qualify himself for president but because he wanted to appear respectful of the law.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

I always wondered why he hadn't gotten his license suspended, or does MA only do that to MA residents?

I know lots of people who have had trouble renewing their licenses and had to go to the local communities to pay parking tickets -- often for vehicles they didn't even own.

[bernard11]

Probably Soros intervened.

[John F. Carr]

Formally, most of these financial offenses make your license and registration nonrenewable. A nonresident has no need to renew a Massachusetts license. The risk to a nonresident is that nonrenewable will get coded as suspended, which sometimes happens.

There may be special reciprocity with New Hampshire for nonrenewable status.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As a textual and originalist matter, section 3 is probably self-executing, by any official with the power to keep disqualified people out of office. But we're seeing what a clusterfuck that can be outside of the civil war context, so SCOTUS will probably interpret it as non-self executing and require Congress to use its enabling authority if they want to disqualify people.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think that ruling would open up a huge can of worms, since it would apply to the entirety of 14A, not just section 3.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Who gets to be on a ballot in any particular state is a matter for the state itself to decide. State legislatures pass laws specifically stating the rules for appearing on the ballot, and which person or persons make the determination. This happens in every election cycle. Here in NC, the state board of elections are keeping two Democratic candidates of the primary ballot. Both candidates applied to appear on the ballot, and both meet every constitutional requirement.

[Martinned]

Yesterday we lost Jacques Delors, chairman of the European Commission (1985-1995) and architect of the EU as it stands today. Arguably the greatest European since Monet.

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

[Martinned]

On the same day, we also lost Wolfgang Schäuble, Angela Merkel's predecessor as CDU leader and loyal (Finance) Minister. He was a member of the Bundestag for more than 50 years (which is quite long by European standards), and spent the last 33 years in a wheelchair after a terrorist tried to murder him in 1990.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Sch%C3%A4uble

[Kazinski]

Well, then RIP to him then.

But I doubt the flags are at half staff in the UK for him, when the time comes I'm sure Nigel Farage will get much more of a sendoff than Delors because he freed the UK from Delor's vision.

[Martinned]

I'll take that bet. So far Farage couldn't even win a celebrity reality show.

[Nige]

They have wine in pint bottles now. Maybe they should call them 'Farages.'

[Kazinski]

"Arguably the greatest European since Monet."

I won't argue that point to vociferously. Some might say Churchill, but of course he was an Englishman, not a European.

If pressed though I would say Vlacav Havel was the greatest European in the last Century.

[Martinned]

Churchill was before Monnet. (I meant the EC founder, not the painter.)

[Kazinski]

Well then keep your n's straight then, but of course spellcheck is not your friend there.

But Friedrich August von Hayek, Monnet's contemporary was clearly the greatest of the European Postwar economic theorists. However I will concede Monnet's 48 hour workweek was an incredible achievement, not so much because its effect, but because he got the French to accept it.

[Martinned]

I spotted my typo as soon as I pressed submit, but somehow the edit function didn't take. My apologies.

[John F. Carr]

"of course he was an Englishman, not a European"

A probably apocryphal newspaper headline from Churchill's time: "Fog in Channel. Continent isolated."

[Kazinski]

Of course, the Continent is isolated, it was by design.

Not many people know that impressive as Stonehenge is, its merely a monument commemorating a vastly more impressive Neolithic engineering feat: the completion of the English Channel.

[Bwaaah]

"The Power of the Powerless" by Vaclav Havel
https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/1979/01/the-power-of-the-powerless.pdf

As we link arms in solidarity with the oppressed, let us consider the history of how movements such as ours prevail, and at what cost. (Those who are unwilling to link arms should consider the same.)

[Martinned]

That essay should be mandatory reading at every high school in the known universe. But whether it actually affected the course of history, like Delors did, is a separate matter.

[Bob from Ohio]

"greatest European"

Ceasar, Charlemagne, Newton, Napoleon, Bismarck, Churchill

Now its a bureaucrat. My how Europe has fallen.

[Nige]

The right wing craving for a Dear Leader.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Right-wingers not noticing those guys are just successful bureaucrats and diplomats.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon and Bismarck were famously noted for their lack of administrative abilities!

Also Newton was Warden and Master of the Royal Mint. A Bureaucrat if there ever was one.

[Bob from Ohio]

Their administrative abilities were not why they were great. Yes, they excelled at many things, can't put anything past you.

"Warden and Master of the Royal Mint"

Name another without looking it up if that is the important reason for his greatness,

Delors was appointed to everything except one term as part of a debating society known as the European Parliament. Obscure even in life.

[Martinned]

He was so obscure, in fact, that Rupert Murdoch's tabloids put him on the front page whenever they wanted to publish misinformation about the EU. Most famously:

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0bc61dfd6fe88ad011ac8036afd3775ff2a33a47/0_10_936_562/master/936.jpg

[Don Nico]

Caesar?
You really ought to study Roman history better.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And since editing is apparently broken...you couldn't find a more bureaucratic personage than Churchill. Just bouncing from post to post whether he succeeded or failed and eventually landed the top job.

[Joe_dallas]

I guess you would have preferred chamberlian

churchill did fail to convince roosevelt of the merits of numerous strategic moves during WW2 which helped facilitate the russian control of eastern europe post ww2

[LawTalkingGuy]

Attlee. Britain’s greatest PM.

[Kleppe]

Quoting your comment so you can't delete it later: "Attlee. Britain's greatest PM."

[Martinned]

Delors, of course, was not in fact a bureaucrat, but a politician. He delivered a vision for a post-Westphalian Europe (as did Monnet), which is fundamentally a political thing to do (Monnet had Robert Schumann to do that aspect of the work).

Delors was also an elected member of the European Parliament, finance minister under Miterrand, and the person who could have quite easily won the French Presidency in 1995 if he'd decided to run. In the mid-90s he was the most popular politician in France, but he decided to basically retire from active politics. (And the socialist candidate, Lionel Jospin, was defeated by Jacques Chirac.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"elected member of the European Parliament, finance minister under Miterrand, and the person who could have quite easily won "

One term, appointee, didn't happen

I can use functionary or apparatchik instead if it soothes your feelings.

[Kazinski]

Not a bad list but it should be:

Ceasar, Charlemagne, Newton,Churchill, Napoleon, Bismarck, Churchill.

John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough, was more consequential to forming a British Superpower at its assent than Winston was at managing its decline.

I'd also add John Sobieski, saving Vienna from the Ottomans was probably the most consequential event in Europe from the fall of Constantinople to the French Revolution.

[Martinned]

About 20 years ago lots of countries had televised competitions to elect their greatest compatriot. That should give you a lot of food for thought. (Then again, in the US Reagan won, so the methodology might not have been perfect.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Britons_spin-offs

[not guilty]

The Special Counsel has filed a motion in limine in D.C. designed to exclude improper evidence and argument at trial. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.191.0_2_1.pdf As the first paragraph of the motion states, "The Court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation, and should reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding."

Well said.

[Mr. Bumble]

Stalin would be so proud.

[not guilty]

How so? Please show your work.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who made you the proctor of the VC comment threads?

It is my opinion, of the prosecutions aimed at Trump, that they bear a resemblance to Stalin's "show trials" of 1936-1938 which were aimed at removing any opposition to his leadership.

[not guilty]

Did you read the motion in limine that I linked to? What part(s) of it should not be granted?

[Frank Drackman]

Nobody read it, because you're a pompous blow hard and it's probably disgusting Gay Porn. Before AlGore invented the Internets you were "That guy" who sent Chain Letters.

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

It’s bullshit to drop a comment comparing something to the USSR and when asked to back it up just say ‘nah.’

You aren’t throwing truth bombs, just turds.

[Michael P]

The comparison is obvious to anyone with half a brain. There's not even a real question why you two refuse to admit it.

[Nige]

Yes, only people with half a brain consider it obvious.

[Nelson]

Only if you can't comprehend the difference between baseless political show trials and evidence-based, rule-of-law centered, due process legal cases. Casess that include appeals to higher courts.

It seems that the GOP can't understand that a President isn't above the law and if he tries to stay in office after losing an election, hides and retains documents that don't belong to him, gathers and encourages a violent mob to invade the Capitol, or breaks the law in any way, he is subject to the exact same penalties as "normal" citizens.

The hostility to the rule of law by conservatives is a frightening and dangerous development in American politics. Combined with the grievance-oriented politics of Trump and the unwillingness of Republicans to accept reality when they lose elections, it is a recipe for disaster.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It is my opinion, of the prosecutions aimed at Trump, that they bear a resemblance to Stalin’s “show trials” of 1936-1938 which were aimed at removing any opposition to his leadership."

You don't even have to go that far back in Russian history. Alexei Navalny, the leading opposition figure, is in prison after a conviction.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Who made you the proctor of the VC comment threads?

Prof. Volokh is the proctor. His repeated imposition of viewpoint-driven censorship at the Volokh Conspiracy is the evidence.

[Frank Drackman]

"Show your Work"???
I'll show you something but it won't be my "work".
Always hated those Prick Teachers that did that "Show your Work" Bullshit, I'm a Lefty, we use our Right Brains (Aren't Brains more important than Hands? Southpaws are the real "Right Dominant" peoples, another example of Peoples of Southpawness taking it up the keester)
As long as I get the right answer who gives a fuck how I got it?

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

Drackman, until you can answer the question, "How do I know that?" you have no notion whether you have the right answer or not.

By the way, if you want a succinct definition of critical thinking, that's it.

[MoreCurious]

As we all know by now, Drackman is incapable of critical thinking. It's obvious that his boyfriend, Hunter Biden, jilted him some time ago and since then Drackman can't think of anything other than sex between men.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, Penis-Breath, I spent a whole 2 weeks in Israel thinking of Hunter Biden, when's the last time you did anything that didn't involve someone's cock in one of your Orifices?
Ooops, not kind or gentle, well, nobody else is on this joke of a "Legal Blog" either, so blow me.

Frank

[DaveM]

I object. The Special Counsel is not twisting the process hard enough. I came for the coup, and all I got was this lousy motion? Trump must not be allowed to inject politics into the courtroom, that's our job.

[Krayt]

The facetious nature of claiming to remove politics from the courtroom, when the entire trial itself is a political harm initiative to get an opponent.

That it's somewhere in the middle to late thirds of a long line of political initiatives demonstrates that with statistical certainty. One fails, move on to the next.

[David Nieporent]

.

The facetious nature of claiming to remove politics from the courtroom, when the entire trial itself is a political harm initiative to get an opponent.

I was not aware that Jack Smith was running for president.

[tylertusta]

No, but his boss is.

[Kazinski]

Well I do agree that the evidence should be limited to refuting the charges against Trump, not digging deeper by trying to justify the conduct Smith alleges, I think probably the best defense is asserting the alleged conduct, insofar as Smith can prove it, was not a crime.

Of course their may be an already scheduled political event in a little over 10 months that might render the trial superfluous.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

OK, I've finally decided what I think of President Biden's low approval numbers, which is: when has he ever had high approval numbers? His entire career has been based on winning elections in spite of everyone thinking of him as a party-line establishment-Democrat, a hard worker, but not brilliant or charming. His approval numbers have always hovered around 35% or so. It has prevented him from winning Democrat primaries in his many short-lived runs for President, until finally in 2020, when (looking back on it) anyone could likely have beaten Donald Trump and most of Biden's supporters voted for him because he was "not Donald Trump".

[Moderation4ever]

There are Presidents that never do much and are remembered and guys like Joe Biden that actually accomplish a lot and never get a lot of credit. The 2024 will likely shape up like 2020 and be a referendum on Donald Trump more than a referendum on Joe Biden. I think the results will be the same as 2020 and the loser will whine as much. Trump will likely whine more as he does not have the levers of power he had in 2020 to try to hold power.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, President Parkinson's "Accomplished" a lot, too bad it's all bad.

[tylertusta]

Yeah, the pullout from Afghanistan just covered Biden in glory, didn't it?

[Sarcastr0]

I think so. Biden did what Bush, Obama, and Trump failed to do.

[Moderation4ever]

Withdrawals are always dangerous and subject to problems. In the end we are out, and Biden did it. He can get both praise and criticism.

[ReaderY]

Mr. Biden may not be remembered as our country’s best President. He might even be remembered as a mediocre President.. But he definitely was not Mr.Trump. And that alone makes him a lot better than our country’s worst President.

[Krayt]

Which is the worst deal for prospective voters? Letting tanks redefine Europe and collapsing NATO? "GREAT JOB, GRAMPS!"

Or rewarding, with re-election, those who took about 20% of the value of your savings the past few years, as they spent way too much in spite of being warned of the inevitable dangers, which they lied about to the nation's face as they did it?

Sadly, I am leaning that latter is the lesser of two evils to re-elect.

I am angry this is the choice the soulless power accumulators deign to give us. Please, sirs, can we have more bowls of this leadership?

[Martinned]

Or you could vote for the guy who presided over an astonishing economic recovery following two massive exogeneous shocks in a short period of time.

Since you seem to be worried mostly about inflation (retiree, presumably), have a Reuters article: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-annual-inflation-slows-further-below-3-november-2023-12-22/

Subsiding inflation is brightening the mood for many Americans, with a separate report from the University of Michigan on Friday showing consumer sentiment soaring in December, reversing all declines from the previous four months. (...)
Stocks on Wall Street were trading higher. The dollar fell against basket of currencies. U.S. Treasury prices rose. (...)
With the labor market still fairly tight, wages jumped 0.6% last month, more than offsetting the drag on personal income from decreases in government aid, including food stamps, social security and Medicaid. Personal income rose 0.4%.
The saving rate ticked up to 4.1% from 4.0% in the prior month, which bodes well for spending.
Income at the disposal of households after accounting for inflation and taxes rose 0.4% after gaining 0.3% in October.
That allowed Americans to open their wallets at the start of the holiday shopping season. Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, increased 0.2% last month after rising 0.1% in October.
When adjusted for inflation, overall consumer spending increased 0.3% after nudging up 0.1% in October. The pick up in the so-called real consumer spending added to data this week, including single-family housing starts and building permits, in suggesting the economy was regaining speed after appearing to falter at the start of the fourth quarter.
That was reinforced by a third report from the Commerce Department's Census Bureau showing orders for durable goods jumped 5.4% in November, recouping October's 5.1% drop.
Though a fourth report from the Census Bureau showed new home sales plunging 12.2% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 590,000 units in November, a one-year low, the drop is likely temporary amid a dearth of previously owned houses on the market. Mortgage rates continue to decline from 23-year highs, which should help new home sales.
Gross domestic product growth estimates for the fourth quarter range from as low as a 1.1% annualized rate to as high as a 2.8% pace. The economy grew at a 4.9% rate in the third quarter.
"The U.S. economy is doing well heading into 2024," said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Financial in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "No recession in 2024."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

those who took about 20% of the value of your savings the past few years

You appear to need to expand your investment advisor horizons.

[Life of Brian]

.

OK, I’ve finally decided what I think of President Biden’s low approval numbers, which is: when has he ever had high approval numbers?
* * *
His approval numbers have always hovered around 35% or so.

Did any of your thought process involve looking at actual approval numbers? He was northward of 50% for most of 2021; nearly 60% right at the beginning of his term.

If you have numbers from during the campaign that show he was elected with anything close to 35% approval, please share. On a gut-check level, a ~20% jump in his approval between Election and Inauguration Days seems implausible.

[NvEric]

So, was Trump trying to overthrow himself ?
Was Trump insurrecting himself ?

Trump was President of these United States, so he must have been trying to overthrow and insurrect his own administration as is thought by so many here. Now that is an idiotic notion for so many to buy into.
Love and Kisses to all

[Randal]

You know, Naive Eric, the American President isn't a dictator.

So basically, yes. He was trying to overthrow himself as President, and the constraints of that office, to install himself as dictator instead.

[Frank Drackman]

Our current POTUS is a dictator.
An incompetent one, I know, but at least "45" hadn't been trying to take my guns for the last 40 years. Love how Parkinsonian Joe just pardoned (Or commuted, I don't know, whatever "Let out of Federal Prison" is) a handful of Drug Dealers, that only were in prison because of the law he voted for in the 1980's.
and don't even get me started on You-Crane,

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

From Parkinsonian's Joe's statement
"First, I am commuting the sentences of 11 people who are serving disproportionately long sentences for non-violent drug offenses," Biden announced in a press statement. "All of them would have been eligible to receive significantly lower sentences if they were charged with the same offense today."

"Non-Violent Drug Offenses", here's an example for just one
of the pieces of shit

Angel Rosario – Allentown, Pennsylvania
"Distribution of 28 grams or more of cocaine base (crack) within 1,000 feet of a public school; distribution of 28 grams or more of cocaine base (crack); distribution of cocaine base (crack) within 1,000 feet of a public school (two counts); distribution of cocaine base (crack) (two counts) (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)."

I hear Hunter Biden's already got him back in business

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Well said. Trump was not attacking his Presidency, but rather the Office of President.

[DaveM]

Just so. Not insurrection, but obstruction. Thank God for Pence! If he hadn't stuck to his guns, we'd be in a real mess. The Democrats should be thanking him for his fortitude, but virtue will have to be it's own reward in this case.

[Nelson]

Expecting thanks and praise for doing the minimum that the job requires is very millennial of you.

So congratulations, Mike Pence. You did what you were supposed to do.

All good?

[Nige]

'Trump was President of these United States,'

Outgoing. He wanted to stay. Is this really too difficult a concept to grasp? Most people don't actually need it explained.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot! long time no stain, thanks for clearing that up for all of us Homos(Sapiens)

[Moderation4ever]

Problems at the southern border benefit the Republicans. The President has signaled a willingness to make changes on border policy. That will cost the President political capital. Will the Republicans work with the President and give up an issue for 2024?

[Michael P]

What specific changes has he suggested? So far, his policies have all been in the direction of opening our borders to more drugs, more terrorists, and more foreign agents.

[Michael P]

For example, the backlog of cases in immigration courts has increased from 0.5 million at the end of Obama's presidency, to 1.3 million at the end of Trump's, to an estimated 3 million last month.

https://trac.syr.edu/reports/734/

The primary approach cannot be either to hire more immigration judges or to relax the admission criteria (we have tried both of those, and they only led to the current situation); the only solution that the public will accept is to tighten the rules as actually applied.

[Martinned]

Imagine what the backlog would be if they didn't require 6-year olds to appear in court without any kind of lawyer or other assistance!

[Michael P]

It would be, what, two cases longer?

[Moderation4ever]

Why is the history of slavery so hard to talk about in this country? CRT and the 1619 Project are attacked and now a strong, not the leading, Republican cannot bring herself to say that slavery was the cause of the American Civil War.

I recently visited New Orleans and visited a museum talking about the production of rum. The display noted the difficult work to grow, harvest, and prepare the sugar cane that would go to make rum. What the display failed to mention is that most if not all that difficult work was done by enslaved people.

[Nige]

Because the central project of Republicanism is the fluffing of whiteness. If you're not assuaging white people, you're the real racist. It's OK to be white, and the Jews will not replace us, and all that.

[Frank Drackman]

Because "Slavery" wasn't the cause of the Wah of Naw-thun Aggression (Sorry, but I took Amurican History at Juffuhson Davis High School)
If so, explain why 4 Slave States (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware) fought against the South.
And talk about "Difficult Work" you apparently don't know who built President Parkinson's Home (The White House, not that dumpy split level in Delaware) how they ran the electric wiring in 1799 is amazing.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maryland was because (a) the state was geographically divided, with slavery only being popular in part, and (b) Lincoln sorta ignored the Constitution and threw a LOT of people (including at least a third of the state legislature) in jail.

[Magister]

Maryland's legislature had already rejected secession before any arrests, with even pro-Southern legislators voting against secession. Not surprising that border states with economies that depended on the North as well as slavery did not want to join the Confederacy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, slavery was the cause for secession, and proving that the US was a roach motel, (States check in, but they never check out.) was the purpose of the war.

[Armchair]

"Why is the history of slavery so hard to talk about in this country?"
-It's not

"CRT and the 1619 Project are attacked"
-Because they are grossly inaccurate and distort and exacerbate racial tensions.

[Nige]

They're not white-approved versions of history.

[Mr. Bumble]

They have been debunked by scholars Black and White (not the Scotch).

[Nige]

They've been critiqued, like most works of history. Only because the focus is on black people, that means 'debunked.'

[Mr. Bumble]

When something is factually wrong debunked fits.

[LawTalkingGuy]

IIRC the only thing that was factually wrong was the leading essay about slavery being the cause or a major of the revolution. Never actually read anything beyond that. Also a lot of it was art and literature which can’t be “debunked.”

[Michael P]

https://jacobin.com/2023/12/1619-project-jake-silverstein-history-distorted-slavery-race has a lot of other criticisms about that introduction to the 1619 Project, from historical errors to errors about history (pretending that various arguments were understated in older or even recent histories by white people) and omissions of historically significant facts (such as the economic, social and political weaknesses of the slaveholding society). For example, "the 1619 Project’s description of labor organization on cotton plantations scarcely bears a passing resemblance to historical reality." But it's a long piece with a lot more to it, and it's worth reading the whole thing -- including the parts that discuss the struggles that emancipated Blacks faced after the Civil Wars across the panoply of civil, legal, political and economic aggressions by the former slaveholders who still held much power in those domains. (Of course, it wouldn't be Jacobin without the parting shot at the "real" problem being capitalism as such, regardless of slavery or the lack thereof.)

[Magister]

That article starts with a peculiar criticism.

It is safe to say that, for the past fifty years, no serious American historian doubted that 1619 was a significant date and that slavery and racism were central problems in the nation’s history.

What are we to make, then, of the opening sentence of Jake Silverstein’s introduction to the 1619 Project in the New York Times Magazine? He writes that 1619 “is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history.”

I think the reasonable conclusion is that most Americans are not serious American historians.

[Michael P]

You must not have read much of the article if that's your takeaway. Your implicit argument gets addressed very early.

[Michael P]

If you want a more legal analogy, it’s like someone launching a project about how the right to peaceably assemble is ackchyually the most important right protected by the First Amendment, even though most Americans can’t name it. People who are familiar with the subject know about it, and most Americans have been exposed to it at some point but forgotten it; and while it’s important, it’s not a huge emphasis because in fact it is not the most important part.

The job of newspapers is nominally to report things that most Americans don't know, so it's frivolous to belabor that fact. What's more interesting is when something is also news to specialists in the relevant field.

[Magister]

Spending so much of the article for a pretend gotcha that depends on conflating "most Americans" with "serious American historians" makes the whole thing not worth critiquing further.

[Michael P]

https://quillette.com/2023/03/02/forgetting-vs-overcoming-abuses-of-history-and-the-1619-project/ is a shorter piece that looks more broadly at the revisionism that plagues most of the 1619 Project, but calling out one piece (Khalil Gibran Muhammad's "Sugar") as an example of how to cover the topic well, contrasting it with lesser pieces.

And Hannah-Jones acknowledged she was very selective in the parts of history she told: https://www.mediaite.com/online/youre-wrong-chris-wallace-grills-nikole-hannah-jones-on-slavery-facts-in-1619-project/

[Bwaaah]

(Notice how people like that, individually, never account for their actions. They always hide behind their committees, and speak thusly: “We [blah] [blah] [blah].”)

[Bwaaah]

In response to scholarly criticism the New York Times rewrote key parts of the 1619 Project, including its central thesis. They neither speak about that, nor deny it.

Nicole Hannah-Jones addressed the criticism quite unsquarely (like the mealy-mouthed hater that she is) when she answered: "We are not ourselves historians. [...] We are journalists."

(Notice how people like that, individually, never account for their actions. They always hide behind their committees, and speak thusly: "We .")

[ThePublius]

You know, not to start the never-ending debate/argument on this topic, I've looked into competing perspectives on this and, simply based on some top-level evidence have come to the conclusion it wasn't all about slavery.

By top level evidence I mean:
1. Lincoln never said, especially at the outset, that it was about slavery.
2. Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation before hostilities, and put an end to them.
3. Lincoln waited a long time before issuing the E.P., and it didn't apply to all slaves, only those aligned with the South.

If it truly was about ending slavery, he would have ended slavery by fiat at the outset, and then fought it out with those states that resisted.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like most things in life, it's complicated.

[Bwaaah]

I tried to write a comment, and retreated with the same thought: it's complicated.

Anyway, I'm glad the Union won.

(that was simple enough)

[Absaroka]

PragerU's take on the root causes of the Civil War.

Sounds right to me.

See also the paragraphs starting with "It has been a conviction of pressing necessity,..." in Jefferson Davis' farewell address to the senate, where he is explicit about why Mississippi is seceding.

[ThePublius]

There are a lot of problems with that video; lots of glossing over of details, and inferences of things not in evidence. See at 4:40 when he mentions the E.P. - he fails to note that it did not apply to all states, and says it ended slavery forever.

As I pointed out above:
1. Lincoln never said, especially at the outset, that it was about slavery.
2. Lincoln didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation before hostilities, and put an end to them.
3. Lincoln waited a long time before issuing the E.P., and it didn’t apply to all slaves, only those aligned with the South.

If it truly was about ending slavery, he would have ended slavery by fiat at the outset, and then fought it out with those states that resisted.

[Brett Bellmore]

He, famously, came out and said that it wasn't.

First, a few days before his inauguration, he endorsed the Corwin amendment. Which would have prohibited any amendment to the Constitution in the future removing that guarantee:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Even if you got enough states to support it, the 13th amendment would have been unconstitutional if the Lincoln supported Corwin amendment had been ratified. It was not, of course: There wasn't even enough support in Congress to send it to the states.

Then there's Lincoln's 1st inaugural address:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Or, how about his letter of 1862, to Horace Greeley?

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Lincoln didn't go to war with the South to free the slaves, indeed, he'd have been willing to make slavery a permanent institution in the US. He went to war to establish that the federation was a roach motel, nothing more.

[Krayt]

Then there's the whole issue can Parliament permanently bind future parliaments? This is a ridiculous concept. The only question is what supermajority level would be needed to undo a past amendment.

The People's right to formulate government itself is inalienable, and so "Amendment soandso is hereby repealed" still works just fine.

This is not a paternalistic command, but a recognition of the power of inalienability.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps you'd want to say that the Corwin amendment purported to put the subject beyond amendment. But the point remains established: Lincoln didn't wage war on the South to end slavery. He did it to establish that you couldn't get out of the Federation. Ending slavery was just a tactical measure, and a PR measure, too: People weren't actually all that excited about dying just to force the Confederacy back into the Union, support for the war was flagging until they made the goal ending slavery.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The 21st Amendment comes to immediate mind...

[ThePublius]

Excellent post, Brett. I'm going to save that one.

[Nige]

'Lincoln didn’t go to war with the South to free the slaves'

Finally some CRT the right are keen on.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why is Lincoln the definite word on whether it was about slavery and not all the evidence of the confederates saying it was about slavery? Lincoln doesn’t define the civil war and its causes. He’s just one (important) guy making decisions and speaking in a much much wider historical context.

Lincoln’s goal at the outset was to preserve the Union. But that goal shifted. Ending slavery in the seceding states was at first a military objective but as the war progressed it becomes a moral imperative as the abolitionist position as the history of the 13th amendment demonstrates.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Lincoln doesn’t define the civil war and its causes."

I rather think he does, being the guy who decided to wage a war.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lincoln was not the only guy involved in that process.

[not guilty]

Uh, Abraham Lincoln didn't fire on Fort Sumter.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, but who ordered a fort in Confederate territory invested in the first place? You want to skip over why it got fired on?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Confederate territory"

Charleston was and is US territory. SC had no right to fire on a US fort and try to kill US soldiers.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Correct. And Brett is glossing over all the US military assets the previous administration had deliberately shifted into southern areas, which was then illegally seized by the Confederates. They also seized a good many nonmilitary assets, like lighthouses.

[Absaroka]

In general military terminology, the Confederates invested Ft. Sumter.

Ft. Sumter was conceived after the War of 1812. Construction was started in 1829. South Carolina ceded title in 1836. It got fired on because the confederates were hotheads who thought "...possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina" (South Carolina governor to President Buchanan).

To my knowledge, Ft Sumter did not fire on any shipping into or out of Charleston. They just stayed on property South Carolina had willingly ceded to the United States.

In your view, if Cuba started shelling Guantanamo, would the U.S. be at fault?

[Absaroka]

Yup.

I get the impression that Brett is trying to frame it as 'Lincoln could have just ignored the attack on Ft. Sumter, so Lincoln is the guy who decided to wage war'.

Which seems silly: 'FDR could have ignored Pearl Harbor and the invasion of the Philippines, so FDR decided to wage war, not the Japanese'.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do realize that it was empty when SC seceded, don't you? And it wasn't fired upon as soon as the Union troops landed there. They were harmless, and largely left alone.

It wasn't until outgoing President Buchanan sent reinforcements and arms to Ft Sumter that the shooting began: The supply ship was driven back. The peaceful standoff resumed.

It was months later, after Lincoln took office, that he finally decided to reinforce Ft Sumter regardless of what it took, and the war began. The South decided that their only option was to take the fort before that happened, and by April 14th the fort surrendered, without any casualties. The only casualty of the fight over Ft Sumter was somebody killed when one of the cannon exploded during a ceremonial volley at the surrender.

So, no, I'm not suggesting that Lincoln should have ignored the attack on Ft Sumter. I'm suggesting that he shouldn't have initiated it.

[Absaroka]

"You do realize that it was empty..."

You know, right now our cabin is empty, because it doesn't have enough snow to ski yet. But we still own it, and we reserve the right to take up residence whenever we feel like it, for whatever reason, whether or not the neighbors would prefer we stay away. That's what ownership means. You're not usually such a fan of governments seizing property that isn't theirs.

(and for people who aren't history buffs, the U.S. troops retreated to Ft Sumter because the *USA owned* forts they were in were in more danger from the rebels than Ft. Sumter was)

"The South decided that their only option was to take the fort before that happened...(Lincoln) shouldn’t have initiated it."

Like the Japanese decided that their only option was to start a war before the oil sanctions started to bite ... FDR shouldn't have initiated it. The poor Japanese were forced to attack Pearl Harbor by the mean old USA. They're the real victims.

I find Confederate apologists mystifying.

[David Nieporent]

.

You do realize that it was empty when SC seceded, don’t you? And it wasn’t fired upon as soon as the Union troops landed there. They were harmless, and largely left alone.

No, as always Brett knows just enough to say things that sound right but aren't actually.

There were multiple U.S. forts in Charleston harbor. Since they were of course designed to defend from external enemies, most were not very defensible against South Carolina's perfidy. So the commanders consolidated their forces at Fort Sumter, which was still under construction; SC rebels seized the other ones.

But Sumter was not "left alone" by the traitors; they demanded that the U.S. surrender it, and they surrounded and besieged it. They didn't attack it because they had no need; they knew they could simply starve out the U.S. forces. But, yes, they attacked when Buchanan attempted to resupply and fortify Sumter. There was no "peaceful standoff." It was a siege.

And then when Lincoln took over he tried to resupply — not reinforce — the Fort so that the soldiers could hold out, but he explicitly told the SC governor that these were stores only — not military supplies. SC didn't care, and attacked the Fort. Lincoln did not "initiate" anything.

[Nelson]

"Why is Lincoln the definite word on whether it was about slavery and not all the evidence of the confederates saying it was about slavery"

Because there is a subset of Americans who want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. There is a subset of Americans who want to pretend that the Confederacy wasn't evil. They want to pretend that the South was noble and justified and that the North was vicious and aggressive. They want to pretend that the North started the war.

It's called the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and it's bullshit. But Southerners as recently as the 90s taught the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression". Seriously, that's not a joke. They taught it that way in schools. It's insane, but that's cultural conservatism for you.

[Brett Bellmore]

That secession was about slavery didn't make the war about slavery, and that the Confederacy was evil distilled didn't mean the Union wasn't somewhat evil, too.

I think that, at the governmental level, there were few good guys in the Civil war. Just because I'm not willing to deify Lincoln doesn't mean I think the South weren't much worse in their motives.

[Sarcastr0]

That secession was about slavery didn’t make the war about slavery

Yes. It does.

YOU love secession and so you want to remove it from history and turn it into some platonic ideal. You can't do that. The facts are the facts, and you keep stumbling into defending slavery as though it were liberty.

[Nelson]

"That secession was about slavery didn’t make the war about slavery"

That's exactly what it does. Succession caused the Civil War.

"that the Confederacy was evil distilled didn’t mean the Union wasn’t somewhat evil, too."

That is pure, undistilled both-sudes bullshit. One side was the United States. The other side were oathbreakers who started a war because they were losing in politics. And the reason they were losing was because they had an evil belief system whereby slavery wasn't just justified, it was the natural order.

Nothing the United States did prior to the Civil War was that fundamentally evil. But the South embraced that evil so hard that they got over 500,000 Americans killed trying to remain evil.

"I think that, at the governmental level, there were few good guys in the Civil war."

That's ridiculous. Such a broad, sweeping claim is preposterous on its face. You just can't bring yourself to admit the North was the good guys and the South was the bad guys, despite the fact that the Southerners started a war because they were losing politically on the slavery issue and were led by oathbreakers and slaveholders.

The moral scales clearly tip in one direction, and that side won.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"2. Lincoln didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation before hostilities, and put an end to them.
3. Lincoln waited a long time before issuing the E.P., and it didn’t apply to all slaves, only those aligned with the South."

Where would he have gotten the authority to issue the EP before hostilities, or apply it to slaves in non-succeeding states?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Damn lack of edit function.

[gVOR08]

Lincoln didn’t start the war. The state of SC started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union. SC most definitely started and fought the war because of slavery

[bernard11]

This is pathetic "evidence."

1. Lincoln never said, especially at the outset, that it was about slavery.

So what?

2. Lincoln didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation before hostilities, and put an end to them.

What makes you think that would have avoided the war? Do you think the Southerners would have just said, "Well, OK then. We'll just let the slaves go?"

3. Lincoln waited a long time before issuing the E.P., and it didn’t apply to all slaves, only those aligned with the South.

He did what he could get away with.

[ThePublius]

Here:

1. Lincoln never said, especially at the outset, that it was about slavery.

So what?

He, in fact, said that he didn't care if slavery persisted or was eliminated, that his aim was to preserve the union. That's so what.

2. Lincoln didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation before hostilities, and put an end to them.

What makes you think that would have avoided the war? Do you think the Southerners would have just said, “Well, OK then. We’ll just let the slaves go?”

I didn't say it would have avoided the war, I said he could have fought it out after issuing such a proclamation.

3. Lincoln waited a long time before issuing the E.P., and it didn’t apply to all slaves, only those aligned with the South.

He did what he could get away with.

That's nonsense. He could get away with anything he wanted, as is evidenced by the EP, by his prosecution of the war, by his jailing of journalists and political opponents, destruction of printing presses, and so on.

[Sarcastr0]

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."

And then there was a Civil War.

Another quote: "When the people rise in masses in behalf of the Union and the liberties of their country, truly may it be said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against them."

And from his Second Inaugural: "Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. "

I hope this clears up your confusion about Lincoln's motives.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

He, in fact, said that he didn’t care if slavery persisted or was eliminated, that his aim was to preserve the union.

But again, so what? It is almost certainly true that Lincoln and most other other American officials were willing to permit and even strengthen the institution of slavery in the south if it meant preserving the the union. But the southern states were so hellbent on not only preserving but expanding slavery that they started the war anyway.

[LawTalkingGuy]

History has a history too. And there was and has been a well-documented and mostly successful effort to diminish the importance of slavery in American history in both academic history and public memory.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, but one fake history does not excuse another.

I guess I'll make another endorsement:

Conscious Choice: The Origins of Slavery in America and Why it Matters Today and for Our Future in Outer Space

A very enlightening historical analysis of why some of the colonies became slave states, and some free states. Written from the perspective of space colonization, and how to avoid mistakes.

[bernard11]

Why is the history of slavery so hard to talk about in this country?

Ask Nikki Haley. She said she thinks

“..the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,”

Of course, she doesn't think that, not being an idiot, but that's what she felt she had to say, for some reason.

[Absaroka]

Heh. She's right - it was absolutely about what people could do. To be precise, it was about whether they could keep slaves.

[Nige]

The slaves themselves not being 'people.'

[TwelveInchPianist]

That was pretty bad.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't think she's an idiot. I do think she's a lightweight. But I'd take her over Trump in a heartbeat.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Our society is doomed for the same reason that Native American society was doomed -- men are no longer considered important.

Over the past 40 years, entry-level professional jobs have increasingly gone to women, with men finally realizing that the game is rigged and increasingly not even bothering to play it. Where 49% of White males went to college 10 years ago, it's now only 40% -- and 50% of White women going.

Hence we have no babies -- young women can't afford to raise them and young men don't want to, our fertility rate hasn't increased since 2008.

Second, the truly destructive thing in Native American society (and the change was introduced by a shift from hunter/gathering to agriculture) was that the only thing that men had to do was lay around drunk, or go fight.

This is why I keep saying that there is likely to be violence if Trump is either incarcerated or denied the right to run -- yes, the Feds have raised the stakes with the Jan 6th persecutions, but in the process they have also created what firefighters call a "backdraft" -- instead of venting the explosive superheated gases (eg Carbon Monoxide) through the roof, they've bottled them all up where a little gust of air will result in a massive explosion.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USMC-071117-M-1283D-079.jpg and that's a controlled demonstration.

A LOT of people support Donald Trump, a LOT of people don't believe he is being given a fair deal, and instead of letting this vent, the Feds have bottled it up. That's inherently dangerous....

Even without the larger issue of 50 years of the War on Boys...

[Martinned]

Your whole comment is one big incomprehensible mess of stupid, but I'm curious about this reference to Native Americans. There doesn't seem to be an attempted explanation anywhere in your comment. Care to elaborate?

Our society is doomed for the same reason that Native American society was doomed — men are no longer considered important.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Native American society was a hunter/gatherer one -- the men hunted, and the women gathered (wild berries, etc). When they shifted to agriculture, which evolved out of the female "gatherer" role, the men became of less and less use to the community -- with the exception of their warrior role.

Some people (e.g. professors I had) argue that this is what led to increasingly violent wars in the 1500s and 1600s as the only thing that men could do of value was fight. We can throw in the extent to which people died from disease and the extent they died from these genocidal wars and the lack of an enzyme necessary to metabolize alcohol and speculate, but what had been relatively peaceful cultures centuries earlier now weren't.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and the lack of an enzyme necessary to metabolize alcohol"

This actually gets the biology backwards.

Alcohol is metabolized in several steps, by several enzymes. The first one turns ethanol into acetaldehyde, which is a really toxic chemical. In the next step, the acetaldehyde is converted into the much less toxic acetic acid, which can be further metabolized or just pissed away.

If you clean up the acetaldehyde faster than it's generated, it doesn't accumulate to toxic levels, and you don't get hangovers.

Hangovers are very important in training people to not drink to excess, as it happens... Asian subgroups who are really bad at cleaning up acetaldehyde have extremely low rates of alcoholism, because they get adverse effects from even a little drinking.

To the extent that Indian alcoholism is driven by genetics, it's because they're actually pretty good at metabolizing alcohol, and so don't tend to get hangovers until they've already suffered enough liver damage to impair that metabolism. So they're only seeing the pleasant side of alcohol use...

[Dr. Ed 2]

All I know is this: "Guaman " believes he has a low tolerance to alcohol and becomes easily intoxicated, " which Dr. Spiers found consistent with research showing that nearly half of the indigenous South Americans from Mongoloid descent are deficient in an enzyme required to break down and metabolize alcohol."

See: https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-guaman-5

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, I thought we were discussing North America. Sorry.

[Dr. Ed 2]

South American Indians (which he is) are considered genetically identical to North American Indians -- this includes for genetic testing (e.g. "23 & me"). I have a problem with this, but it's what's done.

[Michael P]

Someone finally did a good randomized study on whether giving money to people reduces crime, particularly among poor people. It didn't.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/12/why-do-wealthier-people-commit-less-crime.html

[Michael P]

Washington DC is the petty crime capital of the country, with a rate 50% higher than any state. The top four states are all solidly blue. Law enforcement policies matter!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/crime/washington-dc-takes-crown-petty-crime-capital-america

[Michael P]

Related to law enforcement priorities in one of those high-crime states, New Mexico doesn't seem to care much about open violations of firearm trafficking and gun-free school laws:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/new-mexicos-two-tier-criminal-justice-system/

[Absaroka]

"with a rate 50% higher than any state"

Whoever wrote that should be forced to do sums-of-squares calculations for large datasets with pencil and paper.

Q: if you rank D.C. and the 50 states by percentage of population living in urban areas, where does D.C. stand?

(that's aside from the usual caveats about comparing state crime rates)

[Michael P]

5% higher than California or New Jersey or Nevada, as of 2010, and presumably the states have continued to urbanize since then. Did you have a point?

(Source: https://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/population/urban-pct-states)

[Absaroka]

My point was that it is statistical malpractice to compare the data across dissimilar areas without accounting for the dissimilarities - for example, differences in urban vs rural, and size of urban areas (IIRC even within urban areas, bigger cities have more crime per capita than smaller cities), and so on. There can be large differences between state (and even city) crime stats. For example, crime might get so bad, and police response so unlikely, that people in a high crime area might just stop reporting crimes[1]. A lower lever of reported crime, though, is not the same as a lower level of crime.

'Agrees with my politics' isn't the same thing as 'statistically valid'.

FWIW, I agree with your statement 'Law enforcement policies matter!'. I just don't see the cited article providing much insight into that.

[1]I've lived in areas like that, and quickly learned to just not bother calling 911 for things they weren't going to do anything about. I've also lived in Mayberry places. One time we had a car window smashed and stuff stolen ... they had the crime scene folks dust the car for prints, take plaster casts of the getaway vehicle tire tracks, and so on. It felt like Alice's Restaurant. Maybe they just took a forensics class, I dunno. In the big city, many people don't bother calling in a car prowl, because experience taught them nothing will happen.

[Michael P]

DC residents get all pissy if they don't get treated on equal footing with actual states, though, so people condescend to treat them as such. If they stopped whining about it, they wouldn't get compared to states nearly as often.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tourists are easy pickings for petty crime and I'd love to see the stats done in terms of percentage of the population who are tourists.

As a percentage of the whole, NJ, CA, PA, & NY do not strike me as major tourist states. Bob & Mary from Iowa aren't going there -- they *are* going to DC...

[David Nieporent]

New York, of course, is the second biggest state for tourism. Does Dr. Ed know anything?

[Dr. Ed 2]

As a percentage of the state's population?

[David Nieporent]

What does New York's population have to do with whether "Bob & Mary from Iowa are going there"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

PERCENTAGE of the population who are tourists matters.

Do you understand why you're going to need more schools in a community of 100,000 where the median age is 30 than one where it is 60?!?

[Michael P]

In news that should surprise nobody, biological sex is a good predictor of sports performance among competitors in an "open" (non-binary) competition.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/indicators-of-sports-performance

[TwelveInchPianist]

So if your gf comes out as trans, is it misgendering to continue to identify as straight?

[Nige]

'There are only two genders!'

also

'Sexual orientation is a gender!'

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Not so much with the reading comprehension, eh?

[Nige]

'is it misgendering to continue to identify as straight?'

is what you said.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. That doesn't imply that sexual orientation is a gender.

And do you have an answer?

[Nige]

Oh, I see what you were going for. Jesus, you are such shitty, shitty people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Perhaps, but is the guy who continues to identify as straight a shitty, shitty person too?

[Nige]

No idea. I have more to go on when it comes to you people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No idea? I thought you people had this gender stuff all figured out.

[Nige]

Who can claim to have figured everything out about two people they don't even know?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You people.

[Nige]

Except clearly I'm not.

[David Nieporent]

You've misstated the actual social media incident you're referring to. The wife (not gf) came out as "non-binary" [sic], not trans.

And then threw a tantrum — assuming any of this is real, though probably not — because the husband continued to say he was straight, even though he was (in her confused eyes) no longer with a woman.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. You've misstated whether or not I was "referring" to an actual social media incident.

I read about the incident, but decided to pose a generic question inspired by the incident instead.

I thought it was interesting because it shows that the left's insistence on "respecting" one's identity is incoherent.

And non-binary is a kind of trans, dude.

[TwelveInchPianist]

To be clear, you're referring to this.

What she's saying is a perfectly reasonable application of trans ideology.

[MoreCurious]

David Frum, in the latest edition of The Atlantic, presents what he believes will be five immediate priorities of a second Trump administration:

“(1) Stop all federal and state cases against Trump, criminal and civil. (2) Pardon and protect those who tried to overturn the 2020 election on Trump’s behalf. (3) Send the Department of Justice into action against Trump adversaries and critics. (4) End the independence of the civil service and fire federal officials who refuse to carry out Trump’s commands. (5) If these lawless actions ignite protests in American cities, order the military to crush them.”

The range of reactions by VC followers is easy to predict. Some will say “Of course, and it’s about time,” while others will bemoan the loss of democracy and the rise of tyranny and authoritarianism.

Care to share your thoughts on Frum’s predictions?

[DaveM]

I don't believe in tbe no-win scenario.

[Krayt]

Some of us have been complaining about the jumping of guard rails for some time now, with the powerful turning the investigative power of government against political enemies, something a good chunk of constitutional design principle seeks to prevent.

I will continue to do so in the scenario presented, and continue to poke at both sides, again mocking the flip flopping of situational ethics, the high valuation of a philosophical notion when it supports your already decided-upon position, and the low valuation of it, by the same wetware, when it gets in the way of a different position. Hah! Or the same position, but a different year.

Use of the investigative power of government against political enemies will be front and center. I have cast (indeed mocked, "Initiative #37 fails, move on to the next!") the current efforts, but also pointed out the Republicans dragged this onto themselves under Clinton, with, you know.

Say it.

With open-ended fishing expeditions and impeachments to git their political opponent. Using process crimes to continue investigstions, even unto supporting removal.

Then, as now, and as the future scenario above predicts, flip. Flop. Flip.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The precedent has been set with Jan 6th and I don't see a problem with Federal authority being directed at protesters. It won't take troops -- an FBI persecuting everyone at the first protest (e.g. Jan 6th) will ensure that there isn't a second.

As to pardons, remember Jimmy Carter and the draft dodgers?
How is this really any different?

And as to the Civil Service Act, the people elect a PRESIDENT who ought to be able to have a say in what bureaucrats do. Otherwise, why bother having elections and such?

[ThePublius]

Frum is just falling into line with the rest of the pro-Dem media in promulgating scare stories about Trump. Nothing more to it.

[Mr. Bumble]

That appears to be describing the current maladministration.

[SimonP]

What a stupid, bald-faced lie.

"Allowed the DOJ to appoint an independent investigator (as called for by congressional Republicans) to pursue charges against Trump in two cases, and allowing various prosecutions of January 6 insurrectionists to proceed in the ordinary course" is the closest thing you've got on (3). Meanwhile, Biden has done none of the other things, including (most notably an in particular) pardoning his own son or using the DOJ to attack any other political opponent or prominent critic of his administration.

[ThePublius]

"...or using the DOJ to attack any other political opponent or prominent critic of his administration."

That's ridiculous. Biden is using the DoJ to go after Trump. It's as clear as the nose on your face.

[Nige]

We have reports of Trump, during his administration, trying and failing to set the DOJ on his enemies, and the fact that he has stated that of re-elected he wants to replace public officials with personal loyalists suggests they are correct. So we know the president can't just set the DOJ on people on a whim, and we have no reports whatsoever of Biden requesting anyone fo go after Trump. 'Plain as the nose on your face' is the sort of thing you say about things that are not actually all that plain.

[SimonP]

What evidence to the contrary would you require, that hasn't been provided?

[Martinned]

It's even more shocking than that. Not only is Biden using the DOJ to go after Trump, in fact he's using the DOJ to go after lots of people who broke Federal law. Can you believe it?? He's not even pretending otherwise!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Is it against Federal law to enter the country illegally?
Seem he forgot that group.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump stole classified documents and obstructed their return to the US Government by defying a lawful subpoena and lying about his compliance.

Those are crimes, and to pretend that the DOJ is pursuing it because of Biden's secret plan makes you one of the dumb fucks the rest of us all laugh at.

[Bob from Ohio]

"pardoning his own son"

He's running for re-election and it would look bad. Its a lock for next Christmas.

[SimonP]

"Biden is obviously guilty of the thing that hasn't happened yet."

Just because Trump did it, doesn't mean that Biden will.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump pardoned his son?

[SimonP]

Does his son-in-law's dad count?

After he lost the election, Trump went ahead and pardoned a bunch of guilty-as-sin co-conspirators. Flynn, Manafort, Bannon. A bunch of other Republicans, too; presumably their checks managed to clear before he had to leave the White House.

Never mind the unknown number of preemptive pardons he probably handed out and are being held in pockets, in case the DOJ comes sniffing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Flynn, Manafort, Bannon"

Yes, a leader does not leave his fallen soldiers on the battlefield.

He waited until after the election, no?

[SimonP]

Got it. So, if Biden pardons his son after the election, it'll just confirm his corruption. But when Trump pardoned Flynn, Manafort, and Bannon - all men who are actively working to push this country in the direction of Orban's corrupt "illiberal democracy" - he was just doing the noble thing.

[Bob from Ohio]

I have no problem with Biden pardoning his son.

[Nige]

Why would you? He's not actually implicated in his son's crimes, unlike Trump and his cronies.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Yes, a leader does not leave his fallen soldiers on the battlefield."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

[Nige]

So, Trump IS guilty, then.

[David Nieporent]

.

Yes, a leader does not leave his fallen soldiers on the battlefield.

And yet, he didn't pardon the people who actually put forth an effort for him with more than loud mouths — the J6 insurrectionists. He only pardoned the ones who he thought were still useful to him.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Does his son-in-law’s dad count?”

Kind of a reach. Clinton pardoning his brother might be a better example.

But in any event, Biden would be an asshole if he didn't pardon his son.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, he would not be an asshole.

Pardons should be granted based on compassion and justice, not nepotism or corruption.

[David Nieporent]

.

Trump went ahead and pardoned a bunch of guilty-as-sin co-conspirators. Flynn, Manafort, Bannon.

You forgot Stone.

[SimonP]

The last time I tried to pose this kind of question to the resident MAGA crew, I received two types of responses, each mutually inconsistent with the other. Some said that everything Trump has threatened to do have already been done by Biden - so it's all "fair game." Others said that institutional safeguards are in place to prevent the worst abuses (notwithstanding that they have a explicit plan to tear down those institutional safeguards).

I think the only honest answer is that MAGA knows they want to push the envelope of authoritarianism, and they aren't too worried about its blowing back on them, because they think they'll be safe from it. Everything else they say is knowing dissimulation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the Democrats have already been pushing the envelope of authoritarianism quite a bit. The reason the MAGA don't worry about it blowing up in their faces is because they expect the Democrats to do their worst regardless of what the other side is doing.

Each side overstates the evil of the other, and understates their own evil, transforming tit for tat into a downward spiral. That's the dynamic we're currently stuck in, and while principles could put an end to the spiral, it would have to be BOTH sides refraining from doing their worst. It's a war, and in a war a unilateral cease fire is just surrender.

The ultimate cause, I think, is losing the notion that governmental power should be limited, and that narrow majorities should have modest ambitions.

Failing to limit government power raises the stakes of every election, and the idea that you can use a one vote majority to implement your most extreme ambitions does not help, it means even a very narrow and transitory majority can ruin your life.

Civic peace demands that elections have lower stakes. NOTHING else will stop the spiral, save lowering the stakes. We must roll back the power of government, or civil war is in our future.

[Nige]

'they expect the Democrats to do their worst'

Which is why they're susceptible to lies about the Democrats.

'We must roll back the power of government, or civil war is in our future.'

HamaUS.

[Brett Bellmore]

And Democrats are no less susceptible to lies about Republicans. Don't forget that.

[Nige]

You say that, but you lie all the time, or make shit up.

[Nige]

Also threats, lots and lots of threats.

[SimonP]

I think the Democrats have already been pushing the envelope of authoritarianism quite a bit.

You people keep saying this, but you're short on specifics. Trump wants to make the DOJ an attack dog; Biden has let Garland take his time on any Trump prosecutions, allowed the Hunter investigations to continue, and there hasn't been a broad campaign against Biden's most effective critics and opponents. Trump wants to be able to deploy the military in order to crack down on protests. Biden hasn't done this, or even hinted that he wanted to.

Trump wants to use every tool in the president's arsenal to punish blue states and force blue states to follow his policy agenda. Where has Biden done this? He hasn't tried to withhold funds from red states that have passed anti-abortion or anti-LGBT laws. He hasn't amped up pressure on Paxton in Texas, in connection with his federal indictment on securities fraud charges, despite Paxton leading the charge against several Biden policies (including Biden's own election win).

So where is it? Where do Biden's putatively "authoritarian" aspirations lie? The only executive actions where he has asserted more power than the courts have agreed he has have been in contexts like federal contracting and student loan forgiveness. He's not threatening to put people into camps or promising to reverse the "poisoning" of America's "blood." He's taken a back seat on the attempts to disqualify Trump from running, and avoids commenting on Trump's legal problems.

I mean, Christ - just compare their Christmas messages. You're deluded to think that Biden is even half as "authoritarian" as Trump aspires to be.

And your side is the one who keeps going on about "civil war." No one on "my side" was threatening civil war, if Trump was re-elected in 2020. But you fuckers are throwing a tantrum over Biden - over what, exactly? Requiring government contractors to pay a living wage? What the fuck is your problem?

[bernard11]

Don't trouble Brett with facts.

Once again, it's clear that Brett, Publius, Dr. Ed, and others are well-indoctrinated cultists, who will make excuses for anything Trump says or does or announces plans to do.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

or civil war is in our future

This seems an increasingly popular fantasy among blustering, bigoted, disaffected, all-talk, worthless conservative culture war casualties.

I guess that's what happens when some obsolete assholes begin to recognize that losing a culture war has consequences, and that better people will continue to shove even more progress down the throats of Republicans, conservatives, Federalist Society members, and right-wingers. Until replacement.

Speaking of replacement . . . is UCLA advertising for a constitutional law professor yet? Has UCLA learned its lesson, and begun to include a "the successful candidate will not be a habitual user or vile racial slurs, or prominent latherer of bigots" qualification?

Carry on, clingers. But not necessarily where you want to do it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did it ever occur to you that shifting from PUBLIC UCLA to PRIVATE Stanford might have to do with state pension & retirement benefits?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The important points are (1) UCLA campus will improve, (2) law students will no longer be subjected to partisan polemics spiced with vile racial slurs in classrooms, and (3) UCLA's law dean will likely devote less time to issuing apologies for faculty misconduct.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You don't make much sense Bellmore. You say narrow majorities should have modest ambitions. And you say minorities should be fully empowered. And you always object whenever anyone suggests majority ambitions can properly trim the scope of minority power.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And you say minorities should be fully empowered."

Don't recall saying that, whatever the heck you mean by it.

I think the only way we'll return to having civic peace is if the government becomes much more modest in it's activities and aims, so that people aren't afraid their lives will be ruined if their foes gain power for even one election cycle.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cool, Bellmore. You just re-said what I meant.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, I really don't think you're in much of a position to critique anyone, do you? Don't you have some laws to pass for lathropistan?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, how about I take you seriously, and suppose you have some thought behind what you apparently regard as a clever put-down. Can you even express what you think, or am I correct to conclude instead that you are in the grip of some rationalistic political ideology which leaves you no room for thought?

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, I simply refer you to the many humorous and pointed comments of DMN to various walls of text you have posted in 2023 (no need to go back further).

You know, New Year is right round the corner. Perhaps a resolution on walls of text problem is in order. 😉

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What makes you think, Commenter_XY, that a disaffected culture war casualty is in any position to criticize his betters?

At the practical level alone, one would think it prudent for people like you to be nice to the culture war's winners, who will continue to establish the rules with which you will continue to comply -- and who have no obligation to be magnanimous to the conservative losers.

[John F. Carr]

President Trump will stop the federal cases against himself and January 6 defendants, pardoning those who have been convicted. There will be principled resignations from the Justice Department, worse than the Saturday Night Massacre.

He will try to suspend unresolved state prosecutions. Who knows what the courts will say. There are policy arguments both ways.

He will try to investigate those who opposed him. Who, hypothetically, controls the Senate? Democrats will ask that a nominee for Attorney General promise to remain politically neutral. Much like they did before the Saturday Night Massacre.

He will try to overcome the Deep State. Again. He will win some and lose some.

I can't predict whether he will send in the military. I predict he will not get the liberal rules of engagement he wants. No cluster bombs on crowded streets, no shooting on sight after curfew.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I find it difficult to believe there are enough uneducated, bigoted, superstitious, worthless hillbillies left in America to enable Trump to win in 2024 (if he makes the ballot). There are fewer hayseeds in America each day -- millions fewer today than there were in 2016 or 2020 as our nation continues to improve, becoming less religious, less rural, less bigoted, less backward and more diverse.

People who hang around at this disaffected, white, male, right-wing blog have a faulty perspective concerning modern America.

[MoreCurious]

I hope you're right, Arthur. But I'm beginning to think immigration is going to be the deciding factor in November 2024, and I fear that Biden will pay the price for failing to solve an unsolvable problem.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Smart people will recognize that this problem has persisted for years and that (1) Pres. Biden is not the important cause of the problem and (2) former Pres. Trump blustered and bigoted but didn't solve anything.

Dumb people will vote for Trump or forget which day to vote, but I do not expect the losers to be plentiful enough to outnumber the better Americans.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I dunno. There doesn't seem to be much daylight between Trump and the NACCP on the immigration issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

How's it insoluble? Illegal immigration went up roughly 10 fold within a couple months of Biden taking office, and stayed there.

That's not coincidence, that's policy. All problems are 'insoluble' by people who instead want to make them worse.

[David Nieporent]

No, it's neither coincidence nor policy.

[David Nieporent]

.

But I’m beginning to think immigration is going to be the deciding factor in November 2024, and I fear that Biden will pay the price for failing to solve an unsolvable problem.

I doubt immigration will be a huge deal. But inflation might be, even though it's way down. (People do not understand the difference between inflation dropping and prices dropping, so they mistakenly think the failure of the latter implies that the former has not happened.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I think what people are noticing is that they took a serious hit in terms of the actual value of their paychecks over the first few years of the Biden administration, and though inflation slowed down, that hit was never reversed. People are meaningfully poorer now.

The basic issue is government spending. The government does not create wealth, and the bigger a piece of the pie it takes from the private sector, the less everybody else has. Inflation, lagging wages, regulatory burden, there are lots of ways this shows up, but the bottom line is the same: All else being equal, the richer the government gets, the poorer non-government gets.

[Sarcastr0]

Wages have outpaced inflation over the past year, though. DMN is right, inflation as an issue requires people to be misinformed. Good news on that front for the GOP!!

The government does not create wealth
Except when it acts as a member of a market. Or funds basic research. Or trains people. Or releases information that ensures markets clear properly.

Libertarian market worship requires a very reductive view of reality.

[Ed Grinberg]

As someone else said: Trump's enemies are doing all the things they keep warning us he will do if he wins.

[Nige]

What, like shooting shoplifters out of hand?

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe just arresting and prosecuting them?

[Nige]

No, he's said they should be shot.

[Brett Bellmore]

1) Well, duh.
2) Well, duh.
3) Payback's a bitch, if you don't want it, don't start it.
4) Of course. How else can elections matter, if the bureaucracy can't be brought to heel?
5) I'm trying to figure out what part of 1-4 is lawless.

Riots, OTOH? Yeah, they're lawless, and the law already directs that the President is empowered to crush them.

I mean, it's bad enough waging lawfare and then claiming immunity from having it waged right back at you. But insisting that if the left starts setting cities on fire again if the election doesn't go their way, the federal government has to let them?

Frum is beyond absurd at this point.

[Nige]

'then claiming immunity'

Who's claiming immunity? It's lack of evidence they're claiming, correctly, and which Trump intends to be no onstacle.

[SimonP]

But insisting that if the left starts setting cities on fire again if the election doesn’t go their way, the federal government has to let them?

"Cities" weren't at any point "set on fire." There were various protests, some violent, some riotous - most handled using local authorities. No need at all to involve the military.

Here in NYC, we had some busted storefronts in isolated areas, an unprecedented curfew (declared by our Democratic mayor), and things were back to normal after a few days. Absolutely no reason to involve the military.

You are seriously talking yourself into fascism, here. "The federal government has to let them?" Policing isn't the federal government's job, numbnuts. I would have thought someone who truly believed in limiting federal power would have grasped that.

[Defenderz]

The military absolutely should have been deployed to open fire on the protesters. A sane society recognizes that there's a difference between legitimate protest and treason. If you're protesting in favor of a left-wing cause, that's treason, and not legitimate. Illegitimate protest is not protected by any free speech principles, and violent force should be used to suppress it.

[bernard11]

If you’re protesting in favor of a left-wing cause, that’s treason, and not legitimate. Illegitimate protest is not protected by any free speech principles, and violent force should be used to suppress it.

Here you go, Brett. Does that appeal to your libertarian soul?

It's the point of view you are endorsing. Don't claim it's not fascism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Muted that guy a while ago. No, the definition of treason is explicitly laid out in the Constitution, and that isn't it.

But I will agree that it is appropriate to use violent force to put down riots calling themselves "protests".

[bernard11]

But I will agree that it is appropriate to use violent force to put down riots calling themselves “protests”.

Unfortunately, Trump seems to want to use force to put down legitimate protests. Among other things.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're actually at this point denying the 'fiery' component of 'fiery but peaceful'?

[SimonP]

I'm not denying that some fires were set. I'm disputing the idea that the fires ever got to the point - or would get to the point, if Trump is re-elected - that military engagement would be required.

Our police are militarized enough as it is. We do not need to be introducing things like military law enforcement or martial law absent a far more severe breakdown in civil order than we've seen in recent decades.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, they did get to the point where military engagement would have been justified, on several occasions.

[SimonP]

Not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, unless you're a power-hungry fascist.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm quite fine with siccing the military on people who repeatedly commit arson against occupied buildings. Is that your definition of a power hungry fascist? "Doesn't like people being burned alive."?

[Nige]

Wow, you think it was the same people going around different cities setting buildings on fire? Right in front of the heavily armed and armoured cops? Defund those useless ding-dongs.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it was the same people night after night in any given city, yeah: The supply of people willing to try to set fire to a building with people in it just isn't that extensive.

[Nige]

Yeah, right. You just can't believe Trump had the perfect excuse to impose martial law and let it slip away.

[bernard11]

I think it was the same people night after night in any given city,

Me too, but Nige was talking about different cities.

The supply of people willing to try to set fire to a building with people in it just isn’t that extensive.

I agree with this also. It should give you pause before claiming that all, or most, protestors were rioters, arsonists, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Me too, but Nige was talking about different cities."

Yes, Nige was pretending that I was claiming there was a band of arsonists traveling around the country. That's one of his shticks: Pretending you said something absurd, and attacking it, instead of responding to what was actually said.

"It should give you pause before claiming that all, or most, protestors were rioters, arsonists, etc."

Good thing I didn't claim that.

You had protests and riots going on in the same locations, but mostly not at the same time; You'd get protests during the day, and as the sun went down they'd become riots. (I'm excluding for the moment the 'autonomous zones', that qualified as 24/7 riots.)

Now, the first time a protest becomes a riot, you can excuse the protesters who stuck around and found themselves in a riot. Not so much the second time, and by the third? They're there for the riot.

The SOP seems to be, everybody dresses in similar clothing, and wears masks, and while a minority is doing violent stuff like setting fires or looting stores, the majority stand around getting in the way of the police, and providing an anonymous crowd they can disappear back into.

Generally the same principle the Klan used to use: You can prove a crime was committed, but you can't prove which of the group committed it, so prosecution is hard. It's a deliberate tactic.

That, of course, is why the anti-Klan acts were passed, and they should have been enforced.

Now, this is where, when I say that Trump should have sicced the National Guard on the rioters, you pretend that I said he should have sicced them on the protesters. Because you're pretending I'm not making any distinction between them, just because I won't go along with the joke about the rioters also being protesters.

[Nige]

'Because you’re pretending I’m not making any distinction between them,'

Well, of course, because you know Trump wouldn't.

[SimonP]

No, a "power hungry fascist" is someone who looks for the slightest pretext to bring in the military, guns blazing, to put down opposition protests.

You bring in the military to calm a situation where civil order has broken down to the point that the police are unable to manage the situation. Setting fire to a post office does not rise to that level.

Remember, Brett - the military that you imagine mowing down uproarious BLM protests is the same one putting checkpoints on the highways to your favorite camping spots and monitoring your movements. Perhaps even taking your guns. You may expect that your white skin will save you from any fascistic crackdown - as I expect mine (and my wealth) will save me - but the power you want to hand over to the most corrupt president in recent history can make things deeply unpleasant for all of us.

[Bob from Ohio]

"five immediate priorities of a second Trump administration"

I'm already voting for him, you don't have to sell me on it.

[Martinned]

Imagine voting against democracy. Utterly incomprehensible.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a joke, son.

I wondered who would bite first. Congrats!

[Nige]

It's always a joke, until it isn't.

[Martinned]

No it's not. Unless you've had a multi-year ruse going on in the VC comments section, pretending to be someone you're not, you're 100% voting for Trump, because you hate democracy almost as much as you hate human rights and the rule of law.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you hate democracy almost as much as you hate human rights and the rule of law"

You love the EU, speaking of hating democracy.

You also support the ruling party seeking to steal the assets and freedom of the leading opposition figure, speaking of hating the law.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Given the declining life expectancy among old white males in can't-keep-up communities, you may not get the chance to vote for Trump again.

Declining life expectancy for backwater clingers is an unexpected shot in the arm for the American electorate.

[Defenderz]

Without us, America will die, and very shortly.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's the clingers who are dying -- because they are old and ignorant; have poor judgment and bad character; and reside in dysfunctional, desolate backwaters -- and America that is better off for it.

[Frank Drackman]

You just described Parkinsonian Joe to a "T"

[Moderation4ever]

I suspect there will chaos and it will be greater than in Trumps first Presidency. First all the predictions of David Frum will likely lead to a huge number of court challenges that the administration will have to deal with. Second Trump will have people for whom loyalty to him supersedes ability. This will lead to more chaos as they will not have any idea how to even do their jobs.

[Martinned]

Exactly. Initially in his first term he hired some people of ability. He won't make that mistake a second time. (Indeed he stopped doing that at least halfway through his first term.)

[Moderation4ever]

Through much of the Trump Administration we heard staff say they stayed on to keep the country running, because the President was clueless. Imagine when both the President and the staff are clueless.

[Brett Bellmore]

The other perspective is that the GOP establishment hand fed him nominees who'd be working for them, not him.

[SimonP]

Federal government employees work for us, not the president.

The president's responsibility is to take care that the country's laws are executed. That means he has wide latitude in deciding who "works for him." But their duty - and his - are to the country and the Constitution, not to the man's own peccadilloes.

[Brett Bellmore]

They work for us BY working for the President we choose. If they don't do what the elected officials tell them to, they're not working for us, they're working for themselves.

"The president’s responsibility is to take care that the country’s laws are executed."

Remind Biden of that, he doesn't seem to have much use for our immigration laws.

[Nige]

Shitty bosses blame the employees.

[SimonP]

Be specific. What immigration laws aren't being enforced?

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, I like to know what laws are being set aside? I think the reality here is that people don't really know what the immigration laws say.

[Brett Bellmore]

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

"(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b)Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1)at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2)twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
..."

For starters.

[SimonP]

So are you saying that Biden isn't enforcing this law, at all?

Seems to me that Biden is deporting hundreds of thousands of people every year, and has even adopted policies that mirror some immigration policies that Trump imposed.

What is true is that immigration numbers are up substantially since the Trump years. There are several different reasons for this, but bracketing for now Mexican politics as well as geopolitical factors throughout the hemisphere and focusing just on US policy, the main ways in which Biden immigration policy differs from Trump policy is that Biden isn't taking the extreme and draconian approach that Trump tended to prefer. By lowering the expected costs of getting caught, Biden might arguably be said to have incentivized new waves of migration.

You might think that's the wrong policy - personally, I think it's absurd to spend billions of dollars trying to stop people from trying to live and work peacefully in the US - but is it a failure to enforce the law? I don't think so. Trump's draconian policy was not only not required by law but in some cases in violation of it. Trump's strategy was just to do the illegal thing, forcing others to challenge it in court. If it takes years for the Supreme Court to get around to tossing an illegal immigration policy - that's perfectly fine by Trump. He didn't give a shit. What he wanted was the immediate payoff of lower immigration numbers and looking like a tough guy.

You're eager to run off to generalities and to cite the statute because I think you understand that Biden is in enforcing the law. Your problem is that he isn't doing it hard enough to curb the immigration flow.

[Randal]

Exactly. This is a Congress problem, not a Biden problem. Give him more money and more tools, and he'll use them to curb illegal immigration.

Democrats are not pro-illegal-immigration. We're just pro-law, and anti-illegal-baby-cages.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So are you saying that Biden isn’t enforcing this law, at all?"

No, I'm saying he's only enforcing it enough to pretend that he means to enforce it.

You can see the distinction between trying and failing, and pretending, in things like actively expending enforcement resources to stop state enforcement. An administration that was actually trying to enforce the border would be thanking states like Texas for the help, not fighting to stop them.

"This is a Congress problem, not a Biden problem. Give him more money and more tools, and he’ll use them to curb illegal immigration."

It's also a Congress problem, to be sure: Even during the Trump administration Congress was deliberately underfunding enforcement. And if you'd given Trump more money and more tools, he absolutely would have used them.

Biden? No way in hell he would. He has the same money and tools Trump had, and ten times worse results. I am not going to pretend that's not deliberate. His results are worse because he WANTS worse results. More resources won't change that.

[Sarcastr0]

he’s only enforcing it enough to pretend

If Brett didn't have telepathy into these secret evil liberal agendas, I wonder if he'd become a Democrat.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody need telepathy to notice a step change in illegal immigration when a new administration takes office, and resources being devoted to cutting down razor wire instead of putting it up.

Possibly your most annoying trait is your insistence that simply not turning a blind eye to evidence is "mind reading".

[Randal]

That wasn’t the reason for the step change. That doesn’t work anyway, it takes time for policy changes, to the extent there were any, to percolate through.

The main reason was expectations. Immigrants expected Biden to be softer, so made their decision to come once Trump was out and he was in. Really it’s the rhetoric of people like you who caused that.

The second reason is external. Haiti’s collapsing, COVID ended, central America and Venezuela are falling apart… all those things happened (or got worse) under Biden through no fault of his own.

You aren’t even interested in any of that. You have your psychic narrative and you’re sticking to it.

[bernard11]

They work for us BY working for the President we choose.

And if the President wants them to break the law, or even to do things that, while possibly legal, are plainly intended to benefit the President personally?

[David Nieporent]

.

They work for us BY working for the President we choose. If they don’t do what the elected officials tell them to, they’re not working for us, they’re working for themselves.

No, Brett. They work for us. They report to the president (indirectly, of course), but they don't work for him.

[Mr. Bumble]

Govt. employees work; how quaint.

[Brett Bellmore]

I rarely make product endorsements. I'm making an exception, because this year's Christmas gift my family gave me was just that good.

The Diguo Belgian Syphon coffee maker. This thing makes incredible coffee!

There are less ornate and cheaper siphon coffee makers, and I have no reason to believe they make worse coffee. But this was one very cool Christmas gift.

[Mr. Bumble]

Steampunk coffee maker. Looks very cool.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This tellingly white and male
movement conservative blog
with a vanishingly scant
academic veneer has
operated for no more than

ELEVEN (11)

days without publishing at least
one racial slur; it has gifted its
target audience by publishing
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 a
carefully cultivated collection of
bigoted, conservative commenters.

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 right-wing fringe of modern
legal academia by members of the
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s stale, ugly right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile.

This is a good one, too.

Happy holidays, everyone!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here are two more.

[Frank Drackman]

Coach Sandusky always has "Two More"

[mydisplayname]

When reading that the Israeli military has dismantled Sde Yonatan, one of the Ashkenazi terrorist encampments on Palestinian sovereign soil, it is significant that no actual evidence of the action has been offered or even permitted to be documented. "Phones belonging to the residents and activists were confiscated to prevent them from documenting the demolition operation, the [terrorists] alleged." (see https://www.timesofisrael.com/illegal-west-bank-outpost-demolished-the-second-in-48-hours/ )

The Pentagon Papers and other documents of that period remain significant: there is no statute of limitations for murder or war crimes -- and there is no excuse for repeating strategic mistakes of the past.

After the ruthless Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, an easily identifiable and defenseless American naval vessel, during the Six-Day War of 1967, President Johnson, via telephone, told [Rear Admiral Lawrence R.] Geis to recall defense aircraft and “that he didn’t care if the ship sunk, he would not embarrass his allies.” [Secretary of Defense] McNamara added, “President [Lyndon] Johnson is not going to go to war or embarrass an American ally over a few sailors.” In the subsequent investigation “The Israeli government had not offered us its logs or copies of its messages; it had volunteered no witnesses nor affidavits.”

More importantly, "Israel had a secret plan to mislead the world. Israel’s 'Prime Minister Levi Eshkol on the first day of the war went on Israeli radio and said that Israel had no territorial ambitions.' After the sixth day of the 'Six Day War,' Israel occupied and retained the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the Sinai."

(see “Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israel Attack on the USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft While the Ship was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government,” Congressional Record 150, no. 130 (October 11, 2004))

Stating that the world is spherical does not make one anti-Flat-Earther; likewise, stating that Israeli Ashkenazi are evil enemies of America does not make one anti-Semitic.

[Michael P]

In fact, making blanket statements calling a very broad group of religious Jews "terrorists" does make you antisemitic.

[Michael P]

And that goes double for the "evil enemies of America" line.

[Randal]

The Taliban is a religious group and an enemy of America. It's a possible thing.

To qualify as antisemitic, mydisplayname would have to hate them because they're Jews. It sounds like he has plenty of other good reasons to hate them.

Plus if he doesn't hate other Jews, it's a good sign that's not the reason.

Still could be antisemitism in there somewhere, but that's always the case. You could be antisemitic and just trying to cover for it, like all those right-wing closet cases who use VC as their gay porn publishing platform.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

like all those right-wing closet cases who use VC as their gay porn publishing platform

Don’t forget the recently emerged trans fetish at the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Michael P]

Ashkenazi Jews make up 30+% of Israel's population. They're not like the Taliban, which is a political party. Lumping them together as "evil enemies of America" is antisemitic even if he doesn't admit his opinions about other Jews.

[David Nieporent]

.

stating that Israeli Ashkenazi are evil enemies of America does not make one anti-Semitic.

It actually does. Using "Ashkenazi" to avoid saying "Jew" is no more convincing than when you do it in the original German. (Not to mention that most Israelis living in the West Bank settlements are of Mizrahi background, not Ashkenazi. )

Palestinian sovereign soil

There is literally no such thing. There never has been in the history of the existence of Homo sapiens, and there isn't now.

[Defenderz]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/us/florida-teen-murder-charge-christmas-gift-argument/index.html

BLM!

[Gasman]

Family and the holidays can be so stressful at times...

[John F. Carr]

An observation on the the arbitrariness of health care spending in America.

I was at the doctor's office with a cough. The doctor ordered a test for flu and COVID. I told her I had been exposed to RSV and asked if I could get tested for that too. I was warned not to get an RSV test. The flu+COVID test is $100-$200 and covered by insurance. Add an RSV test on top, using the same sample and the same technology, and the lab bills $900 and insurance refuses to pay any of it. The doctor's office learned that lesson during last year's RSV outbreak when patients started getting billed.

The excuse is the test result makes no difference in my care. But the flu and COVID test results didn't either. I walked out with prescriptions days before the test results came back. And children can get the RSV test even though a positive result does not affect medical treatment. The lab must have decided that $900 per sick child makes more money than $200 per sick adult who wants to be tested.

It could be worse. With government run health care I might be on a waiting list to get a free nasal swab some time in April, despite the public pronouncement of the Department of Jabs and Swabs saying that almost everybody gets tested within a week.

[Moderation4ever]

There is really no good explanation for why this is covered and that is not in the health care system. I sure the commenters here could go on and on. I can certainly think of many things myself. There is likely an explanation but tracking them down is hard and not really worth the time. One thing I hope all people do is ask questions of their health care provider and only get the care you need. Even if insurance covers some care it is better to skip it if you don't need it. It small saving but hopefully it will add up.

[Nelson]

"An observation on the the arbitrariness of health care spending in America."

It isn't arbitrary. It is a cost decision by your insurer. These are for-profit companies, so they have to balance the potential savings (and health and frustration of their customers) with the total cost of treatment. If the total expense of testing exceeds the total expense of treatment (taking into account the likelihood of disease), they will be reluctant to pay for testing.

The important thing to remember with health insurance is that their goal isn't to keep you healthy or treat your illnesses. Their goal is to keep you healthy enough and treat enough of your illnesses that you remain a customer. The health care system in America functions exactly as the incentives dictate.

Notice you blamed the health care system in America, not your insurance company. To them, that's a feature, not a bug.

[bernard11]

Could someone please explain what the big deal was about that Nutcracker tap dance act at the White House?

Why is the Nutcracker, written by Tchaikovsy, an American tradition, which is violated by playing a version adapted by Ellington and Strayhorn, actual Americans? (Indeed, Ellington is unquestionably a giant of American music.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I had to look this up. Apparently it's because they went out and picked a very left-wing dance troupe. Also, there was some cultural appropriation going on, I think... 😉

It's all kind of silly.

[bernard11]

A left-wing dance troupe?

Laura Ingraham was all over this, with talk of violating American tradition, etc.

There's more.

Newsmax host Eric Bolling called the routine “replete with tasteless perversions” and “beyond woke.” Former Donald Trump aide Stephen Miller lambasted its “freakishness.” The Federalist called the video an “abomination” and an attempt by the Bidens to slip “radical Marxism into the country’s Christmas celebrations.”

I'm glad you realize how silly the reaction was (assuming it's the reaction you are calling silly), but some of your allies take it quite seriously.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did any of those right-wing assholes express concern about Donald Trump's "rot in hell" Christmas celebration?

These bigoted conservative stains on America can't be stomped into political and cultural irrelevance -- by their betters -- soon enough.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think the reaction is silly. You get a left-wing President, of course he's going to invite left-wing performers to the White house, we're just lucky he didn't find a dance troupe consisting entirely of drag queens.

It's a pretty trivial thing to be concerned about, tasteless as it was.

[Nige]

Oh look a Trump voter with opinions on things being 'tastless.'

[Moderation4ever]

Let me take a guess, slow news day and nothing else for Fox to complain about.

[Currentsitguy]

Laying low and appreciating being alive. Just got released from the hospital after 10 days with sepsis from a prostate abscess. Had to have emergency surgery after a 3AM transfer to another hospital. It was touch and go for the 1st two days. I'm home for 6 weeks now with a PICC Line for antibiotic therapy.

I had a 104.7 fever when I got to the ER. They tell me another 12 hours and I would not be here. I spent Christmas in a hospital bed tied to a Foley Catheter.

Tell your loved ones how you feel while you can.

[Frank Drackman]

Ahh, the Prostrate, proof that Jay-Hey has a (sick) sense of humor.
"Let's see, I'll make the tube that carries urine from the bladder go directly through a gland I'll cause to enlarge if any men have the nerve to live past 70..."
and now for a PSA (get it? a "PSA" about the Prostrate)
Remember, the key to a Healthy Prostrate is to jerk off daily, you gotta keep that gland working, flushes out the toxins! I'm working mine as I type this.

Frank

Frank

[Currentsitguy]

Putting the sewage plant right next to the recreation center wasn't the best of ideas.

[Mr. Bumble]

+1
Nice to see you kept your sense of humor.

[Mr. Bumble]

Edit is back!

[Life of Brian]

Holy smokes. Glad to hear you're pulling through.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Tell your loved ones how you feel while you can."
Always good advice.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did this experience — relying on a 3 a.m. hospital transfer in a life-or-death situation — persuade you to move closer to civilization, or are you going to go back to the hillbillies?

I am glad you are feeling better. And that the educated, credentialed, trained, skilled, reasoning professionals in a modern, successful, educated city were able to provide the care you needed when the chips were down and the services in your community were inadequate.

Perhaps this tune, which seems apt, might cheer you.

[Currentsitguy]

How far out can I be when it was 15 minutes to the 1st hospital and about 30 by ambulance to the other?

Don't care in any event. So long as I can see a neighbor's house, I'm still too close.

Really we need to get a getaway up in the Allegheny National Forest. I NEED to be able to see the stars at night. I think human beings have a visceral need for that going back to our time on the Savannas of Africa and perhaps earlier.

Ironic you would send me that, considering I am listening to Wild Horses as I type this. Just got a new Software Defined Radio for Christmas and am listening to Zoomer Radio 740 AM out of Toronto.

I would definitely not say they were inadequate. It was their CT Scan and decision to pump me full of Levaquin and Vancomycin that saved my life. That bought me the time to transfer. I was definitely very quickly headed for full septicemia. There just wasn't a surgical urologist on duty over the weekend, but that's why there are multiple facilities nearby. Even once I got to Passavant, they still had to get someone in for Sunday surgery. I didn't go in until 8AM and then apparently they warned my wife there were no guarantees. It was a good 2 days before I was out of the woods.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So . . . at least 45 minutes from civilization, and more than an hour from a level 1 institution? That's the sticks. Not the worst or most desolate place in America, by a substantial measure, but still the can't-keep-up backwaters.

Let's hope you never need strong medical services more quickly (or during heavy traffic).

I support your entitlement to choose to live in the sticks. Living in an educated, accomplished, successful, modern community isn't for everyone. As you age, though, you may come to regret the lack of proximity to strong medical facilities.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland. there *is* MedFlight — more active than you might realize. One of the Lewiston (ME) shooting victims wound up at Mass General in Boston because even though it was two states and 120 miles further, at 120 MPH it was quicker than waiting for the heliport at a closer hospital to clear. (The FAA frowns on helicopters running into each other.)

It’s also amazing at the number of places that are installing CAT scan machines — the local medical office is even though the hospital is only 3 miles down the road.

The other thing is that a lot of quality MD folks, both MDs & RNs, prefer to live in rural areas even if they make less money. (Many RNs want to live where they can have horses in their back yards.) So the quality of rural medical care is not inherently worse than urban medical care.

And now that everything is digital, a MD can read a CAT scan from his house on a laptop and has your blood test results on his smartphone. He could be in Boston, or New Boston, NH.

[Brett Bellmore]

Certainly gotten better than the 90's, then, when I nearly lost my foot after breaking my leg, due to the local hospital refusing to admit me on account of it being beyond their competence, and waiting 2 hours in an emergency room in Detroit because gunshot wounds had precedence over a guy whose foot was merely flopping around loose.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

The other thing is that a lot of quality MD folks, both MDs & RNs, prefer to live in rural areas even if they make less money. (Many RNs want to live where they can have horses in their back yards.) So the quality of rural medical care is not inherently worse than urban medical care.

This is the level of analysis that should have been expected at a blog operated by bigot-hugging, fringe, antisocial, disrespected, superstition-flattering right-wingers.

[Nelson]

Glad to hear you're out of the hospital and feeling better.

[Kazinski]

California has raised the minimum wage for fast food outlets to 20$ an hour.

The first consequence is major Pizza Hut franchises have announced they are laying off 1100 delivery drivers and pizza hut will no longer offer delivery in California.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-27/california-pizza-hut-franchises-to-lay-off-more-than-1-000-delivery-drivers

The minimum wage is always zero.

[Martinned]

Talk is cheap. Companies that employ lots of people on minimum wage will always lobby against minimum wage increases, including by claiming that they will lay people off if the minimum wage is increased. Let's see what actually happens to employment numbers.

[Armchair]

Let's ask a question for you first.

Are you willing to spend an extra $20 to get a pizza delivered. From Pizza Hut?

[bernard11]

"Extra $20?"

You mean they used to deliver for free, and it takes the driver an hour to deliver a single pizza?

More idiocy from AL.

[Armchair]

Sigh.

This may surprise you, but the wage you pay an individual is not the actual cost of the service. Wages tend to be about 70%, benefits another 30%. Depends on industry, pay levels, etc. But just in general. So, an increase in wages from $16 an hour to $20 an hour, also costs the employer ~$2 an hour more. Really, the cost of a $20 an hour wage is ~ $28 an hour

And of course you need to figure in the round trip for the pizza delivery guy. Once he drops it off with you, he needs to get back. so, if you live 15 minutes from the Pizza place, that's 30 minutes round trip. Plus another 2 minutes dropping off the pizza. So, you're looking at ~$15, just in wages and benefits for a 15 minute pizza delivery.

Then, you need to factor in the cost of gas for the trip. Now, the gas used on a 30 minute trip can widely vary, depending on speed and such. But, it's not unreasonable to assume it will use a gallon of gas. And in LA, that's ~$5 a gallon currently.

All together, you're looking in the range of $20 to deliver a pizza.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Ok Karl Marx.

[bernard11]

All together, you’re looking in the range of $20 to deliver a pizza.</i

Don't give me that superior "sigh" crap. You have no fucking idea about this stuff, and you're innumerate to boot. Let's use your 40% extra personnel cost. Then the $16 hourly wage cost $22.40, and taking it to $20 costs an additional $5.60, not $20.

And why do you count the cost of gas in the increased cost? That's stupid. Gas costs what it costs, regardless of the minimum wage.

And if it takes half an hour per pizza delivery - more numbers pulled out your ass - then the increased cost of the delivery is $2.80, not your ridiculous $20.

Try trolling on some other subject, moron.

[Life of Brian]

In this circumstance, the "talk" is actually a notice required by the California WARN act -- at least 60 days before implementing a mass layoff, so the affected employees have an opportunity to look for other work.

[David Nieporent]

.

Companies that employ lots of people on minimum wage will always lobby against minimum wage increases

I think you misunderstand how it works. Lobbying is before a law is passed. This is just consequences.

[Randal]

Obviously you live in a cabin in the woods.

made a business decision to eliminate first party delivery services

As the rest of us know, first-party delivery is a relic of the past. The era of apps has brought us third-party delivery in the form of GrubHub, Uber Eats, and DoorDash.

The California law simply hastened Pizza Hut’s decision to exit the delivery business. How can they compete anyway, if they have to pay their workers almost 33% more than their competition?

That’s the real problem with the California law… not that it raises the minimum wage, but that it sets a different one for different industries. That’ll warp the labor market, twisting business models into unnatural configurations. Imagine KFC, for example, outsourcing its restaurant operations to Aramark since Aramark gets a lower minimum wage.

[Life of Brian]

.

As the rest of us know, first-party delivery is a relic of the past.

This is pretty silly stuff right after accusing Kaz of being out of touch with reality. From a quick check, I can still get first-party delivery from at least Pizza Hut, Papa John's, and Domino's where I am right now, the last two cities I've lived in, and a few other major metro areas I punched in at random. Feel free to try it yourself -- expand your world!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, same here. Cars with pizza delivery signs for various pizza outlets are a regular sight around here, and I occasionally get delivery from Dominos; It's only a few minutes away, but the left turn leaving their parking lot is bad enough some times of day that I'd rather outsource it.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Most pizza we eat in America is a derivative of Detroit style pizza….Americans like dough. Chicago deep dish isn’t very doughy and obviously NYC pizza isn’t doughy.

[Randal]

I said relic. I didn't say figment. Relics still exist. They're just out of date.

Like, you and Brett are relics. That doesn't mean you're dead... just that you soon will be.

[Life of Brian]

Fascinating. So some things that have been around for a while and still robustly exist today just continue to be, and other things that have been around for a while and still robustly exist today are "relics of the past." Just have to consult Randal the Infinitely Wise (just ask him!) to know which is which, I guess.

[Randal]

Uh... it's not that hard. Third-party delivery services have sprung up. They have some structural advantages over first-party delivery services. First-party delivery services are in decline. Chinese, Indian, and Terikayi, for example, have already largely abandoned first-party delivery. Pizza chains have been the holdouts, since delivery is a bigger chunk of their business, but it's only a matter of time... as this incident demonstrates.

[Brett Bellmore]

My chief disagreement with you is that delivery was going out of style except for pizza BEFORE outfits like Grubhub showed up. They didn't displace delivery, they started filling the hole its disappearance left behind.

[Kazinski]

Well 1100 of the relics no longer have jobs.

[Randal]

It's not like people are going to stop ordering pizza. They can drive for GrubHub.

[Ben_]

Looks like communist-friendly forces are in charge of the Arizona State Bar.

They suspended the license of a former prosecutor for prosecuting alleged rioters at an Antifa riot. The suspension cited vague ethics rules and was justified based on personal opinions.

https://arizonasuntimes.com/news/state-bar-of-arizona-suspends-license-of-former-maricopa-county-prosecutor-april-sponsel-for-two-years-over-prosecuting-antifa/ralexander/2023/12/28/

The Democrat effort to increase crime continues.

[Moderation4ever]

According to the story she falsely charged 15 people is that acceptable?

[Ben_]

It’s acceptable to have the opinion that any individual was falsely charged. Have whatever opinion you prefer.

[Randal]

Given that antifa is an imaginary enemy, it's a bit like charging 15 people with criminal boogeyman.

[Ben_]

Rioters riot. Rioting is criminal.

You play dishonest word games because you want innocent Americans to be victims of more violent crimes.

[Nige]

Punish rioters then. Not people who aren't rioters. They're innocent Americans.

[Randal]

Punish the rioters, sure. But don't charge protesters with gang crimes, like this prosecutor did. That's the retarded part that got her suspended.

[Brett Bellmore]

" The Arizona bar’s disciplinary counsel acknowledged that the protesters marched in the middle of the streets, moved traffic barricades into the street, carried umbrellas to shield their behavior, deployed at least two smoke bombs, and flashed lights at the police. One carried firearms. Officers ordered them to disperse and when they refused, arrested 18 of them."

"One of those arrested was Ryder Collins, who said he was a nurse visiting from Prescott to take photos of downtown Phoenix at sunset. Sponsel maintained that there was no evidence produced showing that Collins wasn’t part of the gang or that he wasn’t assisting them by taking photos. Collins admitted that he refused to cooperate with police. His photos were taken in the middle of the street after the police had told the rioters to move.

However, despite the admission by Collins, MCAO’s bar charges against Sponsel, which the disciplinary opinion cited as support for its decision to discipline her, referred to Collins as “completely innocent.”"

Not seeing a fraudulent prosecution here. Just a disagreement of opinion.

[bernard11]

Sponsel maintained that there was no evidence produced showing that Collins wasn’t part of the gang or that he wasn’t assisting them by taking photos.

So it's up to Collins to prove his innocence? That's not how works, Brett, though I guess where left-wing demonstrators are concerned that's how you would like it to work.

[Ben_]

"So it’s up to Collins to prove his innocence?"

Burden of proof is on the people saying that charging him is somehow an ethics violation.

You don’t think charging him violates ethics. You’re not that stupid.

[Nelson]

Charging someone when you have no evidence of wrongdoing is OK, in your book?

When you have disputed evidence, that is a difference if opinion. When you have no evidence, it's an ethics violation.

And no, being in the same place where a crime was committed isn't evidence. Nor is taking pictures of police activity, no matter how badly they keep trying to criminalize being a witness.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Charging someone when you have no evidence of wrongdoing is OK, in your book?"

Of course that's wrong, but it's got nothing to do with the case at hand.

To repeat from the linked report: "Collins admitted that he refused to cooperate with police. His photos were taken in the middle of the street after the police had told the rioters to move."

That's enough basis to prosecute. The prosecutor had evidence that Collins was a member. Circumstantial, to be sure, but what was not produced was evidence to refute it.

[Nige]

It was proven they were falsely charged.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it wasn't.

[Nige]

Seems well proven to me.

[Ben_]

When Hamas comes to your neighborhood and no one does anything to stop them, remember this story.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is the ostensible relation of an illusory Hamas visit with the unprofessional, indefensible conduct of disgraced, disbarred loser April Sponsel?

[Nige]

It'll be you, Dr Ed and Brett in a Hamas cell together.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Relying on a separatist right-wing rag might work with the class of people who are fans of this white, male, conservative blog, Ben, but it is a bad habit that will deprive you of credibility among educated, reasoning, better people.

Evidence has persuaded me that disgraced former prosecutor April Sponsel is unfit to practice law. The responsible authorities have reached a similar conclusion. Let's hope her application for reinstatement is rigorously reviewed.

Maybe she could catch on at the Hoover Institution, though.

[David Nieporent]

This is not actually a news source; it's part of a string of astroturfed websites designed to look like local news sources. And the piece was written by a former attorney disbarred because she was part of the Arpaio/Andrew Thomas Maricopa County corruption. (She of course fails to disclose that, and instead pretends to be a "journalist.")

[Ben_]

It’s news. Any publisher of news is a news source.

Stop being dishonest and trying to hide information from people.

[Bored Lawyer]

There is a side to the recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling that I have not seen discussed. The immediate effect of the ruling relates to the Republican primary in Colorado, although presumably the ruling, if it stands, will affect the general election.

I have always had difficulty with state laws that purport to tell political parties how they can nominate candidates. Political parties are protected by the First Amendment. They are the quintessential example of the right of association. If they want to have a caucus, or a closed primary, or an open primary, the state should have no power to require them to nominate a candidate in any particular way. Ditto if they want to nominate someone who is a crook, or arguably disqualified under the Insurrection Clause.
The issue most blatantly comes up in states that require open primaries, which can be a source of great mischief. The desire of a party to have its nominees determined only by members of their party strikes me as at the core of the First Amendment. Same for who they nominate. Even if the person is, arguably, disqualified, they should have the right to do so, and take the risk. [All of the above does not apply to the general election, where that determines who will hold office.]
Thoughts?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You don't think States have a compelling interest in not having their Elector's votes wasted on candidates that legally cannot be elected?

[Martinned]

If that's what they're worried about, they should regulate the election, not the primary.

[Bored Lawyer]

Did you read my post? I said I was talking about primaries, not the general election.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I expected you to extrapolate the argument and apply it all the way down.

The compelling interest does not begin or end with just the election itself (or Electors).

Ballot access laws implicate the need for the State to also ensure that the competition itself is fair and does not include people who legally cannot be elected. They are safeguarding the right of their citizens to have qualified (at least legally) candidates.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not the right of citizens to have only qualified candidates. It's the right of citizens to vote for whomever they please. Curating the choices available to voters isn't perfecting democracy, it's subverting it.

[David Nieporent]

.

It’s the right of citizens to vote for whomever they please.

And yet, there is no such right. Voting is not self-expression. It's hiring someone. And you can't hire someone who legally cannot have the job.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

1) Voters do not have a 'right' to vote in whomever they please.

2) Citizens have a right to run for elected positions if they meet the requirements. States have a compelling interest in protecting that right for its citizens by ensuring that the eligible candidates are not competing against ineligible ones.

Keep swinging, Brett.

[Moderation4ever]

No, I don't if a party selects a candidate who does not qualify for the ballot that is on the party.

[Randal]

Focusing just on President... the parties pretty much can nominate whoever they want. It's whoever comes out of the convention. Especially from the perspective of a single state, the person who ends up on the ballot in the general election has very little relationship to who won the primary in that state.

[Moderation4ever]

I tend to agree with you that the government has no business telling a party how to select its nominee. I also object that the parties get the government to run their primaries for their own benefit. I like to see Primaries and caucuses run solely by the parties. No government help or money.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Amen! I've been saying this for years. Let the political parties pay for their own damn primaries.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Here is Pravda on the Maine decision --
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2023/12/28/politics/maine-donald-trump-ineligible-2024-ballot/

Note two things -- the left-leaning BDN is admitting that this will help her in Dem party circles, and Trump's attack on her is not without cause.

This WILL get ugly...

[Dr. Ed 2]

More on the legal process: https://www.bangordailynews.com/2023/12/28/uncategorized/donald-trumps-likely-next-steps/

[John F. Carr]

Presidential elections are special. While I expect the Supreme Court to put Trump on the ballot, there is also an argument that states have the authority to arbitrarily discriminate against disfavored candidates in the course of the presidential election. States have the constitutional authority to choose electors any way they like. They don't need to have elections, and need not give the results as much respect as ordinary elections. The Supreme Court allowed Colorado to replace a faithless elector contrary to the rules governing ordinary elections.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm curious why you think SCOTUS has the constitutional authority to force Colorado to put someone on the ballot. I'm not asking rhetorically, I've heard many people here and elsewhere make this prediction. What's the constitutional hook for SCOTUS to step in over a state court decision about state law?

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court does have the power to decide whether the Colorado courts interpreted the 14th Amendment correctly, assuming such interpretation is essential to the state court decision.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If anyone wonders whether those excoriating Nikki Haley for her answer to a question concerning the cause of the Civil War are giving Ms. Haley a fair shake, here is what appears to be an unedited recording of her performance.

Ouch. Very ouch.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Nimarata Hussein Haley was conceived in Canaduh…she’s not a natural born citizen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is her middle name Hussein?

Did she ever have the character or courage to criticize the right-wing asswipes who conspicuously emphasized former Pres. Obama's middle name . . . or is she just another right-wing coward?

[David Nieporent]

No, her middle name is Nikki. Game may recognize game, but apparently troll can't recognize troll.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm a troll (by the standards of this misfit blog's fans).

You're a disaffected culture war reject and a faux libertarian kiss-ass (by the standards of modern, educated, successful America).

We all have problems.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In four days, Steamboat Willy goes public domain.

I never thought this would happen.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't count your eggs before they're hatched.

[John F. Carr]

Next time you see a tree, hug it and say thanks.

[Michael P]

RIP Gaston Glock: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67831335

[ThePublius]

Not a big fan of Glocks. Lost of accidental discharges.

[John F. Carr]

Officially, Massachusetts banned sales of Glocks to civilians because of accidental discharges. In reality, the Attorney General wanted to make it harder to get a gun without exceeding his authority by banning guns. He imposed a bunch of rules under his authority to make consumer protection regulations. The restrictions on Glocks and "Saturday Night Specials" predate the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court recognizing the Second Amendment. I suspect they would also be upheld under federal constitutional law today.

[ThePublius]

Know that I am a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, and firearms enthusiast. I still think Glocks are dangerous. I prefer a revolver or 1911.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine deserves credit for demonstrating that not every Republican or conservative is a mean-spirited, obsolete bigot.

[Brett Bellmore]

More Desperation on Section Three

"Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the debate over whether Donald Trump should be disqualified from holding office under Section Three is the extent to which Trump supporters largely concede or at least do not attempt to rebut claims that Trump engaged in insurrection. "

I find myself wondering just how selective Graber really is, in terms of which Trump supporters he's willing to listen to. That Trump is factually innocent is by far the predominant argument among Trump supporters, so far as I can see.

[not guilty]

I don't know to what extent Trump supporters argue that Trump is factually innocent, but Trump's litigators did a piss poor job of adducing evidence of innocence at the Colorado bench trial and the Maine administrative hearing. In the latter case, Team Trump presented no witnesses at all.

[Magister]

"That Trump is factually innocent is by far the predominant argument unsupported assertion among Trump supporters". (Spewing lies about who the insurrectionists were, whether they had weapons, or what others in government did or did not do is common but not support for the assertion.)

[Mr. Bumble]

And unlike Pandering Joe he never mentioned Kwanza.

[DaveM]

I'd rather contemplate a martini, thank you. Shaken, not stirred.

[Nige]

He's only supposed to pander to white folks, dontcha know.

[Mr. Bumble]

The transfer of power occurs at noon on Jan. 20.
There is only one President at a time.

[Nige]

Trying to stay in power after power had been transferred would have been a bit pointless.

[Mr. Bumble]

Paywalled.

[ThePublius]

I am glad that I experienced Notre Dame twice before the fire.

[Michael P]

That was explicitly premised on an assumption that the researcher wants "to understand the needs of gender non-conforming individuals". Unsurprisingly, such a researcher needs to identify whether individuals have the trait they are studying!

[Mr. Bumble]

I haven't completed your course on those subjects.

[ThePublius]

Your persistent incivility and insults are tiring. Why don't you try responding with some substance, on the matter at hand, rather than tossing insults at people?

Note, at the top of this section:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

[Bwaaah]

Queen almathea: "Men like Dr Ed have not and never will be considered important. Maybe be better men (and persons)?"

No, he means men, "real men," like Margaret Thatcher, you moron.

[ThePublius]

"States" are too coarse a screen to sort this in a meaningful way. Look at the cities with the highest crime rates in any state, and you will find they are all blue cities.

[Kazinski]

That doesn't tell you what you think it does.

Those are the States with the lowest rates of charging petty crime.

When you decriminalize shoplifting below 1000$ in California it means most petty crime not only won't be prosecuted, it won't even be reported.

https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california

Target closed 3 stores in the bay area alone because of shoplifting.

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/26/target-stores-closing-list-2023-theft-crime

[ThePublius]

Inappropriate, uncivil, and not on topic.

[Frank Drackman]

Everyone's a tough guy on the Internets,

[ThePublius]

Except he never said it. Lincoln never said the war was about ending slavery, and even though he believed he had the power to end it by Proclamation in 1863, he didn't do so for all slaves, nor at the outset of the conflict; or at the beginning of his presidency for that matter. Those are glaring facts!

[ThePublius]

Whataboutism at its finest. But all the others are doing it, ....

[Ed Grinberg]

In other words: If you disagree with someone strongly enough, you no longer have to be civil to them. Or maybe even: ...you can say and do anything to them. (This seems to be the prevailing attitude among the "woke.")

[David Nieporent]

.

shooting migrants at the border

Nuking!

And you forgot to mention his cheerleading for the murder of sex workers, who deserve it because after all they're just doing it for the thrill of the job anyway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

To say I have advocated for civil war is to say that the Union of Concerned Scientist advocate for global thermonuclear war with their "minutes to Midnight" clock. I have merely pointed out that trannies are tossed off the top of buildings in Islamic countries, not advocated it.

Now as to using deadly force to protect our borders, we should. We are being invaded....

[ThePublius]

You mean like Giuliani vs. Dinkins? O.K.

[ThePublius]

And what explains San Francisco, Portland, and on and on - Soros-supported prosecutors who don't prosecute crime, and mayors who seek to decriminalize everything. Of course it has to do with current politics.

I lived in NYC through the Lindsay, Beame, Koch, Dinkins years. Giuliani's law and order based approach had results that were nothing short of stunning.

[ThePublius]

"Interesting you didn’t mention that states were too big a unit of analysis when this was first mentioned!"

Not really, I just hadn't gotten to it. But that doesn't make it any less true.

[Michael P]

Specifically, they found that natal sex IS a useful explanatory variable. They could not say the same about gender identity. "Needs further study", as the saying to ensure full Ph.D. employment goes.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Results There was no evidence that controlling for age, natal-sex differences in running performance are lower among non-binary athletes. Natal-male non-binary athletes outperform natal-female non-binary athletes at a confidence level of p=0.1%."

They had to say that 'gender identity' had some value, to avoid being canceled, but the data all said that it had none at all, that 'natal', actual sex, accounted for all the difference.

ALL of it.

[Bwaaah]

10 randomly selected biological females who identify as male are put in a cage with 10 randomly selected biological males (who identify as whatever they want). The purpose is for them is to fight, no holds barred, until all of one side is on the floor while at least one of the other side is standing.

Place your bets.

[SimonP]

"Blue cities" tends to be a redundancy. I don't think you can name a single city in this country that is "redder" than non-urban areas in the same state. At best, there are cities that sometimes elect Republican mayors (which happens even in very "blue" cities, from time to time).

[Michael P]

And apparently places like California are busy exporting their low-level crimes to other states anyway: https://patch.com/virginia/kingstowne/target-fraud-ring-suspects-caught-fairfax-co-1-000-gift-cards

[ThePublius]

I'm having trouble parsing this, but I think you are saying that cities just tend to be blue. Is that so?

If you look at an election map of red v. blue counties in, for example, NY State, you'll find that by area the state is overwhelmingly red, while the cities with the high crime are blue. I'm not saying it's necessarily causal, but that seems to be the trend, and the inference.

[Ed Grinberg]

It's been said that the real reason "liberals" hated Nixon was that he succeeded in exposing Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy. I'm sure a good deal of "liberals'" hatred of Rudy Giuliani has to do with this success of his.

[ThePublius]

You know, I'm not familiar with his remarks, but at the end of the day they are just that, remarks. To extrapolate to the things Frum and others assert is absurd.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it was pretty harsh, though maybe understandable given what they've put him through.

I'm pretty sure, though, that damnation isn't among the powers of the Executive.

[ReaderY]

And if you want that narrative of heroism and suffering with “Yankees” and “colored “ scratched out and “Israelis” and “Jews” written in, just look at the narrative of heroism and suffering of the brave freedom fighters defending a lost cause in the Middle East.

[Nige]

If you don't know what Trump has been saying, how are you possibly in a position to judge whether Frum is or is not correct?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

You know, I’m not familiar with his remarks,

Ignorant, disingenuous, and bigoted is no way to go through life.

That is no problem replacement will not solve, though.

[Krayt]

Some stupid words about government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this Earth...

[Bob from Ohio]

Go to hell is a common saying, nobody actually get sent there by saying it.

[Nige]

The sufferings of St Trump.

[Krayt]

A week after 9/11, when Giuliani walked that woman down the aisle, fulfilling his promise, he was riding at an unheard of 98% approval rating.

Even then, some time later there was a firefighter union effort to tear at him. This seemed bizarre and atonal and counterproductive even to their own goals, at the time, but there you go.

[ThePublius]

I didn't say I wasn't familiar with what Trump is saying, only that I wasn't familiar with this particular speech. O.K.?

[SimonP]

Again, I don't see the point in saying "blue cities" when you just mean "cities."

"Crime tends to be higher in more densely-populated regions" and "more densely-populated areas tend to vote for Democrats" are not new observations, or particularly striking.

If there were some kind of correlation between cities being "bluer" and being more crime-ridden than other cities of comparable size but with more conservative politics, that might be useful information. But comparing "blue cities" to "red areas" is meaningless. It's not a surprise that deer and cows don't commit armed robbery.

[Brett Bellmore]

My point is that Secession was about slavery. Unambiguously so.

The war was not. The Civil war was about the secession. Lincoln would have waged it regardless of why the South left.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's an incredibly strong correlation between population density and politics. So, yeah, any city of any size is going to end up "blue".

By the way, can I just once again express my annoyance at having this "red" and "blue" terminology foisted on us, just because the media got tired of the "Red=communist" jokes about Democrats?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd have preferred a reference to Hunter's DNA, but would you really be surprised to learn that he has *more* children that he isn't supporting?

[David Nieporent]

.

I’d have preferred a reference to Hunter’s DNA, but would you really be surprised to learn that he has *more* children that he isn’t supporting?

Yes. Why would the mothers not be demanding support, if they existed?

[not guilty]

The Civil War was about treason in service of preserving chattel slavery.

[Frank Drackman]

Internet tough guy again, I could say the same thing about Corretta King getting buffooed by Floyd George, or N-words fucking monkeys but I won't.

[Ed Grinberg]

From Wikipedia article "red states and blue states" (under the heading "color representation swap from original meaning"):
(note: I retrieved this a while ago; it looks like the article has been modified since then.)

The modern association of colors in American politics lies contrary to the long-standing conventions of political color in most other countries whereby red symbols (such as the red flag or red star) are associated with left-wing politics and right-wing movements often choose blue as a contrasting color. Indeed, until the 1980s, Democrats were often represented by red and Republicans by blue. ... [NBC] journalist Tim Russert coined these terms [i.e., referred to Democrat states as "blue" and Republican states as "red"] during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election. That was not the first election during which the news media used colored maps to depict voter preferences in the various states, but it was the first time a standard color scheme took hold; the colors were often reversed or different colors used before the 1996 election.

compare (from 2014 NPR story “The Color Of Politics: How Did Red And Blue States Come To Be?”):

It got started on TV, the original electronic visual, when NBC, the first all-color network, unveiled an illuminated map — snazzy for its time — in 1976. John Chancellor was the NBC election night anchor who explained how states were going to be blue if they voted for incumbent Republican Gerald Ford, red if they voted for Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter.
That arrangement was consistent with the habit of many texts and reference books, which tended to use blue for Republicans in part because blue was the color of the Union in the Civil War. Blue is also typically associated with the more conservative parties in Europe and elsewhere.
As the other TV operations went to full color, they too added vivid maps to their election night extravaganzas. But they didn't agree on a color scheme, so viewers switching between channels might see Ronald Reagan's landslide turning the landscape blue on NBC and CBS but red on ABC.
The confusion persisted until 2000, when the coloring of states for one party of the other dragged on well past election night. As people were more interested in the red-blue maps than ever, the need for consistency across media outlets became paramount. And as the conversation about the disputed election continued, referring to states that voted for George W. Bush as "red states" rather than "Republican states" (and those voting for Democrat Al Gore as "blue states") seemed increasingly natural.
And it never went away. Instead, it became a staple of political discourse, not just in the media but in academic circles and popular conversation as well.
By the next presidential election, the red-blue language was so common...

Two obvious questions come to mind:
1. Why did Mr. Russert reverse the traditional/customary labels? Why was it important to him not to (accurately!) associate Democrats with “left-wing politics”?
2. Why is it important to NPR to obfuscate Mr. Russert’s (successful) obfuscation?

[SimonP]

Is there anything that you find irritating, that can't be traced to Democrats?

[Brett Bellmore]

Kind of as if your wife divorced you, and you then responded by kidnapping her and locking her in the basement.

If somebody asked why she divorced you, "She wanted to cat around" would be the right answer. But if somebody asked why you kidnapped her, "She divorced me" would be the answer.

Slavery was the reason for leaving, leaving was the reason for dragging them back in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said: They found the Red/Communist association unpleasant, and picked a color scheme that would make it go away.

[David Nieporent]

.

Two obvious questions come to mind:
1. Why did Mr. Russert reverse the traditional/customary labels? Why was it important to him not to (accurately!) associate Democrats with “left-wing politics”?

One obvious question comes to mind: why do you falsely claim that Russert reversed the traditional/customary labels, when the very sources you cite explain that there weren't "traditional/customary labels"?

Is it because you're a pathetic hack?

[Nige]

Then how can you say the extrapolation is absurd?

[Nige]

They join forces, escape, kill the fuckers who put them in a cage to fight.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I see waging a bloody war to drag back in a group of states that had seceded as akin to a kidnapping.

Yeah, I said that the underlying reason for the divorce was the catting wife. But, secession was the "divorce".

The war was distinct from the secession, and came a bit later.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have no interest at all in defending the South's decision to secede. They had about the worst motives conceivable for it. In a proper world the North would have said goodbye to bad rubbish, and then the reconstituted North could have easily justified a war of conquest to put an end to slavery, without the constitutional distortions necessary to pretend they weren't waging a war of conquest.

But the South's motives being awful doesn't mean the North's motives were shining glory. Lincoln started the war for reasons that only looked good in contrast with the South's motives for resisting. Not buying the retroconned justification after the fact: It was all about the Union being a roach motel, and nothing more noble. Ending slavery was just an afterthought.

"as the latter involved things like the aggression on Ft Sumter."

Funny, then, that the aggression on Ft Sumter didn't happen until the North's military got into the act.

[David Nieporent]

.

Yeah, I see waging a bloody war to drag back in a group of states that had seceded as akin to a kidnapping.

But of course they hadn't seceded. This was more like arresting the non-custodial parent who had illegally taken the kid, and returning the kid to the custodial parent.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But of course they hadn’t seceded."

Of all the arguments about the Civil war, the stupidest has to be, "The South didn't secede because secession wasn't legal.

That's like saying, "I wasn't traveling at 70mph on the freeway, because the speed limit is 65."

Of course the South seceded. They were an independent federation for years, with their own government, army, and so forth. The fact that the North eventually conquered them doesn't erase that fact.

[David Nieporent]

.

Of all the arguments about the Civil war, the stupidest has to be, “The South didn’t secede because secession wasn’t legal.

That’s like saying, “I wasn’t traveling at 70mph on the freeway, because the speed limit is 65.”

No, it's not. Because how fast one was driving is a factual issue. Whether one has seceded is a legal issue.

To go back to kidnapping: if I snatch your baby out of a stroller in parking lot, change our names, take him across the country, and tell everyone in our new town, "This is my adopted son," I haven't adopted him. Why? Because adoption is a legal act. I may be treating him as if he's actually adopted, but he's not. No matter if it takes 4 weeks or 4 years for me to be caught and arrested.

No, they were never independent. Holding off government forces with force of one's own doesn't make one independent; it makes one in rebellion. (CHAZ was not independent either.) To be independent you have to win the war. Note that not a single country on the planet recognized the Confederacy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

In a proper world the North would have said goodbye to bad rubbish, and then the reconstituted North could have easily justified a war of conquest to put an end to slavery, without the constitutional distortions necessary to pretend they weren’t waging a war of conquest.

And why would this have been a preferable state of affairs?

[David Nieporent]

"Lincoln didn't do things he had no authority to do, so that proves he didn't want to do them."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Lincoln considered the limits of his constitutional authority carefully, and through the EP freed exactly the slaves he had the authority to free. He freed the rest through his support and lobbying for A13.

[Moderation4ever]

Well put. The commenter here are doing backflips to try to suggest that slavery was not a cause of the American Civil War.

[Brett Bellmore]

What? She just admitted that secession was the cause of the war, which is what I've been saying all along.

[David Nieporent]

Right. Trump told people to attack the Capitol, but you pretend you couldn't hear that, but imaginary "they" found something imaginary.

[Mr. Bumble]

Making Kraft American cheese slices is a process; swearing in a new president is an act.

[MoreCurious]

Poor Frankie. I wonder if a good therapist could help him overcome his fascination and obsession with male sex organs and sex between men. Probably not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, tell me which part you think is unreasonable and why, and I'll tell you why you're wrong.

[TwelveInchPianist]

She was president of the state chapter.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which is worse . . . the right-wing dumbasses who comment at this blog, or the right-wing jackasses who cultivate those gape-jawed losers as an audience?

[Mr. Bumble]

Says you.

[Bored Lawyer]

I am aware there is case law. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Roe v. Wade was the law of the land for 50 years. Then it wasn't.

[not guilty]

"Go to hell is a common saying, nobody actually get sent there by saying it."

Donald Trump did not tell Jack Smith to go to hell. He told his Truth Social followers that Jack Smith should go to hell. Given the peculiar suggestability of the Trump cult devotees, that is King Henry II territory. After all, the king didn't order his knights to murder the archbishop, but Becket wound up just as dead as if he had given a direct order.

The danger is that some unhinged apparatchik will regard Trump's crude suggestion as marching orders to send Jack Smith to hell before Trump stands trial.

[Mr. Bumble]

Then what are the mayors of "sanctuary cities" complaining about?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Good point. People should be careful to focus their criticism on Israelis, who elect bigoted right-wing assholes; whose government therefore engages in superstition-laced right-wing discrimination and immoral right-wing belligerence; and who are working overtime to lose -- deservedly -- continued subsidies from America.

[Sarcastr0]

It means you should mention that you're making an ought argument no and is argument.

Lawyers know you gotta deal with precedent going the other way to make a good argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

There was a traditional color scheme, it wasn't exclusive.

[Sarcastr0]

There was a traditional color scheme

Or one you preferred, at least.

Simon has the right insight regarding your telepathy: "Is there anything that you find irritating, that can’t be traced to Democrats?"

You should ask yourself why this keeps happening to you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. She's making an argument based on gender theory. If you think parts of her argument are unreasonable, the onus is on you to refute them.

But since you seem incapable of engaging in a logical discussion or making a basic argument, here goes:

Transgender ideology says that if someone identifies as something other than a woman, it is transphobic to suggest that they are a woman. Since straight men are attracted exclusively to women, her husband is suggesting that she is a woman.

[Sarcastr0]

You're overdetermining 'transgender ideology' in service of being a sealion.

[Nige]

'She’s making an argument based on gender theory.'

What is 'gender theory' and how does it apply to this situation?

'Since straight men are attracted exclusively to women, her husband is suggesting that she is a woman.'

It's suggesting he still sees him as a woman. Seems like the sort of thing that needs sensitivity and diplomacy on both sides. Not the internet.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No I'm not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why don't you just admit that you don't have an argument?

[David Nieporent]

Like I said — to, for some reason, his ire — he's talking about an actual situation.

[Sarcastr0]

I understand that, DMN, but a tantrum does not define 'transgender ideology' which I don't think is a thing any more than 'black ideology' is a thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Like I said — to, for some reason, his ire — he’s talking about an actual situation.”

Sigh, again. I posed a hypothetical question based on an actual situation, but I didn’t mention the actual situation.

You chimed in and claimed that my hypo was misstating the facts of the actual situation.

Why can’t you people just admit when you’re wrong?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Maybe you should just sigh some more.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What is ‘gender theory’ and how does it apply to this situation?"

Feel free to google gender theory. Both I and the lady in the video have explained how it applies to this situation.

"It’s suggesting he still sees him as a woman. Seems like the sort of thing that needs sensitivity and diplomacy on both sides. Not the internet."

Why yes, I would agree. I mean he might even refer to her as a woman. But "sensitivity and diplomacy on both sides" when it comes to different points of view about what gender someone is is what you and the other gender ideologists have been fighting tooth and nail against.

[Sarcastr0]

TiP tells me he understands gender theory, and that it's a determinative if-then sorta thing.

[Nige]

'You're clearly more of an expert on'gender ideology' than I am. I just try to do what's right.

‘have been fighting tooth and nail against.’

No, we’ve been fighting against the wave of right wing transphobic hate branding trans people as ‘groomers’ and passing laws directly targeting them, a fascist drive with roots in the Holocaust. You’re sealioning on behalf of that drive.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You gender ideologists have been claiming that it's transphobic to suggest that someone's gender isn't what they identify as.

So, I ask again, is it transphobic to continue to identify as straight if your gf comes out as trans?

[Nige]

Depends on whether you're being a dick about it or not.

[Frank Drackman]

the Goat most likely

[Frank Drackman]

Well "Coach" if there's one thing you're an expert in, it's Assholes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I tentatively declare it a tie. A deplorable, inconsequential tie.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“I have always had difficulty with state laws that purport to tell political parties how they can nominate candidates.”

Insufficient? Where do you see him making an "is" argument?

[myself]

Interesting, so you think the US is at war with Russia.